The Equivalences That Falsify General Relativity's Description Of Gravity

[A-wal]

General relativity breaks down at singularities, this is well known and not in dispute. It actually breaks down at the event horizon because it's effectively the same thing. The problems associated with black holes are not trivial and there's more than just the odd one or two, - http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/27224-can-you-answer-these-black-hole-questions.


The Equivalences That Falsify General Relativity's Description Of Gravity
These equivalences show that relativity is perfectly capable of describing all forms of macroscopic motion without any areas where the theory breaks down. You just have to alter one of general relativity's postulates and incorporate special relativity instead of using it as a subset.

Free-Fall/Acceleration
Realising that the postulate of general relativity stating that free-fall is equivalent to inertial motion is false and that it's actually equivalent to a uniform acceleration eliminates all of the black hole problems and provides a much simpler model of gravity by using the principles of special relativity instead of special relativity simply describing an idealised frame of reference free from gravitation. You might argue that objects in free-fall don't feel a force but accelerated object are subject to g-forces...

G-Force/Tidal Force
The difference in the strength of a force applied to different parts of the same object, what am I describing? Tidal force, but also G-Force. G-force is the stress caused by an object feeling different amounts of force on different parts of the object, there would be no g-forces if the force were spread uniformly over the object. Tidal force is the stress caused by an object feeling different amounts of gravity on different parts of the object, there would be no tidal force if the force were spread uniformly over the object. We feel our weight on the Earth because we're being accelerated upwards only at the points of contact with the Earth. That's why it's more comfortable to lay down, you're spreading out the force over a wider area. The gravitational force pulling us down with the same amount of force that's pushing us however is spread almost uniformly throughout our bodies and that's the only reason that objects in free-fall don't feel their not under the influence of a force while objects on the ground do.

Light Horizon/Rindler Horizon
The speed of light is only constant for inertial observers. Light moves slower relative to an accelerating observer but it's not a linear progression, its velocity decreases at slower rate in response to acceleration as acceleration increases. The rate at which accelerations add together and produce an ever decreasing change in velocity relative to light is identical to the rate at which relative velocities add together and produce an ever decreasing change in velocity relative to other objects, it prevents an accelerating object from reaching zero velocity relative to light in the same way that the formula prevents inertial objects reaching the speed of light relative to other inertial objects. It's also exactly the same rate as the Rindler horizon approaches an accelerating object from the opposite direction. The Rindler horizon the point past which no signal travelling at the speed of light could catch up with the accelerating object if they continue to accelerate at the rate. As acceleration increases, the Rindler horizon gets closer to the accelerating object but at a gradually slower rate if the acceleration increase is constant and the formula is the same.

Event Horizon/Light Horizon
The event horizon of a black hole is the equivalent to the speed of light horizon when an object accelerates free from gravitation. It marks the point beyond which no amount of acceleration (gravitational or otherwise) can ever allow an object to reach. Time dilation and length contraction approach infinity at the event horizon in the same way that they approach infinity for an object accelerating free from gravity and prevent any object from reaching the speed of light relative to any other object. If an object were able to reach an event horizon it would be moving at the speed of light relative to all external objects. Even according to general relativity, time dilation would mean that an infinite amount of time has to pass before the event horizon can be reached, that's just another way of saying that it can't be reached.

Rindler Horizon/Event Horizon
A Rindler horizon approaches an object from the opposite direction of a falling object in exactly the same way that it does for an object accelerating free from any gravitation. If the event horizon were reached, the Rindler horizon would overtake the falling (accelerating) object as the reach the event horizon, the two horizons would cross over each other so the the event horizon would be behind the falling object and the Rindler horizon would be in front of it. Considering the Rindler horizon is the point past which no signal can ever catch up an accelerating object as long as it continues to accelerate at at least the same rate, it makes no sense at all for a Rindler horizon to be in front of the falling/accelerating object. It makes no more sense for event horizon to be behind a falling/accelerating object because it's the point past which no amount of acceleration can ever allow an object to reach.

Event Horizon/Singularity
As an event horizon is approached it recedes away from the falling/accelerating object because of length contraction. At the event horizon length contraction becomes infinite so there will be no distance between the event horizon and the singularity. Time dilation becomes infinite as well so the black hole zero volume in spacetime at the event horizon. That's a true singularity, singular in time as well as space. As it's viewed from a steadily and constant rate of increasing distance, time dilation and length contraction decrease at slowing rate as the distance increases, as an inverse square of the distance. So a black hole's size and mass increase as distance increases at a rate inversely proportional the rate that time dilation and length contraction decrease. This gives black holes a perfectly spherical four dimensional shape, they're hyperspheres.

Space/Time
The only difference between space and time is that our perceptions cause time to seem like it has a linear progression because we can only see (remember) in one direction of time but we can see in both directions of the three spatial dimensions, and so we see everything in those existing simultaneously. This means you can plot out an objects path through space time using a two dimensional surface with one representing time and the other representing itself, a spatial dimension. Two objects that are at rest relative to each other are following parallel lines (=). They're both moving through time at the speed of light and but moving through space (the vertical dimension) at all relative to each other. Everything's combined motion is always the speed of light, light (energy) moves at the speed of light through space and doesn't move at all through time (I).

Relative Motion/Angles
If the two objects are in motion relative to each other then their paths through spacetime are at an angle relative to each other (V). You can rotate the V so that the path of either observer is horizontal to see it from their inertial reference frame. They will be moving through time at the speed of light and not moving at all through space while the other object is moving through space and therefore moving slower than themselves through time (time dilated), and the other object's length in space will have decreased from their perspective (length contracted). All four dimensions are 90 degree angles to each other so an object that was moving at the speed of light (I) relative to the object whose inertial reference frame we were using (_) would be infinitely time dilated and length contracted.

Acceleration/Curvature
For two objects in different inertial reference frames (V) to move to the same inertial reference frame, at least one has to move on a curved path (acceleration). The one that accelerates will have travelled over a greater distance in spacetime from the perspective of the inertial observer's reference frame because a straight path is shorter than a curved one, and so the observer that accelerated will have experience less proper time (personal time as recording by an observer's watch) than the inertial observer so that the accelerating observer's speed through spacetime remained constant at the speed of light from that inertial reference frame.

Flat Path Through Curved Spacetime/Curved Path Through Flat Spacetime
Now to bring two observers in different inertial reference frames (V) into the same reference frame, instead of using a curved path on a flat manifold, bend the manifold paper so that one of the paths runs parallel to the other. This is following a straight path through curved spacetime rather than following a curved path through flat spacetime and the result is the same. There's no distinction, they're entirely equivalent.

Relative Acceleration/Mach's Principle
A curved path through spacetime can only be defined by the presence of anther object. If all objects were equally accelerated alone the same dimension then there would be no acceleration. Mach was right, acceleration as well as velocity, is relative.

Mass/Energy
Gravitational acceleration is caused by the inward pull of mass, while acceleration free from gravity is caused by the outward push of energy. Mass creates positive curvature (inwards acceleration, towards the source) and energy creates negative curvature (outwards acceleration, away from the source). E=mc^2 so the inwards force of gravity is c^2 weaker than the outwards force of energy.


Nobel prize please! I deserve twelve for that. I won't spend the money on drugs, hookers and my own dojo, honest.