By AWT every theory, which is using more than single postulate (a nonzero rank implication tensor, be more specific) becomes inconsistent insintrically in less or more distant perspective, Peano algebra (K. Gödel, 1940) or general relativity (GR) is no exception. By [Kerr, Kerr & Ruth 1999, 621] textbook GR is using following postulates:

- Actions of inertia and gravity (i.e. the forces or even every inertial reference frame dependent observations) are indistinguishable each other - so called weak or strong equivalence principle.
- Four dimensional space-time is curved as a result of the presence of mass (mass-energy equivalence principle is apparently considered on background).
- Objects take the shortest path between two points in space-time, so called geodesics (principle of least action of Newtonian dynamics extended to 4D space-time).

Newtonian motivations of GR are collected here. General relativity is AdS-CFT dual to Einstein's original “refractive approach” to gravitational light-bending and various Varying Speed of Light theories (VSL), like quantum mechanics (QM), which represents exsintric perspective of relativity phenomena. Locally GR appears as a very general theory, if we consider energy spreading in transversal waves as the only source of information. Unfortunately, because strictly local and causal perspective is only idealized model of reality, every look into Universe future or history violates the GR undeniably. Although with compare to 2nd-order theories, like quantum gravity or string theory - this violation can be minimized to arbitrary low value by narrowing of observation scope by introduction of De Sitter background dependent Poincare group (Kerr or Cartan's geometry) and/or by introduction of tachyon interactions in hidden dimensions, usually done unconsciously by introduction of "implicit higher order effects" (extended GR of Heim, Yilmaz or Bekenstein). In addition, we should distinguish an inconsistency of GR postulates from inconsistencies of its formal theorems, which are often using an additional approximations on background (for example by ignorance of mass-energy equivalence principle at the case of Einstein's field equations).

The most classical example of above inconsistency is gravitational lensing, which is manifestation of quantum uncertainty, as it splits result of remote object observation into odd number of images. Whereas GR is strictly causal theory in 4D spacetime, it doesn't allow any manifestation of quantum uncertainty or Lorentz symmetry violation, until additional time dimensions are included. This inconsistency manifest most pronouncedly in cosmological constant problem, because prediction of cosmological constant by GR differs from those of QM in two hundred orders of magnitude, thus violating correspondence of GR and QM.

Another source of inconsistencies is local character of equivalence principle. The inertial and gravity action can be always distinguished, if we consider 4D space-time only. Because every gravitating body inside of observable Universe must be of finite size and therefore it has always a center of mass, we can always distinguish a gravity action from acceleration by usage of pair of plummets at nonzero distance. The acceleration force resulting from omni-directional space-time collapse or expansion considers higher dimensions though, so it can exhibit a center of action. By AWT the gravitational field of massive object can be interpreted as a acceleration force, resulting from inhomogeneity in omni-directional Universe expansion. Therefore GR appears OK, only if we consider additional dimensions, thus violating 4D causality again. Here we can read about Kipp Thorne's method to show that GR contradicts its own equivalence principle.

Due the extreme gradient of space-time curvature, the nonlocal character of equivalence is especially pronounced at Planck scale and at the case of black holes, where it manifests by various violations of GR from exsintric perspective. The classical Einstein's field equation suffers by additional inconsistency because of neglecting of mass-energy equivalence during its derivation. It leads into additional supersymmetric phenomena, like precession, Zeeman effect, fragmentation of event horizon and surface tension effects of gravity field gradient, by dark matter and Pioneer spacecraft anomaly in particular.

Limited speed of light and omnidirectional expansion of Universe itself is sufficient for explanation of Pioneer anomaly and Newton law violation. The acelleration of Pioneer anomally agrees well with predictions of MOND theory a = H.c = (8 +- 1)E-10 m/s^2, where H is Hubble law constant. Alternativelly we can consider it as a dragging effect of background CMB photon field, in AWT these explanations are dual mutually. This duality illustrates, how violation of gravitational law at spacecraft scale is related to violation of gravity at Casimir force scale. Because gravitational law remains violated by Casimir force at small distances only, such violation of Newton law for small acelleration means, equivalence principle is violated for general relativity, too.

