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.

  • May 1 2013: If one of you 3 or any scientist would care to take things a step further, I'm right here. I noticed that none of you replied directly to my challenge. You must all be such nice guys. Can one of you defend light theory? Unless you can defend your claims, you're just copy and pasting.
    • thumb
      May 1 2013: I see no challenge by you. You asked us to think why blackholes are always at the center of the galaxies. well, we are thinking. As of now, I don't know why. I think no consistent explanation has emerged on this - even astrophysicists are looking for the answer. So, what exactly is your challenge?
      What is this light theory you want defended? Do you mean the assertion of SR that speed of light in vacuum is invariant and a physical constant? I think that does not need to be defended. Up till now, not a single experimental result show any speed in excess of that of light (including the CERN claim, which incidentally fell through). If you are basing your statement on Jim Hill and Barry Cox's work, it is a mathematical extension of SR, nothing empirically verified and not sufficiently peer reviewed.
      I think it is simplistic to say a scientific theory is wrong or right. A scientific theory stands on the basis of empirical evidence and interpreting the evidences in favor of the theory. As long as this holds true and no better explanation replaces it, one can say it is highly probable that things work this way. I think professional scientists are wary of using terms like 'proof', 'right' or 'wrong'.
      Will you explain why GR is wrong and which way? And why do you think it is wishful thinking?
      • May 1 2013: Hello Pabitra, I'm glad you responded. First I'll address the theory of sciences that claims black holes are at the very center of most every galaxy. I say that science is right that a black hole is at the center of each galaxy, but that science is totally wrong to think that a star goes super nova at the center of every galaxy---think about it, right in the center of every " symmetrical galaxy". Why all symmetrical galaxies and why right in the center? Its not because stars went nova, its because black holes are a braking system for each galaxy, so it doesn't over rev and destroy itself. Its a simple matter of physics.

        Consider the reverse. What stops a hurricane or tornado? If you turn loose of a pencil in space, what happens to that pencil? Here's the most pertinent question. If everything around you is spinning, will you spin? You already are. What creates spin?

        A black hole is at the center of every galaxy, because the galaxy is symmetrical. The whole galaxy is spinning at between 300 and 600,000 miles per hour. That suggests that the galaxy may spin even faster, depending on the galaxy as a whole.

        What do we call something spinning at that rate? We
        Call it a vortex, a hurricane, a tornado, a whirlwind, a whirlpool, depending and where are those things located? They are at the center of some kind of storm or clash. Each galaxy spins super fast and each planet and star spins. The center of each galaxy is the focal point for the spin of the galaxy.

        There are still the questions about light theory.

        If the black holes are not a brake, then they are simply cause and effect.
      • May 1 2013: What is GR?
      • May 1 2013: Science claims gravity is an attractant, which it is, but it is also a repellant. Look to the space junk that NASA wants to possibly incinerate in space. It must be in a high orbit not to fall back to earth. That suggests that gravity is keeping it there. There are two forces in gravity, one is attraction and one is repulsion. I will explain. The planets must sit in the suns high orbits, considering their mass, keeping them from falling into the sun, just as the space junk does not fall back to earth from its high orbit around the earth, while the junk in lower orbit eventually falls back to earth.
        • thumb
          May 1 2013: Science does not 'claim' gravity is always attractive. Under the general relativity, gravity is the result of following spatial geometry (change in the normal shape of space) caused by local mass-energy. This theory holds that it is the altered shape of space, deformed by massive objects, that causes 'gravity', which is actually a property of deformed space rather than being a true force. Although the equations cannot produce a "negative geometry" normally, it is possible to do so using a "negative mass". The same equations do not, of themselves, rule out the existence of negative mass.
          Problem however is that the Standard Model of particle physics, which describes all presently known forms of matter, does not include negative mass. Although cosmological dark matter may consist of particles outside the Standard Model whose nature is unknown, their mass is ostensibly known – since they were postulated from their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, which implies their mass is positive. (The proposed cosmological dark energy, on the other hand, is more complicated, since according to general relativity the effects of both its energy density and its negative pressure contribute to its gravitational effect.)
          But since you are saying gravity can repel also, you can win 1 million Euro from Gode Stiftung. Good luck.
      • May 1 2013: As with gravitational lensing, I offer cause and effect, while you through science offer postulation.

        Light theory is bogus as well. Just think about the earth-- moon light trial against the claims of science itself, about dark matter, star nurseries and the like, can you defend the ignorance and dichotomies by science?
      • May 1 2013: The challenge above is not for cut and pasters or prideful ignorance. In other words, if you don't read and fully understand the earth to moon light test, don't bother.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.