# Thread: The Proper Theory Of Relativity

1. Why The General Theory Of Relativity Is Wrong
There's something very wrong with general relativity but don't worry, I know how to fix it. The problem is surprisingly simple. GR is based primarily on the assertion that space-time is curved. I don't dispute that. What I dispute is the idea that following a straight path through curved space-time is any different than following a curved path through flat space-time. They're completely equivalent because both are describing the exact same thing; a curved path through space-time. GRs concept of curved space-time is flawed, but it's applied incorrectly. If it were applied correctly you'd have a theory that's exactly the equivalent of special relativity. You could just as easily describe acceleration in SR as energy creating a negative curvature in space-time that pushes objects away from each other. In this view mass creates a positive curvature of space-time that pulls objects towards each other, but the way velocities add together when they're accelerated by mass is identical to the way they add together when they're accelerated by energy, unlike GRs description of it. When an object approaches a black hole it's supposedly accelerated beyond a relative velocity of the speed of light. This is just plain wrong. In reality no object can never reach an event horizon for the exact same reason that no object can ever accelerate to the speed of light relative to any other object. The uncertainty principle doesn't go far enough. It is possible according to GR to tell a gravitationally accelerated frame from an inertial one by measuring the tidal force on a body. GR asserts that gravitational free-fall is inertial but this simply isn't the case. Tidal force is what SR describes as proper acceleration. Gravitys weakness compared to the other forces is due to the fact that gravity is a force of mass rather than energy and E=mc^2.

A Thought Experiment
Three objects, one of which maintains a constant distance from an event horizon (hovers). One free-falls towards it, while the other accelerates away from the hovering object at an increasing rate that constantly matches the rate that the free-falling object is accelerating away from the hoverer. First I'll use SR to describe the reference frame of the one using conventional accelerating to move away. As it accelerates it's Rindler horizon (the point beyond which nothing could ever catch an accelerating object as long as it continues to accelerate at at least the same rate) gets closer to the accelerator as it's accelerating increases. The Rindler horizon can never catches up to the accelerator, it increases at a slower rate as the objects acceleration increases despite the fact that its rate of acceleration is constantly increasing to match the free-fallers increasing acceleration. If the proper accelerator were to shine a light beam in front of it then it would see that the light is moving away from it slower than the normal speed of light (the speed of light is only constant for inertial observers). The rate that it closes the gap on the velocity of its own light is identical to the rate that the Rindler horizon is catching up to from behind. If it were able to catch up to its own light then its Rindler horizon would have caught up to it, they're always the same distance away from the accelerator.

Now if we look at the free-fallers frame of reference then it's identical if it's described properly. There is again a Rindler horizon that approaches from behind the free-faller at a slower rate as the objects acceleration increases despite the fact that its rate of acceleration is constantly increasing. If the free-falling object were to shine a light beam in front of it then it would also see that the light is moving away from it slower than the normal speed of light. Nothing I've said so far contradicts GR but now I'm going to. The rate that it closes the gap on the velocity of its own light is identical to the rate that the Rindler horizon is catching up to from behind. If it were able to catch up to its own light then its Rindler horizon would have caught up to it, they're always the same distance away from the free-faller. According to GR an object catches up to its own light and overtakes it when it crosses an event horizon. No chance in hell!

Incidentally the rate that relative velocities add together and keep objects moving below a relative velocity of the speed of light from the perspective of another inertial observer is identical to the way that accelerations add together to keep an object moving slower than the speed of its own light. Acceleration can be accurately defined as velocity relative to energy.

Any of these on their own is enough to disprove GR.

1. The difference in the strength of a force over different parts of the same extended body. What am I describing? Tidal force or proper acceleration? Both! If all parts of an object are accelerated together at the same rate the object feels like it's inertial. This is because acceleration is just as relative as velocity, which is what Machs principle is dancing around without ever actually stating. Can anyone point out a single difference between proper acceleration and tidal force?

2. According to GR the reason we feel our weight is because the ground is applying an electro-magnetic force on objects on the surface and pushing them up, like being in a lift. That's fine, but it also says that the reason that we can't feel the "pseudo"-force of gravity pulling us down is because gravity is inertial and can't felt. That's crap. The reason we can't feel gravity pulling us down is because it's very evenly distributed over our bodies so the proper acceleration (tidal force) is negligible whereas the acceleration pushing us up is all concentrated on our points of contact with the ground, which we can increase and reduce the force felt simply by sitting or laying down. The whole theory of GR is based on the idea that gravitational acceleration is inertial. If this ridiculous assumption is wrong then whole thing fails. Can anyone point to a single piece of evidence or an observation that suggests that gravitational acceleration is inertial?

