TED Conversations

A wal
  • A wal
  • Cambridge
  • United Kingdom

This conversation is closed.

General relativity is wrong!

If there are any relativity experts here I'd love to get their feedback on this because I don't think anyone can dispute this. No one's been able to put up a decent counter argument so far. In the other topic (Can Anyone Answer These Black Hole Questions) I briefly cover lots of different points. In this topic I'm focussing on the coordinate systems used to define a black hole because it's right at the heart of what's wrong with general relativity and why black hole event horizons can never ever be reached by any object. Please excuse the tone, it was written for another website and I'm getting frustrated with physicists who can't argue my points but seem equally unable to admit that they're wrong.


'If an object were able to reach an event horizon eventually from the perspective of an external observer but it happened in a shorter amount of proper time from the free-fallers perspective then there wouldn't be a problem, but the fact that an object can never reach an event horizon from the outside means that it can never reached from any objects perspective, and to claim that an object can reach an event horizon from its own perspective is the exact physical equivalent to claiming that an object can reach the speed of light from it's own perspective but not from any other, it makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you consider that objects themselves are made up of numerous smaller objects to which the same rules also apply. How could the front part of an object possibly reach an event horizon before the back part of the object? If it's not possible to reach it from the outside then it's not possible to reach it. This should be obvious. An event can't both happen and not happen. It can happen at different times from different objects perspectives relative to other events but if something never happens in one frame of reference then it can never happen in any of them. This is standard SR and it's not okay to just ignore it when thinking about gravitational acceleration.

Share:

Closing Statement from A wal

This is getting really annoying now. I just tried another science forum and the same thing happened. All they do is attack me and don’t put up even a single decent argument to defend their position, because they can’t.

Ask them how an object can possibly cross an event horizon when it’s physically impossible for any object to reach from the perspective of an external observer, which applies to the front part of an extended object being unable to reach the horizon before the back part of the object. If they say that objects can reach an event horizon from the perspective of an external object then ask what happens to the object that’s crossed the horizon if the external object then accelerates away. They can’t answer. It’s hilarious.

Feel free to use any of my arguments and send me a message if you want me to write a reply to something they've said. I'm not making this stuff up, I'm not a crackpot and I'm not mistaken. As unbelievable as it sounds GR really is wrong, and the gits refuse to even acknowledge there's a problem. They're just digging a deeper hole for themselves. It's not just wrong it's inconsistent on so many levels that they really should all be shot, or at least sacked and publicly humiliated, or maybe thrown in jail for stealing peoples money and abusing public trust as well as science.

I'm not really sure where to go from here. Even if I did have the technically knowledge to put together a scientifically presently paper it would never be published because from what I've heard the peer review system is set up to filter out anything that contradicts the mainstream viewpoint so that it's allowed no credibility and then they expel and smear however dared to try it. I've been hearing stories from other people about how they always change part of the submission and then refute it based on the change that they themselves made. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. After speaking to many of them I've realised they're more dogmatic than the religious.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Apr 27 2013: Hi A wal!

    I am not sure if I have understood your question correctly but I think this explains perspectives of an object falling through a Schwarzschild black hole (free falling) and that of an hovering observer near event horizon consistent with SR.

    http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/topics/generalrelativity/BlackHoleEventHorizon.html

    Can you explain where is the problem?
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 1 2013: Yes, that's exactly right. I'm using special relative to describe gravity. One of the problems is that general relativity is in direct contradiction with special relativity because it allows objects to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light when the reach an event horizon. The main problem is that general relativity views free-fall as inertial and there's absolutely no need for a different version of relativity to describe gravity. Special relativity does it perfectly. GR is nothing but a failed attempt to reformulate SR.
      • thumb
        May 2 2013: Dear A wal, I think you need to go back to basics. Or may be I am having problems with the language. GR is a different version of relativity to describe gravity? I simply don't understand what you mean by saying, 'One of the problem is that general relativity is in direct contradiction with special relativity because it allows objects to reach a relative velocity of the speed of light when the(y) reach an event horizon.'
        General relativity comes from the observation that if you are in free fall (the classic example is an elevator where the cable breaks), you regain the original symmetry -- you can no longer tell which direction is up or down. The acceleration due to gravity cancels the uniform acceleration of free fall, leaving you with what looks like an inertial reference frame. Einstein basically decided to see what happens if you make those things exactly equivalent, and skipping over a lot of math, GR pops out.

        On the face of it, it seems like this idea can't work. Consider an extended object, such as a person, in free fall feet first. Your feet are closer to earth than your head, so feel a stronger gravitational attraction. Also, your left side and right side are pulled in slightly different directions toward the center of the earth. These are tidal forces, and they tend to stretch you out in the direction you are falling, and compress you in the other direction. Normal uniform acceleration doesn't do this, which a normal person might have taken as reason to abandon the whole idea as a mistake. Instead, Einstein showed that if you were willing to give up Euclidean geometry this problem was fixed. Free fall is an inertial reference frame, but space-time is curved by massive objects. This is how the idea of general relativity automatically requires curved space-time.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 2 2013: Yes, GR postulates that gravitational acceleration is an inertial reference frame, but this is simply not true. What GR describes as tidal force is in fact what SR describes as proper acceleration. Both are caused by the difference in the strength of a force over different parts of the same extended object. An object under uniform acceleration can’t feel a thing.

          It's not ignorant to realise that GR isn't even self consistent and that SR is much more than a description of a special case of relativity in the absence of gravity. SR works every bit as well as a description of gravitational acceleration as it does conventional acceleration. The only difference is that conventional acceleration is caused by energy, which pushes objects apart and gravitational acceleration is caused by mass which pulls objects together, and E=mc^2 which explains why gravity is so weak.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.