While relativity bothers with insintric perspective only, it neglects the fact, gravity field inside of each gravitating body is zero, because of zero space-time curvature. Therefore every massive object exhibits an inflexion point of space-time curvature or gravity force at larger distance. Whereas by relativity highest curvature should appear exactly at the center, which leads to Schwartzchild's solution with black hole singularity at center, which is apparently unphysical, though. Kerr's solution is only partial improvement of this problem - it just uses toroidal symmetry of singularity instead of spherical one. We can see, requirement of zero gravity force at center of every gravitating object leads to requirement of weak repulsive gravitation force at distance and dark matter phenomena, which is manifestation of quantum gravity phenomena by its very nature. It's symptomatic for mainstream physics, whole generations of relativists didn't bother by this trivial and apparent paradox.

While the inertial properties of electron and positron are the very same, their behavior in gravitational field suffers by CP symmetry violation - the antiparticles are attracted by weaker force, then particles. Antineutrinos should be even expelled by gravity nearly completely because of their negative curvature. Axions could be even of negative mass, i.e. a product of tachyon condensation, being a solitons - they explode into photons when halted like vortex rings.

Concept of Feinberg's tachyons brings even deeper inconsistency into GR. In sense of classical GR gravity cannot affect itself, so that the gravity field cannot curve the path of gravitational waves. Because path of photons is curved, it would mean, gravitational waves would propagate like tachyons along shorter path, then it's allowed for photons in general, which is consistent with AWT, but not with GR by its classical, i.e. Einstein's formulation, while extended GR allows this by introduction of more general reference frame in hyperspace. As a strictly causal theory in 4D, general relativity doesn't allow a tachyons and/or gravitational geons without introduction of universe expansion into hyperspace, neither formation of gravitational waves, because no environment can generate waves by itself without presence of objects composed of / living in compacted dimensions, which could serve as a source of inertia. In GR such source could serve only gravitational geon, which is stabilized against its collapse by omni-directional expansion of space-time into hidden dimensions. We can see, general relativity requires concept of hidden dimensions on background to be able to work consistently by the same way, like quantum mechanics, which predicts expansion of all wave packets without gravity potential of Universe collapse.

From this perspective is interesting, Einstein refused the concept of both black holes, both gravitational waves obstinately (original source removed?), although he should know about necessity of omni-directional Universe expansion in relativity quite well, if he claimed his cosmological constant as a "*biggest blunder of his life*".

## 24 comments:

It's widely accepted, one of most advantages of General Relativity is, it uses only two-three quite general postulates - but IMO it's impossible to derive Einstein's equation without incorporation of Hooke-Newton gravitational law.

This law of classical physics therefore forms another "secret" postulate of General Relativity.

Newton theory is still used in Einstein's theory, from inverse square law the gravitational constant got into Einstein's equations. General relativity doesn't enable to derive Newton's theory, on the contrary: Newton's theory enables to derive general relativity. Therefore it's much more exact to say, Einstein's theory is built upon Newton's theory.

Does it sound uncomfortable for you? Then you're manipulated by mainstream physics propaganda already, that's all.

Counterexamples to Relativity

The Pioneer anomaly.

Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").[2]

Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity, well beyond the margin of error.[3]

The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light.

The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass?

The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]

The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity.

The action-at-a-distance of

quantum entanglement.[5]

The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in

John 4:46-54.

The failure to discover gravitons, despite wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer money in searching.

The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics.

The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[6]

The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[7]

"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[8]

The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts

black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.[9]

The theory predicts natural formation of highly ordered (and thus low entropy) black holes despite the increase in entropy required by the

Second Law of Thermodynamics.[10]

The equivalence principle actually states that gravity and acceleration are locally indistinguishable, i.e., you can always choose a coordinate system in which there is no gravity at a given point. If gravity were globally indistinguishable from acceleration, i.e., you could choose a coordinate system in which gravity disappeared everywhere, then space-time would be flat.

This comes as a surprise to most people, even though Einstein said all this:

1911: If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-ordinates co, then the velocity of light c at a place with the gravitation potential Φ will be given by the relation c =

coo(1 + Φ/c²).

1912: On the other hand I am of the view that the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts oneself to spatio-temporal

regions of constant gravitational potential.

1913: I arrived at the result that the velocity of light is not to be regarded as independent of the gravitational potential. Thus the principle of the constancy of the velocity of

light is incompatible with the equivalence hypothesis.

1915: the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity is still in need of generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of the velocity

of light is to be abandoned.