3. How can an object reach an event horizon when it's completely impossible from the perspective of any external object? If it's always possible for an object moving towards a black hole to accelerate away then a black hole is unreachable. How can the different parts of an extended object cross an event horizon at different times when it's impossible for the leading edge of the object to reach it before the trailing parts?

4. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and it was attached by a rope to an object outside the horizon then from the outside objects perspective the other object can always be pulled away without the rope snapping because nothing can reach the horizon from the outside objects frame of reference, but from the other objects perspective it can't ever be pulled out. This clearly shows that the two coordinate systems are incompatible so how can they both be considered true?

5. How close to the horizon does an object have to be before the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates become invalid reference systems? It can't happen suddenly because that doesn't make any sense. How can the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates be considered valid at any distance from a black hole if they both fail at an event horizon? All anyone say to this are things like the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates 'aren't good' for describing objects crossing an event horizon. It's always an evasion and never an answer. No one can tell me how objects or different parts of the same object could possibly reach an event horizon at different times when it's impossible for anything to reach one from the perspective of any external object, which isn't surprising considering the would be infinite length contraction and time dilation at an event horizon. To claim an object could cross an event horizon without even noticing anything special is completely ridiculous.

6. In SR as objects accelerate their Rindler horizon is always the same distance behind them as the horizon of their own light is in front of them and if they were somehow able to reach the speed of light their Rindler horizon would have caught up with them. There's also a Rindler behind objects being gravitationally accelerated towards a black hole that works in exactly the same way. If an object were somehow able to reach an event horizon then it would be moving at a relative velocity of the speed of light and its Rindler horizon would have caught up with it, which makes no sense. Why describe acceleration due to mass as any different from acceleration due to energy when there's absolutely no need to and relative velocities obviously add together in the way that SR describes regardless of what accelerated the objects?

7. The laws of physics, including gravity work in the same way if the arrow of time is reversed so objects which have crossed an event horizon would have to escape if time were reversed but gravity is still an attractive force when time is reversed. The official explanation is that black holes time into white holes. What force powers then and how can they be considered a valid solution when they have no way to form?

8. If the standard description of an expanding event horizon is correct then how could any object possibly feel the gravitational effects of a black hole if both the event horizon and the gravitational effects of the black hole are moving outwards at the speed of light locally and slower as an inverse square as the distance of the observer increases?

9. Objects get more and more length contracted and time dilated as they approach an event horizon as gravity increases. If they were able to reach the horizon then they would be moving at a velocity of the speed of light relative to the black hole and it would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated into a singularity, so how can an event horizon possibly be reached?

10. If singularities aren't singular in time as physicists claim then black holes are cone shaped in four dimensions. Wtf? The fact that they are singular in time as well as space makes them four dimensional spheres that are infinitely time dilated and length contracted at zero distance and larger as an inverse square as the distance of the observer increases, but always perfect four dimensional spheres at any distance. There's never enough time to reach a singularity because they don't exist for any length of it. As a black hole forms its event horizon expands outwards at the speed of light which is the first half of the hypersphere, and then it contracts at the speed of light which is the second half of the hypersphere. The event horizon marks the edge of the unreachable distance from the singularity. How can, and why the hell would singularities be single points in space but not in time?

11. How is following a straight path through curved space-time as GR attempts to describe any different from following a curved path through flat space-time as SR correctly describes?

2. Originally Posted by A-wal
What I dispute is the idea that following a straight path through curved space-time is any different than following a curved path through flat space-time. They're completely equivalent because both are describing the exact same thing; a curved path through space-time.
I believe that you have the wrong idea about what’s going on. I gather than from your comment straight path through curved space-time. This phrase isn’t used in general relativity, or at least if someone does use it then they shouldn’t be. The proper term is geodesic which is defined either by a process known as parallel transport or by using a variational approach. The result is called a geodesic. What you might have heard is that a particle which has a zero 4-force acting on it follows the straightest possible path in a curved space. It is not the same thing as a straight path. There are two examples that come to mind to illustrate what’s going on. If one is in flat spacetime and you are in an inertial frame of reference then the worldline defined as the path consisting of the points where is known as an affine parameter. The proper time of a particle, defined as the time read on a clock which moves with the particle, is an example of an affine parameter. Proper time can’t be used to parameterize the wordline of lightlike or spacelike worldliness, i.e. the worldlines of photons and tachyons.

Let a particle in flat spacetime subject to zero 4-force. Then in an inertial frame the worldline in spacetime is in fact a straight line. Now change your frame of reference to an accelerating frame of reference. That worldline is still a geodesic but now its spatial portion traces out a curved path. This is an example of a gravitational force in flat spacetime. Some people refer to such gravitational fields as pseudo gravitational fields or such. But it’s still a geodesic. This is what GR says about the physics. I don’t think you got that from what I read of your post.

