TED Conversations

A wal
  • A wal
  • Cambridge
  • United Kingdom

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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.

+3
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
    May 3 2013: Hi Awal,

    I am sure that in your studies of special relativity and general relativity you might have come in contact with the concept of relativity of simultaneity of an event. Two observers can disagree regarding the timing of an event, because the only way they have to measure it is the light (or any electromagnetic signal) that originates in the event and reaches each observer.

    Event horizon is the point in spacetime beyond which an object has no way of escaping the black hole's gravitational attraction. For sufficiently large black holes, the event horizon is so far away from the center of the black hole, that an object can cross it at low velocity without ever noticing that it has fallen into a no-return zone. Whether an observer outside can or cannot "see" it crossing is irrelevant to the reality that it is now trapped

    But then again, I cannot tell if your question is posed from the point of view of physics or philosophy

    cheers

    Andres
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 4 2013: Yes, obviously if space at time are observer dependent then simultaneous takes on a different context. It's relative to the observer, but it's irrelevant. The fact that no object can ever be observed reaching an event horizon however isn't. You seem to be implying that it's purely an optical effect and not an accurate picture of what's really happening but this isn't the case. It's not due to any delay of the time the light takes to reach an observer.

      No object can be seen reaching an event horizon no matter how close an observer gets to the horizon. This means that the front of an object can't reach the horizon from the perspective of the rest of the same object. It makes no sense to claim than an object can pass through an event horizon of a black hole with any mass without noticing anything. For one thing it would experience infinite tidal force as the leading edge is accelerated away from the rest to a relative velocity greater than the speed of light. If the Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinates aren't accurate at the event horizon then they have to fail outside the horizon as well because no object can ever reach an horizon using those coordinate systems, which would mean that neither are ever completely accurate because they can't suddenly stop working at a certain distance away. Both are completely accurate and cover the whole manifold.

      The Schwartzschild coordinates describe a difference in relative velocity and the Rindler coordinates describe the point of view of an accelerator, and both apply equally to SR as they do to GR because the physics of accelerating doesn't change at all when it's being caused by mass instead of energy. The only difference is that mass pulls objects together and energy pushes them apart, and acceleration due to mass is weaker when it's being caused by mass because E=mc^2.
      • thumb
        May 4 2013: A wal, please send me your calculations, i'll be happy to take a look at them and tell you if i find an inconsistence. i studied physics and i have friends that speciallize in general relativity.

        as you know, an argument like this is not a proof, but it is a mental exercise that must be then supported by a mathematical calculation, disproof of general relativity cannot be achieved merely by constructung an argument that sounds strange to our everyday logic, but by taking a prediction of the theory and either perform a repeatable observation that falsifies it, or by demostrating that the mathematical model used to support the theory is inconsistent

        cheers!
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 5 2013: You can use logic to disprove a theory. Mathematics is just an expression of logic, so if something is logically inconsistent then it's mathematically inconsistent. I can't give you any equations because that's just not how I think, but that doesn't mean that I can't be quantative.

          If you agree that the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems a accurate then it is absolutely impossible to reach an event horizon. If you think that it is possible to reach an event horizon then you have to be asserting that the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems fail at some distance outside the event horizon because you need to switch coordinate systems to reach it. You can't have it both ways.

          If they fail to give an accurate description at a certain distance away from an event horizon then they are never completely valid and are just a rough approximation at best at any distance. How close to the event horizon do you have to be before they stop working?
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 5 2013: Predictions:
          1. Gravity is much weaker than the other forces because it’s a force of mass rather than a force of energy, and because E=mc2, the strength of acceleration due to gravity times the speed of light squared is exactly equal to the strength of acceleration due to energy.

          2. A black hole is a perfect four dimensional sphere so its length in time is the same as its length in the spatial dimensions, so its life span depends entirely on its mass.

          3. The mass of a black hole partly depends on how far away it’s observed from because length contraction and time dilation increase the closer an observer is to it, which is why there are no nearby quasars. A black holes mass decreases as an object approaches it and increases as an object moves away from it.

