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.


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.

  • Apr 29 2013: Einstein showed that space can be curved by gravitational fields. That means that high mass objects can cause light to be deflected from its true course to a new path making things on the other side of the high mass object appear to be offset.
    That was shown in the eclipse of 1919 to a very high precision. Over and over again, relativity has been shown to be correct, while perhaps it is not complete due to its ignoring quantum effects, what it does predict, it does so very precisely.
    Now, knowing that, you can say, where is the mass such that light from beyond this massive object will be distorted in such a way to give the image that we see.
    This has been used to help prove the existence of dark matter and to correctly calculate the orbit of mercury and calculate the orbit of massive pulsars around their companion stars.
    And its not just quasars.. Its anything beyond a massive object where the light has to travel close to or through the massive object.
    Actually, because we are so close to the sun, the entire sky is shifted slightly due to the effects of gravity on the light falling on us.
    You don't need any big mirrors or other tricks, you can do it all with gravity and a little math.
    • thumb
      Apr 30 2013: I understood one thing here in TED. There is a limitation to explain pure science here. I try not to be too technical and discuss other questions. To say that the general theory of relativity is wrong in many ways or it is wishful thinking requires some serious ignorance. May be you are wasting energy.
      • Apr 30 2013: Ted is all about ideas so it's never a bad idea to question anything. On the other hand its never a bad idea to take the opportunity to explain a difficult concept in perhaps a different way than has been seen before.
        • thumb
          Apr 30 2013: I think science explanations are very welcome here. Many, many people are interested in science but do not have access to people with a serious background in science who can answer their questions. There is plenty of science online, of course, but it is very easy for people without training in the subject to misinterpret what they read.

          If people who actually understand science are willing to help others understand, it is only a benefit! Otherwise people who don't actually understand are left only to guess together and can mislead each other.

          Thanks for helping clarify.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.