A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological Implications

Abstract: A flaw of general relativity is exposed and is shown to source from a misapplication of the equivalence principle, the theory’s core postulate. A replacement for the Schwarzschild metric is simply derived. (The vast majority of experimental tests of general relativity have been tests of the Schwarzschild metric.) The new metric is shown to be confirmed by experiments of the four classical tests of general relativity. The predictions of the new metric are shown to diverge from those of the Schwarzschild metric as gravity strengthens. The cosmological implications explain some observations simpler than do alternative explanations.

A Flaw of General Relativity, a Fix, and Cosmological Implications

Edit: Changed abstract to reflect that the new metric is now confirmed by all four classical tests of general relativity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Impressive, Zanket. From what I can understand of your paper so far, it seems to
parallel my own thoughts. I like it, not that my opinion carries any weight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not going to pretend I understand everthing you have writen, honestly I have never even heard of Schwarzschild metric or before. From the proof's that you provided it all looks good.

I have a question though. What practical applications does your new equations have? For example, does it lead to new measurements of distances within the universe? You stated within the paper that you derive the same values that Newton's and Einstein's equations derive...

 

We could do a whole thread on this question. The answer is yes, and it was rejected out of hand. I subsequently corroborated through good sources that the journal I submitted it to has an unwritten policy to summarily reject papers from noncredentialed people; e.g. me.

Given that experience, I did some research and determined to my satisfaction that the odds of a “respected” journal reviewing my paper are nil. If such wasn’t for my lack of credentials alone, it would also be that the paper purports to overturn one of the most revered theories in physics. The days of an “unknown patent office clerk” getting a purportedly groundbreaking paper reviewed by a journal are over.

Thanks!

That’s high praise given your moniker.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks!

The abstract says, “The predictions of the new metric are shown to diverge from those of the Schwarzschild metric as gravity strengthens. The cosmological implications explain some observations simpler than do alternative explanations.”

The new metric approximates the Schwarzschild metric (Einstein) only in weak gravity. Fig. 10 is an example of the difference between the metrics in strong gravity (in which the Schwarzschild metric has not yet been experimentally tested).

Section 5 notes that black holes are not predicted by the new metric. (The singularity of a black hole is where attempts to merge GR and quantum mechanics blow up with infinities.) Section 8 resolves the flatness and horizon problems of cosmology using gravity alone (whereas, for example, the inflationary theory invokes ad hoc, undiscovered “scalar energy” to resolve those problems), and explains that the accelerating expansion of the universe is due to gravity alone (no ad hoc, undiscovered dark energy is required).

 

Don't forget, Einstein had a Ph.D. before he became a patent office clerk.

 

Unless someone can find an objection, this is clearly an important find! Well done.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The Crackpot Index

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

<P>

 

Something doesn't seem right here...maybe you or someone could enlighten me on how this is possible. What reference frame is this in? etc...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The frame is “their frame”, the crew’s frame. Can you rephrase to be more specific?

 

Hi Zanket,
In what frame is the local acceleration due to gravity defined?
The frame of the central mass?
Or the frame of an object free-falling from infinity?

 

To what part are you referring?

 

OK, you've approached the derivation by using your equation:

v_eff = a * t​

This is a sound equation, but only true for a defined in the frame of the accelerating object.

The old equation:

v = a * t​

Is also a sound equation, but only true for a defined in a non-accelerating frame.

You've continued your derivation by equating a with the local gravitational acceleration g.

But which a is the right a to equate with g?
You have assumed that a in the free-falling object's rest frame equates to g.
Is this assumption valid?
Perhaps a in the central mass's rest frame is the one that equates to g?

I don't know which (if either) is correct... I only know that your derivation includes an unsupported assumption. This doesn't make it wrong - just not definitely right.

