Relativity's tautological maths, and issues with Mercury's perihelion and Einstein's gravity.
Relativity does not explain nor prove anything. There are many different explanations for the precession of Mercury and Relativity adds an unknown push-source dimension to gravitational force.
The previous post is part one. This is part 2/2 on this specific theme.
Obey the Scientism. Ignore the tautologies. The Earth must move, though we can’t measure that movement.
Saint Stephen of Hawking admits the failure of Relativity:
We already know that general relativity must be altered. By predicting points of infinite density – singularities – classical general relativity predicts its own down-fall….When a theory predicts singularities such as infinite density and curvature, it is a sign that the theory must somehow be modified.
If general relativity is wrong, why have all experiments thus far supported it? The reason that we haven’t yet noticed any discrepancy with observation is that all the gravitational fields that we normally experience are very weak (A Briefer History of Time, 2005, pp. 102, 84; Black Holes and Baby Universes, 1994, p. 92 & 102).
Hawking admits that a singularity of a Black Hole, as modelled by Relativity, is impossible. Quantum Mechanics makes this apparent. Both theories cannot be right. Do Black Holes even exist? No proof can be offered that they are in fact real. Hawking admitted as much before he died.
Illogical
Relativity was ushered into being to explain the thousands of experiments that can find no motion of our planet. In the last post we looked at the error in the tensor calculus maths in Relativity. By itself this disproves the theory and all its many hydra-headed claims.
We also discussed the illogical nature of Relativity, both Special and General, given that neither theory can explain heliocentricity, or the thousands of experiments which failed to find the movement of the Earth. This short post has a look at Mercury’s perhelion and gravity and why Relativity is unnecessary in both cases as an explanatory model.
Mercury
As it will be outlined below, Relativity’s mathematics violate the principles of both Relativity and gravitational theory. Unfortunately, Einstotle’s mathematics could be used to refine the predictions of Newtonian gravitational theory to agree with the anomalous precession of Mercury’s orbit and the bending path of starlight from the Sun’s gravitational pull or perihelion position (when it is closest to the Sun) of Mercury (1919).
Newton proposed an ‘infinite speed of gravity’ which does not explain the Mercury perihelion advance. However, Paul Gerber (1898) had published a formula for the perihelion advance of Mercury, assuming a finite speed of gravity, which was formally identical to Einstein’s approximate solution, yet did not use Relativity. He amended Newtonian equations.
The cult however, will say that since Gerber violated the ‘law’ of Relativity, he must be wrong and irrelevant!
It should be noted that Einstein’s explanation was a gross approximation. There are other explanations for Mercury’s perihelion as well, forwarded by van Flanderen and others. Yet these are also completely ignored (Tadesse, 2018).
Riemannian tautology
Whilst complicated and arcane, Einsteinian tensor maths are not rigorous and are incorrect, a fact which he admitted and one reason why he did not want his General Theory applied to the cosmos at large. It is unclear whether Einstotle knew of the tautology in his calculus and committed a fraud, or was simply satisfied that in 1919, his General Theory of Relativity seemed to resolve the orbit of Mercury problem. Even though this appeared to satisfactorily affirm the merit of his theory, Einstein was clear that GTR should not be used to explain cosmological phenomena in detail.
However, by adding Riemannian geometry and creating ‘curved space’ Einstein manufactured another dimension and tautological problem. His postulate declares that space-time must be true, but this is only to resolve the errors in his maths. Complex, oblique maths aside, there is no scientific proof, or even common sense, that ‘curved space’ holds you down in your chair or keeps your feet on Earth, or keeps a planet in orbit around a star for x_billion_trillion of years.
Gravitational Force = mass 1 x mass 2, divided by radius x G.
‘G’ is the Gravitational Constant, a fudge factor, that works but is false. You can’t have an unknown ‘constant’ in your maths. Welcome to Relativity.
This is after all the issue. Einstotle added Riemann's geometry to resolve the issues with his calculations. It is as simple as that. Einstotle needed space and time to be curved. It is not that space and time are curved.
