Document Sample

"Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" Source: http://sci.tech−archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006−01/msg02310.html • From: "Nom" <nom@xxxxxxx> • Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:51:55 −0500 "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" When the writer first started to investigate General Relativity about four decades ago, he was quite startled to learn that the results were incompatible with the Principle of Equivalence and where therefore incompatible with each other!. Until that point, the writer uncritically accepted that both theories were completely valid, but this difference signaled that something was wrong. To clarify, a brief digression would seem to be in order. In the late 19th century, the study of Dimensional Analysis was developed. It was found that all physical relationships (equations) could be defined in terms of three dimensional entities. Any three entities were suitable and no more than three were required. The commonly chosen entities were Mass(M), Length(L), and Time(T). There were attempts to reduce the required number to two by substituting accepted physical constants, such as the speed of light, for one of the dimensional entities. Careful examination reveals however, that such a change merely substitutes that constant for the eliminated entity and no simplification has occurred. (The writer has received a few responses from individuals who strongly assert that Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit in the study of Relativity. It is obvious that they have not done their homework and their understanding of the subject is marginal.) For simplicity, the writer selected a system of dimensional entities based upon Force(F), Length(L), and Time(T). (This choice is just as valid as the conventional MLT system.) The dimensional entity content of all other physical quantities, including mass, can be expressed in terms of "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" 1 "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" force, length, and time by using the appropriate expressions from the Science of Physics. (A listing of the dimensional entity content of many common physical quantities in the FLT system is provided in Table 8.2 of http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax/htm.) The dimensional entity content of energy, for example, equal to the product of force and length (F*L) and for velocity is equal to length divided by time (L/T). When one examines the Lorentz Transformations of Special Relativity he finds that the transformations (parallel to velocity) for various physical quantities may be determined by inserting the Lorentz Transformations for force, length, and time for the dimensional entity content of the quantity involved. Since, in terms of force, length, and time, the Lorentz Transformations are, defining for velocity effects, $=(1−V^2/C^2)^0.5: Force(F) = 1 Length(L) = 1/(1−$) Time(T) = (1−$) For example, the Lorentz Transformations for energy and for velocity thus become: Energy(E) = 1/(1−$)^0.5 Velocity(v) = 1/(1−$) (It should be noted that the Lorentz Transformation for Velocity tells us that, if the velocity of light measured locally is to be invariant (as Special Relativity requires), then it must differ between velocity reference frame in ABSOLUTE terms. This conclusion was clearly understood by the intellectual giants of the time (Fitzgerald, Larmor, et al) but apparently not by most of the individuals who followed (probably including Dr. Einstein). General Relativity provides a transformation for time which is analogous to the Lorentz Transformation for Time (the time dilation) but, unlike Special Relativity, does not provide an analogous transformation for length. It asserts that the Gravitational Transformation for length is unity! If we examine the equivalent functions provided by General Relativity for gravity effects, defining # as the gravitational potential between elevations, we find that "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" 2 "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" General Relativity provides: Force(F) = 1 Length(L) = 1 Time(T) = (1−#) And for the examples used above: Energy = 1 Velocity =1/(1−#) To make up for the lack of a length transformation, General Relativity assume that space is distorted in proportion to the time dilation and also provides a space dilation of (1−#). This incorporates the idea that space is "curved" into a fourth spatial direction in the presence of a gravitational field. Unfortunately, such a solution is only a partial fix for the conflict between Special and General Relativity and cannot explain all of the characteristics of the gravitational field nor rigorously define that field. General Relativity is based upon the premise that the properties of the gravitational field are identical to the properties of an accelerated reference frame as defined by Special Relativity. Comparing the two lists of transformations, one finds that this cannot be the case. As one changes reference frames (elevation or Velocity), the results of observations would differ depending whether one considered the observed force resulted from spatial acceleration or from gravitational acceleration. For example, energy as measured in the gravitational field would be unchanged while energy as measured between moving reference frames would obey the Lorentz Transformation for Energy! Obviously gravitational and inertial acceleration cannot be considered to be the same under General Relativity and, since Special Relativity seems to be beyond question, a mistake must have been made in the derivation of General Relativity. When one accepts the heretical possibility that a mathematical mistake was made in the derivation of General Relativity it is not hard to find. Embedded in the mathematics is an equation containing the second derivatives of "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" 3 "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" length and of time which must be integrated to achieve a solution. The second derivative for time has a coefficient which allows the effects of time dilation to be included. The second derivative for length has no such coefficient! This omission arbitrarily forces a solution where any gravitational transformation for length which results must be equal to unity re3gardless of its proper value. Those familiar with undergraduate level integral calculus will recognize immediately that the integration of the length derivative without the allowance for a coefficient is a forbidden operation and will normally yield erroneous results. The existence of this error forced Dr. Einstein to spend almost 18 months seeking a means of solving the equations of General Relativity. Unfortunately, instead of fixing this basic mathematical error, he took the easy way out by asserting that space was curved without any evidence of such curvature. In other word, he FAKED IT! The justification given by a conference that accepted General Relativity was 'why shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no one can prove it isn't". Some science! When one derives that nature of the gravitational field correctly one sees that space is not curved and obtains, for the gravitational transformations: Force(F) = 1 Length(L) = 1/(1−#) Time(T) = (1−#) It will be noted that these transformations are analogous to the ones for Special Relativity and the Principle of Equivalence really does work since, for both theories, the product of the length and time transformations is unity as is the force transformation. These transformations provide some surprisingly rich results, including the source of gravitational energy, the creation of our universe and provides insight as to what is external to it! (Try it, you'll like it.) Dr. Einstein's blunder in the derivation of General Relativity and the failure of the academic community to correct that blunder has produced a great deal of mischief. This mischief has led to the idea that Quantum Theory and General Relativity are in conflict (they aren't) and string theory is not required. "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" 4 "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" The source material for this posting may be found in http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997}); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS. All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm. Please make any response via E−mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary. E−mail:− einsteinhoax@xxxxxxx The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was provided. . • Prev by Date: Re: machine with 600% ideal efficiency • Next by Date: Re: Nutcases have destroyed this newsgroup • Previous by thread: Nutcases have destroyed this newsgroup • Next by thread: God likes justice • Index(es): ♦ Date ♦ Thread "Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?" 5

DOCUMENT INFO

Shared By:

Categories:

Tags:
special relativity, general relativity, speed of light, albert einstein, respect to, gravitational field, reference frame, quantum mechanics, lorentz transformation, equivalence principle, inertial frame, curved spacetime, general theory of relativity, relativity theory, invariant mass

Stats:

views: | 7 |

posted: | 9/3/2009 |

language: | English |

pages: | 5 |

OTHER DOCS BY TaylorRandle

How are you planning on using Docstoc?
BUSINESS
PERSONAL

By registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy and
terms of service, and to receive content and offer notifications.

Docstoc is the premier online destination to start and grow small businesses. It hosts the best quality and widest selection of professional documents (over 20 million) and resources including expert videos, articles and productivity tools to make every small business better.

Search or Browse for any specific document or resource you need for your business. Or explore our curated resources for Starting a Business, Growing a Business or for Professional Development.

Feel free to Contact Us with any questions you might have.