 

Hi Pete.
Do you understand what the terms 'a clock fixed at infinity' or 'a meterstick fixed at
infinity' mean? They are descriptions of the '0' frame with no gravitational influence.
This '0' frame can also be a global reference frame, with the 'central mass' in its own
frame located WITHIN the global frame, but not at the origin of the global frame. The free-falling object would also be in its
own frame located within the global frame. The gravitational acceleration of the central
mass would be calculated by its variation wrt the '0' frame, the global frame. The local
gravitational time dilation of the free-falling object be defined by its location in the
central masses' gravitational potential, again in reference to the overall global frame.
Remember the International Celestial Reference Frame we discussed earlier? The spatial
coordinates of that frame had their origin at the barycenter of the solar system. The
time component of that frame corresponds to Zanket's '0' frame. Clock tick rates of
both the central mass clock and the free-falling objects clock are both referenced to
the '0' baseline of the ICRF. Same with the gravitational potential, both of the other frames are referenced to the '0' gravity of the ICRF's baseline origin.

This is MY interpretation
of Zanket's paper, I feel he will not use the same description I do, but I believe mine
is compatible with his paper. That is why I said his paper paralleled my thoughts.

I don't mean to speak for zanket, it is his paper and his thread, I just thought I would give another way of explaining it.

 

Hi 2inquisitive,
You are still very confused about frames, I see. I haven't forgotten our thread, just busy.

Have you worked through zanket's deriviation?
Do you understand the point I make about whether a is defined relative to the free-falling mass or the central mass?

 

See the top of section 9. In both equations, a is measured in an inertial frame. In both equations, a is the uniform acceleration felt by those in the frame of the noninertially accelerating object (e.g. a rocket), and felt to the same degree. In section 9, a is measured differently than it was for Galileo. But for both equations, when a = 1g, say, 1 Earth gravity is felt.

For both Newton and Einstein, 1g is the acceleration felt by those at sea level, and felt to the same degree. The equivalence principle implies that g must be measured in the same way that a is measured in section 9.

 

That doesn't work...
a as measured in an inertial frame is not the same as the uniform acceleration felt by those in the frame of the noninertially accelerating object.

Say the rocket has constant acceleration of 1g as felt by those in the rocket's frame. As the rocket approaches light speed in some inertial frame, the rocket's acceleration as measured in that frame falls away, doesn't it?

The two accelerations are obviously not the same.
So, which acceleration equates to g, and why?

 

Correct, I think.

This implies that g must always be measured in the rest frame of the central mass, right?

If you were free-falling, how would you measure your acceleration?

 

I've got to say I'm tremendously impressed with zanket's work.
That's a hell of a lot more effort than most forumites are willing to go to.

 

It is the same. Although you feel a uniform acceleration now, you are not accelerating in your frame. You accelerate relative to an object you drop; your acceleration is measurable in its frame, at least for the first moment. In Newton’s viewpoint your acceleration can continue to be measured in the object’s frame. In Einstein’s viewpoint, as implied by the equivalence principle, your acceleration must be measured in successive inertial (free-falling) frames momentarily comoving (stationary) with you, so only in the first moment can your acceleration be measured in the object’s frame.

It does not fall away when the acceleration is measured in successive inertial frames momentarily comoving with the rocket. Each of such frames is like a launch pad, the rocket taking off from it at the same acceleration felt by the crew. See also the link in note 15 in the doc.

Consider, if I asked you to tell me the formulas, for both Galileo and Einstein, that return the final velocity of a rocket given 1 Earth gravity felt by the crew, over a given time t in the gantry’s frame, you’d have to say eqs. 2.3 and 9.6 respectively. Then a must be the same thing in these formulas. And since, thanks to the equivalence principle, the crew can suppose that their rocket sits unpowered on the Earth’s surface, then the same formulas apply to g.

I think I covered this one above.

In each moment I’d directly measure it relative to the object toward which I’m falling. For example, in each moment I could directly measure my acceleration relative to the face of the cliff I jumped off from. Suppose the cliff were on some other dense planet, such that I approached c relative to the cliff there. Then the cliff’s acceleration in my frame would fall away, just like you imagined for the rocket above.

Thank you for the kudos!