Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity

Document Sample
Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity Powered By Docstoc
					                      "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