1916: In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of

the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of

light can only take place when

die Ausbreitungs-geschwindigkeit des Lichtes mit dem Orte variiert,...the phrase in German translating to

the speed of light varies with location. Not velocity, speed, c is a speed.Where will Einstein fail? Lessons for gravity and cosmology Niayesh Afshordi has written a very approachable summary of when we can expect general relativity to fail. He reviews suggestions that abandoning some aspects of Lorentz invariance - that is, allowing a kind of aether - solves a wide range of problems. One unexpected consequence is that what is observed as dark matter is the result of the behaviour of this geometry at the event horizon of black holes.

How general relativity violates it's own equivalence principle (background info)

Review of Roger Schlafly’s "How Einstein Ruined Physics"

The failure of the Einstein gravitational field equation to include a tensor characterizing the gravitational field is a severe limitation.

Alley using the Einstein gravitational field equation calculated the gravitational attraction between a pair of infinite slabs of matter separated by a fixed distance. Alley found that the Einstein theory predicts absolutely no gravitational attraction between the two slabs. The Einstein theory predicts absolutely no gravitational force between the two slabs. This result conflicts not only with Newton's law of gravitational attraction; it also conflicts with experimental evidence. The Yilmaz theory does not have this problem, because its gravitational field equation has a stress-energy tensor for the gravitational field. With the Yilmaz theory, the stress-energy tensor for the gravitational field is not zero in the space between the slabs, and so the Einstein curvature tensor is not zero. Consequently the Yilmaz theory predicts gravitational attraction between the two slabs.

Textbook Electrodynamics May Contradict Relativity (preprint). This paradox could be understood with dense aether model easily.

The Lorentz force produces a drag, which transverse wave could never generate. Try to imagine this paradox with water surface model of dense aether theory: until its surface ripples are perfectly transverse (capillary waves), they don't have reference frame for their motion and we could say, they do follow the special relativity. But such waves cannot exert any force to the objects at the water surface - this force can be exerted only when these wave do have a longitudinal component. On the other hand, such a longitudinal component would introduce a frame drag, thus introducing an observable reference frame - which we don't observe at the vacuum.

Two papers claim that E = m * c^2 is incorrect and suggests E=mbc where b = 0.624942 * 10^8 m/s. The first one On a Heuristic Viewpoints Concerning the Mass, Energy and Light Concepts in Quantum Physics was published in 2008 and the second one New Concept of Mass-Energy Equivalence was released in 2009.

On 2006, noted physicist Dr. Franklin Felber [presented his solution](http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505098) of Einstein's field equations to the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) in Albuquerque. The solution is the first that accounts for masses moving near the speed of light. According to this solution, a particle traveling faster than 0.57c gravitationally repels particles ahead of it. This solution was proposed [to be tested](http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.10o84) at LHC (Kavassaliss comment)

Einstein identified the existence of gravity with the inertial motion of accelerating bodies (i.e. bodies in free-fall) whereas contemporary physicists identify the existence of gravity with space-time curvature (i.e. tidal forces). The interpretation of gravity as a curvature in space-time is an interpretation Einstein did not agree with.

Peter Hayes: The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. Actually this is an inherent property of whatever formal theory (do you remember the Goedel theorems?): it must be based on inconsistent postulate set for to be able to predict at least something. You cannot extrapolate line trough two coinciding points in causal space. Every theory must be inconsistent at least a bit for to remain predictable and as such falsifiable. Which implies, every theory has its limited validity scope.

Another counterexamples to relativity at conservapedia

Conflict Between the Uncertainty Principle and General Relativity

Further Communications on the Black Hole Controversy (PDF)

Stephen J. Crothers: Black Holes: Five proofs, four of which each prove that General Relativity does not predict the black hole, letter to t'Hooft

The Bad math of Einstein

The violations of relativity are rather easy to find, if you know where to look for it:

Intriguingly, the gamma-ray delay is about a day longer than radio observations report for this system. And while the flares and their playback show similar gamma-ray brightness, in radio wavelengths one blazar image is about four times brighter than the otherBoth phenomena are predicted with dispersive model of light: the shortwavelength waves penetrate particle environment slower and they're more scattered during it.

General Relativity – A Theory in Crisis (from Stephen J. Crothers web)

Simple Proof that Black Holes Have no Basis in General Relativity The black hole is allegedly predicted by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. However, by comparison of the Einstein field equations for Schwarzschild spacetime and de Sitter spacetime it is plainly evident that matter is allegedly present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint: Tμν = 0. Since this is impossible, and since de Sitter’s empty universe contains no matter by virtue of Tμν = 0, Schwarzschild spacetime also contains no matter. Consequently, the black hole has no basis in General Relativity Black hole collapse

Does Gravity Gravitate?

Post a Comment