"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
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
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
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.

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.

Gnah wrote:
"Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?"


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

Gnah wrote:

"Is General Relativity Compatible With Special Relativity?"
[snip 230 lines of 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://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/0507083
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://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619
No more Dark Matter
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