# TED Community » A wal

Location:
United Kingdom, Cambridge
Gender:
Male

• TEDCred score: +3.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• #### A comment onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

7 hours ago: ... An object moving on the horizontal line would represent an object moving at the speed of light through space and frozen in time, like reaching an event horizon if that were possible. Objects always travel at the speed of light through space-time. The angled line representing the object moving at half the speed of light is moving through time at much more than half the speed of vertical line. When viewing an object moving at a relative velocity of half the speed of light it doesn't move through time at half the speed of light because length contraction and time dilation shorten together and velocity is a measurement of distance over time. If you work out an objects velocity taking time dilation and length contraction into account then all objects move through space-time at exactly the speed of light, which is represented by the two lines always being the same length.

Objects follow a curved path when they accelerate because acceleration is curvature when one of the dimensions is time. When an object is following a a curved path through two spatial dimensions it gets pushed in the opposite direction of it two directions of travel, and exactly the same thing happens when one of the dimensions is time. It feels a force pushing it back in the opposite spatial direction to the direction it's accelerating in (length contraction) and in the opposite direction of its direction in time (time dilation). If you draw a curved line on the circle to represent the angled line moving into the same frame of reference as the vertical line at rest with each other so the two lines are now parallel you can see that the object that accelerated traveled further and so isn't the same length in the vertical direction if they're the same length overall and so has traveled through less time than the inertial observer, which is why objects travel slower through time when they accelerate.

It's simple because there only ever needs to be two dimensions involved at a time and any two will do.
• #### A comment onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

7 hours ago: There is absolutely no distinction between an object following a straight path through curved space-time (as GR incorrectly describes) and an object following a a curved path through flat space time (as SR correctly describes) accept that mass curves inwards towards itself, pulling objects together and energy curves outwards away from itself, pushing objects apart. Gravity is so much weaker than the other forces because of the energy/mass equivalence (E=mc^2). Acceleration causes the same effect of time dilation and length contraction regardless of what's causing it and gravity (acceleration due to mass) can't accelerate objects to a relative velocity of the speed of light any more than acceleration due to energy can. This is how simple it really is.

Draw a circle. These two lines are two of of the four dimensions. All four are at right angles to each other but when an object accelerates in a straight line only two dimensions are involved; the spacial direction that the object is accelerating in and time, so a flat plain with just two dimensions is all that's needed to show acceleration. The only difference between space and time is the fact that we can only see in one direction of time and this creates a very different perception of it but in reality they're exactly the same. The horizontal direction represents time and the vertical direction is what it is; a direction in space. Now draw a straight line going from the centre to top and another straight line going from the centre at a 45 degree angle to the first, like the hands of a clock. This represents an inertial observers perspective of another object moving relative to it at half the speed of light. If you turn the circle so that the other line is vertical then you can see that the other object measures itself as static in space and moving through time at the full speed of light...
• #### A reply onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

May 15 2013: You mean the fact that the Ricci tensor has to be set to 0 for the equations to work but that means it's describing a universe with no matter and what R represents keeps changing. You've been reading Steven Crothers stuff. I'm in contact with him and I want to join forces and write something together because we'd compliment each other very well. I suppose he doesn't have to because he can easily use anything I've wrote but I can't follow his arguments well enough to use them.
• #### A comment onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

May 14 2013: 10. If singularities aren't singular in time as physicists claim then black holes are cone shaped in four dimensions. Wtf? The fact that they are singular in time as well as space makes them four dimensional spheres that are infinitely time dilated and length contracted at zero distance and larger as an inverse square as the distance of the observer increases, but always perfect four dimensional spheres at any distance. There's never enough time to reach a singularity because they don't exist for any length of it. As a black hole forms its event horizon expands outwards at the speed of light which is the first half of the hypersphere, and then it contracts at the speed of light which is the second half of the hypersphere. The event horizon marks the edge of the unreachable distance from the singularity. How can, and why the hell would singularities be single points in space but not in time?

11. How is following a straight path through curved space-time as GR attempts to describe any different from following a curved path through flat space-time as SR correctly describes?