          4. Free-fall is not inertial. It’s proper acceleration, so the speed of light will never be c locally relative to a free-falling observer, just as it’s never c relative to an accelerating observer, and it behaves in exactly the same way, taking more acceleration to close the gap by the same amount as its acceleration increases.

          5. There is a Rindler horizon when an object is accelerated by mass just as there is when an object is accelerated by energy, and an event horizon is the opposite to this horizon and so behaves in exactly the same way as the speed of light does when an object uses energy to accelerate.

          6. It’s always possible to move away from a black hole because its event horizon can never be reached. If an object falls towards a black hole and is attached by a rope to a more distant object which waits until the rope goes taught, which is worked out before hand to be after the falling objects has crossed the event horizon from its own perspective according to general relativity then the more distant object will still be able to pull the falling object away.
      • thumb
        May 6 2013: A wal,

        You cannot use only logic to disprove a theory in physics. I will have to disagree with you in your assessment of what mathematics is and what consitutes scientific "proof".

        As it has happened a few times in the conversations here on TED, some people believe that science is something that can be "debated and won or defeated by argument". Nothing futher away from the way the scientific method works. A court of law could find and support a counterargument for a physical theory and it would make no difference. 99% of the population of the planet could vote that a particular physical law does not apply and it would not matter one bit either. Scientific theories are not legally defendable arguments or democratically elected truths

        Take for example the fact that an elementary particle can be in two places at the exact same time. Does that fit within conventional logic? However, the mathematical model of quantum mechanics predicts this effect, experiments have confirmed it, and no experiment so far has been able to disprove it

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 7 2013: No one could consrtruct a case like this against SR because you can't do that with a self-consistent model. A partical being detected in two places at once isn't really a contradiction because particles can't have a well defined position in space-time (velocity and position in space at the same time). It's counterintuative if you're not used to thinking in that way but it's not illogical. There's a big difference. If a theory doesn't make logical sense then it's wrong. The logic may be hard to find but it's always there if it's true. GRs description is a complete impossibility. It simply doesn't work. It's not even self-consistent.

          I can tell you've studied physics in the mainstream. You're all happy to discuss what happens in real terms until I say something you can't argue with and then you turtle up into 'the physics doesn't need to be explained in a logical way because that's not how science works and it doesn't matter that I can't explain how it could even be possible in reality.' Oh yes it does! It matters a lot. That's just your fallbackback position when you've got nowhere else to go. It's a physicists no best and you have no right to question us attitude. Sorry but if no one can explain it then no one really understands it. I've been at this a while and no one has been able to come anywhere near justifying the assertions of GR, because it can't be done.

          Show me something imperical that even suggests that free-fall is inertial. It's so obvious that gravitational acceleration works in exactly the same way as acceleration in SR. Does it really make sense to you that a finite amount of acceleration in one direction couldn't be overcome by any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction? You haven't answered my previous question yet. Do you agree that no object can ever reach a black hole or do you think that both the Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinate systems are inacurate? If it's neither then please explain how this can be possible.
      • thumb
        May 7 2013: Hi again A wal. i an not falling to any phycisist "turttle up" i said a theory in physics can't be disproved just by constructing an argument that sounds illogical. i am just sharing with you what i learned when i studied physics. i am not sure if it really matters that i did it at a university, since studying at "main stream" you can learn the same thing

        i am curious to see your mathematical calculations because that is the only way i could help in case you are correct in your critique to Einstein's theory. Also, by looking at them i can tell you if any other phycisist has proposed something similar in the past and where they failed or succeeded. the days when philosophy could contribute to the phisical sciences by merely constructing arguments are long gone, and it has been at least a century since every scientific proof has been done in the way i explained above

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 7 2013: It does matter how you learned it because you've picked up their mentality and you're ignoring all my points. For a the moment I'll go along with your opinion that logical can't be used to disprove a model. I completely disagree but that's okay because we can continue the discussion without arguing about what constitutes a proof.

          Do you agree that no object can ever reach a black hole or do you think that both the Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinate systems are inaccurate?

