"The Source of Gravitational Energy"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein
When one applies the correct relativistic transformations to
the gravitational field, the source of gravitational energy becomes
apparent.
Unfortunately, due to a sophomoric error in the derivation of General
Relativity, it has become accepted that the relativistic transformations for
gravity a

Force = 1
Length = 1
Time = 1/(1+$)

Where "1/(1+$)" is the time transformation as provided by
General Relativity (GTR).

Unfortunately, the error in its generation made the
mathematics impossible of solution within the constraints of three
dimensional
Euclidian Geometry and it took 18 months for a solution to be obtained. (The
18
months were not used up in solving the matrix equation, as current writings
would have you believe, they represented the length of time it took for Dr.
Einstein to adapt the geometry of Riemann (which is based upon the faulty
description of a straight line implicit in all current geometries but which
does
not effect Euclidean Geometry). In applying Riemannian Geometry , Dr.
Einstein
added the fiction of curved space and added the spurious degree of freedom
needed to solve his equations. This approach was accepted by a conference on
the
subject with the statement "why shouldn't we consider space to be curved, no
one
can prove it isn't. (Actually the proof is quite simple and is provided in
http:/einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm). The acceptance of curved space required
a
term for the curvature as a function of the gravitational field. Surprise
surprise, that curvature term turned out to be equal to the term for time.

When one applies the legitimate rules of measurement (as would
be required in any of the more mundane fields of Science) and accepted and
easily verified physical laws to the study of the gravitational field, one
finds
it possible to rigorously devise a different set of gravitational
transformations which do not require space to be curved:

Force = 1
Length = 1/(1-$)
Time = (1-$)

(The term "$" is identical with the equivalent term in General
Relativity).Testing these
transformations against observation reveals that they yield the same
conclusions
within the Solar Field and in comparison with observations of massive and/or
dense stars as does GTR to an accuracy well beyond experimental
capabilities.
There is one important difference, however. They reveal that the end result
of
gravitational collapse is not a singularity but is a stable object the size
of
its horizon radius. THEY ALSO REVEAL THE SOURCE OF GRAVITATIONAL ENERGY.

In an F(orce)-L(ength)-T(ime) system of units, the dimensional
content of energy is F*L. Since the gravitational transformation for length
is
unity, this means that the gravitational transformation for energy is equal
to
the gravitational transformation for Length and is therefore equal to
1/(1-$).
If we accept that the Principle of Relativity applies, the locally measured
mass
equivalent energy of an object must remain unchanged as it moves to a
different
elevation reference frame. In order to meet this requirement, the move to a
different elevation in the field the object must gain or lose energy in
terms of
the units of measurement for energy existing at its original location. To do
this, a force must result as it moves. The product of this force and the
distance of fall is the energy of fall.

If we apply this process to an object falling from a
quasi-infinite distance to the event horizon, we find that, in terms of the
units of measurement existing at the quasi-infinite radius, the
gravitational
transformation for energy requires shows that the object converts all of its
rest mass equivalent energy to kinetic energy. When it reaches the event
horizon
and its velocity equals the velocity of light, the original rest mass
equivalent
energy has become zero because it has been converted to kinetic energy (all
as
measured with the units of measurement existing at the quasi-infinite
radius).
In terms of the units of measurement existing at the event horizon however,
the
rest mass equivalent energy of the object is unchanged and the kinetic
energy is
infinite.

Since Relativity is all about observations made in systems
where the size of the units of measurement are affected by the elevation
and/or
velocity, Dimensional Analysis is required to deal rationally with the
process.
Despite this, I have received an E-mail from an individual who strongly
asserted
that Dimensional Analysis is of no benefit in the study of velocity and
gravitational effect. The frightening thing in this E-mail is that the
sender is
probably an academic busily damaging the minds of his students.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/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:-

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.

Tpa wrote:
"The Source of Gravitational Energy"


Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net

Tpa wrote:

"The Source of Gravitational Energy"

"Great spirits have always encountered violent oppositions from
mediocre minds." - A. Einstein

Oh the delicious irony of that quotation!

[snip ignorant crap]

http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),

You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.****inggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html
Carroll on what it all means.

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.


--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...


Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

It has been proved that there already exists contradictions
in logic and number theory --- see Godel, Turing, Chaitin.
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin/cmu.html

Invoking an isomorphism between the appreciation of the
consistencies (or otherwise) within logic and mathematics
and the consistencies (or otherwise) within SR is thus a
bad move WRT your position.





--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...

[snip ignorance]

Phuckwit.

Androcles