12. This one's just for the physicists. How thick are you? You love to pretend that you have a superior understanding of how the universe works but in reality you haven't got the first clue how to even think in the right way to do that. You evade questions that you can't answer until you're backed into a corner and then you just shut up. It's so obvious that tidal force is proper acceleration and gravitational acceleration is not inertial. If not one of you in over a century can make even basic connections like this one then what good are you?
• #### A comment onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

May 14 2013: 7. The laws of physics, including gravity work in the same way if the arrow of time is reversed so objects which have crossed an event horizon would have to escape if time were reversed but gravity is still an attractive force when time is reversed. The official explanation is that black holes time into white holes. What force powers then and how can they be considered a valid solution when they have no way to form?

8. If the standard description of an expanding event horizon is correct then how could any object possibly feel the gravitational effects of a black hole if both the event horizon and the gravitational effects of the black hole are moving outwards at the speed of light locally and slower as an inverse square as the distance of the observer increases?

9. Objects get more and more length contracted and time dilated as they approach an event horizon as gravity increases. If they were able to reach the horizon then they would be moving at a velocity of the speed of light relative to the black hole and it would be infinitely length contracted and time dilated into a singularity, so how can an event horizon possibly be reached?
• #### A comment onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

May 14 2013: 4. If an object were able to cross an event horizon and it was attached by a rope to an object outside the horizon then from the outside objects perspective the other object can always be pulled away without the rope snapping because nothing can reach the horizon from the outside objects frame of reference, but from the other objects perspective it can't ever be pulled out. This clearly shows that the two coordinate systems are incompatible so how can they both be considered true?

5. How close to the horizon does an object have to be before the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates become invalid reference systems? It can't happen suddenly because that doesn't make any sense. How can the Schwartzschild and Rindler coordinates be considered valid at any distance from a black hole if they both fail at an event horizon?

6. In SR as objects accelerate their Rindler horizon is always the same distance behind them as the horizon of their own light is in front of them and if they were somehow able to reach the speed of light their Rindler horizon would have caught up with them. There's also a Rindler behind objects being gravitationally accelerated towards a black hole that works in exactly the same way. If an object were somehow able to reach an event horizon then it would be moving at a relative velocity of the speed of light and its Rindler horizon would have caught up with it, which makes no sense. Why describe acceleration due to mass as any different from acceleration due to energy when there's absolutely no need to and relative velocities obviously add together in the way that SR describes regardless of what accelerated the objects?
• #### A comment onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

May 14 2013: Alright that's enough messing about now. For anyone who thinks that GR is a valid theory, answer these:

1. The difference in the strength of a force over different parts of the same extended body. What am I describing? Tidal force or proper acceleration? Both! If all parts of an object are accelerated together at the same rate the object feels like it's inertial. This is because acceleration is just as relative as velocity, which is what Machs principle is dancing around without ever actually stating. Can anyone point out a single difference between proper acceleration and tidal force?

2. According to GR the reason we feel our weight is because the ground is applying an electro-magnetic force on objects on the surface and pushing them up, like being in a lift. That's fine, but it also says that the reason that we can't feel the "pseudo"-force of gravity pulling us down is because gravity is inertial and can't felt. That's crap. The reason we can't feel gravity pulling us down is because it's very evenly distributed over our bodies so the proper acceleration (tidal force) is negligible whereas the acceleration pushing us up is all concentrated on our points of contact with the ground, which we can increase and reduce the force felt simply by sitting or laying down. The whole theory of GR is based on the idea that gravitational acceleration is inertial. If this ridiculous assumption is wrong then whole thing fails. Can anyone point to a single piece of evidence or an observation that suggests that gravitational acceleration is inertial?

3. How can an object reach an event horizon when it's completely impossible from the perspective of any external object? If it's always possible for an object moving towards a black hole to accelerate away then a black hole is unreachable. How can the different parts of an extended object cross an event horizon at different times when it's impossible for the leading edge of the object to reach it before the trailing parts?
• #### A reply onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

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?
• #### A reply onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

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"?
• #### A reply onConversation: General relativity is wrong!

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!

#### Favorite talksSee all »

• Play
##### Ken Robinson: Changing education paradigms

11:40 Posted: Dec 2010

Rated: Inspiring Persuasive

• Play
##### Ken Robinson: Bring on the learning revolution!

16:48 Posted: May 2010

Rated: Inspiring Persuasive

• Play
##### Garrett Lisi: An 8-dimensional model of the universe

21:26 Posted: Oct 2008