          Do you think that a singularity is a single point in time as well as space? If you do then you agree with my description of gravity. If you don't then please explain how and why a singularity would be singular in space but not in time making a four dimension cone shape instead of a nice neat hypershere when time and space are physically equivalent to each other.

          Does it make sense to you that a finite amount of acceleration in one direction couldn't be overcome by any amount of acceleration in the opposite direction?

          Do you have anything you can show that suggests that free-fall is inertial and doesn't work in the same way as acceleration in SR, anything at all?
      • thumb
        May 7 2013: Hi A wal,

        Sorry that you feel compelled to attack us physicists. Yes i will confess that more than just facts, I learned a different way to approach problem resolution. I do not recall any scientific advance (from the aerodynamics of airplanes, to the quantum mechanics that make the micro-chip possible) that has been proved or disproveed by debating in the format of highschool debate clubs

        Whether my approach is better or worse to solve real problems than the debate format is debatable (pun intended)

        I can follow your thought experiments too, but please do not try to equate these thought experiments to scientific proofs

        I disagree with your first assessment. If no object could ever reach beyond the event horizon of a black hole, it would never be black, as even being merely a few microns outside the event horizon would allow light to escape from it. If no mass ever entered a black hole it would not be able to form. Rindler and Schwartzschild coordinate systems are approximations as to how energy, space and time behave outside of the event horizon. They are not laws given by any god. They can be superceeded and extended

        I have no clue of what a singularity is. Nor i know anyone who can claim they know. Singularity is a term to say: "our current physics laws do not reach beyond certain limit" (say 99.99% of the cases). That is how science advances: not by entirely replacing old concepts, but by encomprising them into new and more general laws. it is no mistery that General Relativity is an extension of Special Relativity, not it's "substitute"

        When you say a finite amount of acceleration do you mean an acceleration applied for a finite time? What kind of acceleration and what kind of time? that is why i need to see your mathematical calculations, it is easy to get lost without specifics.

        As for free-fall being inertial, i might need you to refer me to some sources so i am on the same page, i do not understand what you mean by the statement

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: Sorry, my back's up as soon as I go into a conversation with a physicist now because most of the physicists I've had contact have been the most closed minded people and dishonest people I've ever spoken to. Dishonest people have no problem lying to themselves. That's why not one of them has realised that GR is wrong because it's based on a faulty assumption that free-fall and inertial motion are equivalent, when in reality the far simpler truth is that free-fall and acceleration are equivalent and tidal force is describing proper acceleration. They've had plenty of time to spot it. The debate format and deductive reasoning is what I'm good at and not just on this topic, and it's something mainstream physics is severely lacking. No imagination. It's my element, so of course I'm going to use it. What really pisses me off about most physicists is their attempts to make it seem inferior to their methods when in fact it's the only way that science can ever progress because it's where new ideas come from. The scientific method is merely for confirmation, yet they seem to think that's it's all that's needed in physics. Their whole mentality is blindly accept what they've been told and try to marginalise anything and anyone that refutes it.

          Like I said, I can't give you any equations to check because I don't have any. I don't think in that way. If I'm being unclear about something you can just ask. If I can't explain it in definite terms then it's not worth anything, I know that. Besides, all the equations should be in SR anyway because gravitational acceleration and proper acceleration are exactly the same except that gravitational acceleration is caused by mass pulling objects together and proper acceleration is caused by energy pushing objects apart. I mean that I finite amount of gravitation can't be overcome with any amount of proper acceleration according to GR, which is really silly.

          Black holes would still be black because of redshift.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: The equivalence principle states that gravitational acceleration is indistinguishable from inertial motion because it can't be felt, while conventional acceleration can be, which is why we feel our weight when we're standing on Earth. According to GR that's why we can't feel ourselves being pulled down on Earth but we can feel ourselves being pushed up. The reason we can feel our weight is because the force of the ground pushing us up isn't evenly distributed. The force is only applied to our points of contact with the ground. That's why we feel like we weigh less while we lay down and spread the force out. We feel the difference in the amount of force over the different parts of our body. The difference in the strength of gravity (tidal force) over the different parts of our body is far too marginal for us to feel. Gravitational acceleration isn't inertial, it's proper acceleration.

