Sir and/or Madam,

Your posting is a crock of ****.

John Anderson

Sdnepsq wrote:

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://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/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 Transformation 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 (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 "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
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 Newsposts by this Website are available at
http://www.members.aol.com/postinglog/newspostings.com

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.

wrote in message ...
| Sir and/or Madam,
|
| Your posting is a crock of ****.
|
| John Anderson
Dear John Anderson,

You are a crock of ****.

Androcles