RELATIVITY, WRONG?
Text: All of the Fundamental Assumptions of General Relativity Are False Above it was seen that the Lorentz symmetry of the spacetime construct would arise if the quantum foam system that forms space affects the rods and clocks used by observers in the manner indicated. The effects of absolute motion with respect to this quantum foam are in fact easily observed, and so the velocity vR of each observer is measurable. However if we work only with the spacetime construct then the effects of the absolute motion are hidden. Einstein was very much misled by the reporting of the experiment by Michelson and Morley of 1887, as now . . . it is apparent that this experiment, and others since then, revealed evidence of absolute motion. The influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment had a major effect on the subsequent development of physics. One such development was the work of Hilbert and Einstein in finding an apparent generalisation of Newtonian gravity to take into account the apparent absence of absolute motion. Despite the deep error in this work the final formulation, known as General Relativity, has had a number of successes including the perihelion precession of mercury, the bending of light and gravitational red shift. Hence despite the incorrect treatment of absolute motion the formalism of general relativity apparently has some validity. In the next section we shall deconstruct this formalism to discover its underlying physics, but here we first briefly outline the GR formalism. The spacetime construct is a static geometrical non-processing historical record, and is nothing more than a very refined history book, with the shape of the manifold encoded in a metric tensor gmn(x). However in a formal treatment by Einstein the SR formalism and later the GR formalism is seen to arise from three fundamental assumptions: (1) The laws of physics have the same form in all inertial reference frames. (2) Light propagates through empty space with a definite speed c independent of the speed of the source or observer. (3) In the limit of low speeds the new formalism should agree with Newtonian gravity. We shall see in later sections there is strong evidence that all three of these assumptions are in fact wrong. Nevertheless there is something that is partially correct within the formalism, and that part needs to be extracted and saved, with the rest discarded. . . . It is conventional wisdom for practitioners in General Relativity to regard the choice of coordinates or frame of reference to be entirely arbitrary and having no physical significance: no observations should be possible that can detect and measure vR. This 'wisdom' is based on two beliefs (i) that all attempts to detect vR, namely the detection of absolute motion, have failed, and that (ii) the existence of absolute motion is incompatible with the many successes of both the Special Theory of Relativity and of the General Theory of Relativity. Both of these beliefs are demonstrably false. The results in this section suggest, just as for Newtonian gravity, that the Einstein General Relativity is nothing more than the dynamical equations for a velocity flow field v(r;t). Hence the non-flat spacetime construct appears to be merely an unnecessary artifact of the Einstein measurement protocol, which in turn was motivated by the misreporting of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The successes of General Relativity should thus be considered as an insight into the fluid flow dynamics of the quantum foam system, rather than any confirmation of the validity of the spacetime formalism. In the next section we shall deconstruct General Relativity to extract a possible form for this dynamics. ‹Reginald T. Cahill, Process Physics: From Information Theory to Quantum Space and Matter http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS13.pdf
See Also:
Source: