Tim Golden BandTech.com
2011-01-26 14:44:11 UTC
interpretation become accepted? Surely this is a statement on the
The argument is constructed simply.
1. We understand that bodies which are not under the influence of
other bodies will carry on in a straight path regardless of their
relative velocity. This is one of Newton's laws which is akin to the
term 'inertia'. I do not challenge this precept and instead see that
the claims of spatial curvature are not enough to reuse this law in
the gravitational setting.
2. General Relativity claims that the mass of a body causes spatial
curvature, thus altering what to an inertial body would see as its
straight line path. This supposedly explains the orbits of planetary
bodies around the sun as well as our own attraction to the earth
beneath our feet. However, the spatial curvature is regarded as a
constant regardless of a body's velocity. This would mean that a high
velocity body would travel the same trajectory as a low velocity body
under the curved space interpretation. We know that this is not true,
and that a body with greater velocity will travel a different path.
The higher the body's velocity, the straighter will be its path.
Therefor the space curvature interpretation is suspect.
Here is a quote from the current wikipedia page:
"General relativity is a metric theory of gravitation. At its core
are Einstein's equations, which describe the relation between the
geometry of a four-dimensional, pseudo-Riemannian manifold
representing spacetime, and the energy-momentum contained in that
spacetime. Phenomena that in classical mechanics are ascribed to
the action of the force of gravity (such as free-fall, orbital motion,
and spacecraft trajectories), correspond to inertial motion within a
curved geometry of spacetime in general relativity; there is no
gravitational force deflecting objects from their natural, straight
paths. Instead, gravity corresponds to changes in the properties of
space and time, which in turn changes the straightest-possible paths
that objects will naturally follow. The curvature is, in turn,
caused by the energy-momentum of matter. Paraphrasing the relativist
John Archibald Wheeler, spacetime tells matter how to move; matter
tells spacetime how to curve."
I believe that the criticism I am harboring goes beyond the layman's
interpretations, for here is a fairly technical interpretation which
still has blatant disregard for velocity. This means that if we were
to accelerate the earth in its course that it would hold course in its
current orbit. This is a false statement and corrections should be
made. Whether the corrections are in my own interpretation of the
above information, well, I am open to that. Still, I am likewise open
to corrections being made in the numerous texts that exist on the
other side of the supposed conflict. If I am correct then this is one
more stage of support for the stupidity of humanity. Still, even if we
are stupid, we have to work with what we've got. This means keeping
things simple, and I believe that the simplicity of my own argument
can be whittled down to just a few lines:
If space is curved, then the force free paths ('straight')
through that curved space
have no dependence upon an object's velocity along those paths.
This statement essentially challenges the construction of curved
space, but I do not need to go this far in order to launch the
criticism. Please note that the defense of relativity theory by
experiment does not void this criticism. The curve fitters paradigm is
not pure theory. Here if I have to extend my criticism it is that the
theory requires revision in order to come clean, and that somehow
working with the tools that were available Einstein (and others)
managed to do quite well, but perhaps the models running in his head
were even cleaner than those that he was able to pen. Perhaps we are
still missing some fundamental tools.