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

    B Ross

    • 0
    May 10 2013: General Relativity is Valid
    If you were to begin your experiment with one additional and scary assumption, everything would work out.

    The assumption is that time is an atomic process occurring in discrete increments as a function of gravitation. This implies that since time is an atomic process, subatomic particles have no chronological constraints.

    This is why elementary particles behave simultaneously as waves and particles, existing in all possible states. Its because they're not bound by time.

    Objects are only large systems of elementary particles. If the gravitation process is interrupted for objects, they too can behave as elementary particles defying the prevailing notions of time, distance, velocity, and reality.
    • thumb

      A wal

      • 0
      May 11 2013: Of course GR isn't valid. How can anything that contradicts itself be valid? It's based on the assumption that free-fall is inertial but it can't possibly be.

      Congratulations, that's a new one. I've never had anyone trying to use quantum mechanics to justify GR before. You've completely lost me though. You're going to have to clarify how exactly you think the dual nature of matter invalidates or changes the context of anything I've said, because I can't see how it possibly could.

      Time is not a function of gravitation. Gravitation slow the passage of time in exactly the same way that proper acceleration does because they're equivalent, which is why GR fails. What do you mean by "If the gravitation process is interrupted"?
      • thumb

        B Ross

        • 0
        May 13 2013: Yes, gravitation slows the passage of time for one object that is near a much larger object. The gravity of the much larger object impedes the process of gravitation in the smaller object.
        • thumb

          A wal

          • 0
          May 14 2013: What? That's a very strange way of wording it. For a start the size of the object is irrelevant, it's mass. Much larger? How much larger? It doesn't matter anyway because the gravity of any massive object affects the passage of time of much more massive objects as well as the other way round. A speak of dust near the sun slows the passage of time for the sun, slightly. The gravitation of an object doesn't impede the gravitation of other objects. I've still got absolutely no idea how the wave/particle duality of subatomic particles could have anything to do with anything I've said in this thread?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.