Issues with Gravity
Newtonian gravity itself as a force, is a relativistic phenomenon. In fact, many Relativists claim that gravity is not a force! Needless to say the whole concept of gravity in modern physics is in flux and confusion, so after some 300 years, we still don’t know what ‘gravity’ actually is.
Regarding gravity, what Relativity is really proposing is that there exists a gravitational field which creates energy from nothing which is a violation of the first law of the conservation of energy (energy of molecules or bodies within a closed system remain constant). If the cosmos is viewed as an open system, the generative source of energy creation and change needs to be identified.
In reality, a real gravitational ‘field theory’ must explain in simple terms, why you are held in your chair and where that force comes from, and how it works. Relativity does not do this. Also, given that quantum mechanics negates Relativity, as given in the quote at the start of this post, we cannot use Relativity or its theorems in general to explain gravity, given that Relativity is opposed to the dynamics found at the molecular, particle, atomic level where gravity must operate.
Unproven forces
Under both Newtonian and General Relativity, gravity is an attractive force acting at a distance. The difference between them is that in Newton’s theory, gravity is an attractive force, based on a larger mass attracting a smaller mass, while in Relativity the attractive force of a large mass is combined with an unobservable 4th spatial axis which contravenes Euclidean geometry of 3 dimensions.
Note that Newton also described ‘other forces’ being necessary for gravity ‘to work’ as observed. These are the Coriolis and Euler forces, which are ignored by Relativity. In their place Einstein and friends concocted this unknown energy force which pushes ‘waves’ of gravitational energy. They also invoke ‘Dark Matter’ which is used as a replacement for the Coriolis and Euler forces (or Tesla’s EMR), which is also unknown and which attempts to explain how the weak force of gravity, allows cosmological structure and planetary orbits.
Einstein’s Relativity does not eliminate gravity per-se as many modern Relativists claim; but converts it into some incredibly large force ‘pushing’ and acting along an unknown axis, from a source which does not seem to have a physical existence and which produces energy from nothingness (Retic p. 95)! This is why we call Relativity a fantasy world, a parallel universe where maths not common sense, dominates. Where does the ‘force’ come from to ‘push’ gravity to masses, objects and keep you in your chair or water in the lakes and oceans as the Earth moves, rotates and spins?
Bottom Line
There are many ways to explain the precession of Mercury without invoking Saint Einstotle and his dimensional calculus. We know that Riemann’s geometry was added as a necessity to save the equations and is thereby tautological. It does not mean that space and time are merged and curved in reality. Relativity and its calculus also does not explain the relativistic principles of gravity, nor why objects are pulled down to the Earth. It adds an unknown massive force and upends the 3 dimensions of Euclidean geometry.
Yet this corpus of confusion and absurdity is trumpeted as ‘science’ and ‘factual’ and presented everywhere as confirmation of the ‘Big Bang’. Sadly for Relativists, the James Webb Space Telescope tells us that the universe is a flat, uncurved disc.
The question never asked is, did Einstotle create a fraud on purpose, or was he simply content that some of the phenomena (Mercury’s perihelion) could be explained by his new cosmological philosophy? A further question would be, why isn’t the decrepit nature of Relativity tensor calculus discussed and fixed? Would it upend the paradigm? Is there too much to lose?
All hail.
Sources
Bertschinger, E., Tensor Calculus for General Relativity, 1999. https://web.mit.edu/edbert/GR/gr1.pdf
Blinn, C. Schwarzschild Solution to Einstein’s General Relativity, 2017 (for a discussion of Hilbert, Schwarzschild transformations not reproduced in this post) https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morrow/336_19/papers17/carson.pdf
Tadesse, H. A Theoretical Framework of Absolute/Relative Motion and the Speed of Light, 2018.
Lay, David C. (2006). Linear Algebra and Its Applications (3rd ed.)
A. Einstein, M. Grossmann, "Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitätstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation" Z. Math. Physik 62 (1914) pp. 225–261
H. Retic, ‘The Einstein Hoax: The disastrous intellectual war on common sense’, 2001.
"as the Earth moves, rotates and spins" ......??? Really?