          A coordinate system that describes objects capable of reaching the event horizon of a black hole is not an extension of the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinate systems, it's a direct contradiction. Relativity means that observers can disagree about when an event happens without contradicting each other but never if an even happens or not. No object can either reach an event horizon according to the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates and they aren't compatible with any coordinate systems that allow it.

          I asked if you thought that singularities occupy a single point in time. The fact that they do means that they're not a point where physics breaks down. Length contraction and time dilation are equivalent. Singularities are infinitely length contracted and time dilated because they represent infinite acceleration. There's less time dilation and length contraction the further away you get as an inverse square of the distance, making the singularity bigger the further away it's observed from, but always a perfect four dimensional sphere.
      • thumb
        May 9 2013: Hi again A wal,

        Sorry if the character of my response is not as friendly as it should be. Your comments show a lack of respect to me, so at least i want to explain my position better.

        Yes I am a physicist and you are not, and yes our methods are bound to be different. Not talking about one being superior to the other, but what kind of problems are they useful for.

        If I asked you what technological advance had been achieved based on knowledge acquired using the high school debate club method is because I do not recall any. All of the ones i can think of have come about after hours of theorizing, and experimenting and testing and debunking using the scientific method.

        It would be silly (albeit interesting to try) to try to use the scientific method when trying to argue and convince people about the benefits of certain piece of legislation, so i assume that is why politicians usually go with the debate method.

        It is impossible for you and me to have a serious discussion about General Relativity because 1) you don't fully understand it and 2) you have not realized that each problem requires its methods

        Of course it is easy to see that you are in your element and at your best using the debate method, which is great since it would be a shame if all people had the same mental processes, but perhaps you can contribute a lot more attacking problems that can actually benefit from the debate method, I am sure you could have a very promising future as a lawyer or a politician, but certainly not in theoretical physics

        cheers
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: I didn’t mean to show any disrespect to you personally. Sorry about that. I completely disagree though. I think this is by far the best method for theoretical physics. It’s true that I can’t come up with any scientific proofs and I can come up with logical ones. The scientific method is used to test hypothesis, it’s completely useless to try to use it to come up with one.

          Here's another thought experiment. I really like this one. Three objects, one of which maintains a constant distance from an event horizon (hovers). One free-falls towards it, while the other accelerates away from the hovering object at an increasing rate that constantly matches the rate that the free-falling object is accelerating away from the hoverer. First I'll use SR to describe the reference frame of the one using conventional accelerating to move away. As it accelerates it's Rindler horizon (the point beyond which nothing could ever catch an accelerating object as long as it continues to accelerate at at least the same rate) gets closer to the accelerator as it's accelerating increases. The Rindler horizon can never catches up to the accelerator, it increases at a slower rate as the objects acceleration increases despite the fact that its rate of acceleration is constantly increasing to match the free-fallers increasing acceleration. If the proper accelerator were to shine a light beam in front of it then it would see that the light is moving away from it slower than the normal speed of light (the speed of light is only constant for inertial observers). The rate that it closes the gap on the velocity of its own light is identical to the rate that the Rindler horizon is catching up to from behind. If it were able to catch up to its own light then its Rindler horizon would have caught up to it, they're always the same distance away from the accelerator...
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 9 2013: ...Now if we look at the free-fallers frame of reference then it's identical if it's described properly. There is again a Rindler horizon that approaches from behind the free-faller at a slower rate as the objects acceleration increases despite the fact that its rate of acceleration is constantly increasing. If the free-falling object were to shine a light beam in front of it then it would also see that the light is moving away from it slower than the normal speed of light. Nothing I've said so far contradicts GR but now I'm going to. The rate that it closes the gap on the velocity of its own light is identical to the rate that the Rindler horizon is catching up to from behind. If it were able to catch up to its own light then its Rindler horizon would have caught up to it, they're always the same distance away from the free-faller. According to GR an object catches up to its own light and overtakes it when it crosses an event horizon. No chance in hell!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.