Tim Golden BandTech.com

2011-01-26 14:44:11 UTC

No. It is not, and a simple argument is enough to see it. Why has this

interpretation become accepted? Surely this is a statement on the

human mind.

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.[31] 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.[32] 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.[33]"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Definition_and_basic_properties

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.

- Tim

interpretation become accepted? Surely this is a statement on the

human mind.

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.[31] 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.[32] 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.[33]"

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Definition_and_basic_properties

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.

- Tim