Now think of a sphere like the Earth. We are restricted to move on the surface of the earth or flying in the atmosphere. In any case we move within a spherical surface (for the most part anyway). If you were on the equator and walked around the earth then you’d be walking on a geodesic. This geodesic is much different than the one in a flat space. This one comes around to meet itself. If you start moving along the equator you’ll end up back where you started. This curve on a sphere is called a great circle. All geodesics on a sphere are great circles.

In spacetime its similar. The spacetime itself is curved. That means that two geodesics which start out parallel to each other will deviate from each other. Consider two particles which are orbiting the earth. If their initial trajectories are parallel to their each other then trajectories will eventually cross and then separate and that happens over and over and over again. That is an example of curved spacetime since those particles are moving inertially, i.e. the only force acting on them is an inertial force. In their own reference frame there is no force acting on them at all!

Originally Posted by A-wal
If it were applied correctly you'd have a theory that's exactly the equivalent of special relativity.
That’s quite untrue. In fact from the way you’re describing it, it sounds like you’ve never formally studied GR. You can’t really claim a theory is wrong if you really don’t understand the theory. Einstein first tried to apply GR to flat space in 1908 when predicting the deflection of light by the Sun. He was off by a fact of two. When he got his theory correct and corrected for curved space he got the deflection correct, i.e. it was in agreement with observation. In fact all of his predictions using GR have proven correct. What you’d have to show is that your theory can predict the results of every experiment that has been done to date. It would also have to correctly describe the operation of the GPS system since GPS has to take GR into account.

Originally Posted by A-wal
You could just as easily describe acceleration in SR as energy creating a negative curvature in space-time that pushes objects away from each other.
You need to explain what you mean by acceleration in SR. What acceleration are you talking about? And why do you make such a claim? If you think that you’re right then please post the gravitational field equations from your theory and please post the derivation of the generation and of gravitational waves.

Originally Posted by A-wal
In this view mass creates a positive curvature of space-time that pulls objects towards each other, but the way velocities add together when they're accelerated by mass is identical to the way they add together when they're accelerated by energy, unlike GRs description of it.
You do understand, don’t you, that the earth attracts objects like books and space capsules to it and doesn’t repel them, right?

Originally Posted by A-wal
When an object approaches a black hole it's supposedly accelerated beyond a relative velocity of the speed of light.
That is incorrect. It does no such thing.

Originally Posted by A-wal
This is just plain wrong.
I agree. But what you don’t seem to understand is that light actually slows down when it gets close to the event horizon and actually comes close to stopping when it gets near it. If it was possible to observe photons at the event horizon as viewed by far away inertial observers then you’d know that they actually stand still there … which is a theoretical extrapolation that is to say.
Originally Posted by A-wal
In reality no object can never reach an event horizon…
As viewed by external (aka Schwarzchild observers) yes. But observers who are falling into one? That’s wrong.

Originally Posted by A-wal
A Thought Experiment
Three objects, one of which maintains a constant distance from an event horizon (hovers).
Taylor and Wheeler call those observers shell observers. Why don’t we call them that as well?

Originally Posted by A-wal
One free-falls towards it, ..
Moving radially towards the event horizon I assume?

Originally Posted by A-wal
while the other accelerates away from the hovering object at an increasing rate that constantly matches the rate that the free-falling object is accelerating away from the hoverer.
As measured by whom?

Originally Posted by A-wal
First I'll use SR to describe the reference frame of the one using conventional accelerating to move away. As it accelerates it's Rindler horizon (the point beyond which nothing could ever catch an accelerating object as long as it continues to accelerate at at least the same rate) gets closer to the accelerator as it's accelerating increases.
This can’t be done the way you’re assuming that it can. The Rindler Horizon is an event horizon in a uniform gravitational field. The gravitational field of a black hole is not uniform. The gravitational acceleration drops off as 1/r2. That doesn’t happen with the spacetime you’re talking about. The Rindler Horizon occurs in a uniform gravitational field, i.e. a gravitational field in which the spacetime is flat.

I think that you’re making a common mistake. Many people confuse the presence of a gravitational force with curved spacetime. That’s not always the case. You can have a gravitational force (which is an inertial force, i.e. a force which is proportional to the mass of the particle on which the force is acting and thus accelerates at a rate which is independent of the mass).

Since you don’t seem to know what GR actually says I’ll stop here and wait for you to answer my questions so that I can determine if I misunderstood you or not. Thanks.

3. Personal theories and denials of established science are not permitted on this forum. We are not wasting our time with cranks here, so I suggest you post this nonsense elsewhere.

Locked, trashed and user banned.

 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Forum Rules