Making Space-Time Work

It is claimed that Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity replaced Newton’s gravitational theory. Newton’s theory described the force of gravity, while Einstein said “Force, what force, space-time is distorted by embedded masses and so moving objects instead of moving in straight lines, move along the curved lines of space-time.

A common example used to distinguish these two ideas is an orbiting satellite, like the moon or the ISS. In Newtonian physics, the satellite moves in a straight line unless acted upon by a force. The force involved was gravity, which was a pull on the satellite causing its path to change. In effect the satellite is pulled “down” toward the Earth but it keeps missing it because of its “sideways” movement.

In Einstein’s physics, there is no force, the satellite is travelling along a “straight” line of curved space-time, giving the appearance of a force acting when there is really no force. (Think of a NASCAR race on a steeply banked track. When the cars enter the banked parts of the track, they don’t have to turn their steering wheels much or at all because the slant of the track imparts the turn needed.)

Okay, here is my problem with Einstein’s conception of “gravity.” Starting with a board at a slant (see illustration below). We all know if the ball is in such a position, if it is free to move, it will roll down the plane. But in the absence of gravity, what happens to the ball? <Jeopardy theme music playing>

In the absence of gravity or any other force the ball doesn’t move. It stays where it is (according to the Law of Inertia, or Newton’s First Law: an object will remain at rest or continue moving in a straight line at a constant speed unless acted upon by an external force.

Okay, now consider a larger experiment. The Earth orbits the Sun because of space-time being curved by the Sun, right? If we had access to a Star Trek like matter transporter and we “beamed” a round ball into a position stationary with regard to the Sun, what would happen to it? According to Einstein, it would not move because there would be no force acting upon it. Available paths, aka distorted space-time surfaces, to that ball may be myriad, but since it is not moving, it would take none of those.

According to Newton, it would move in a straight line directly into the Sun. According to Einstein, it would not move. Now, I ask you: would the ball move?

Postscript In a comment to a comment where I share this thought experiment, the commenter on my comment went on and on about how thee Sun was moving, along with the Milky Way Galaxy, rotating around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, moving as part of a supercluster, etc. Apparently the phrase “with regard to the Sun” was insufficient, so may I clarify that it was stationary relative to the Sun or that it moved along with the Sun, not just relative to it? Sheesh.

Questioning Einstein

In a blog post, Glenn Borchardt responded to a commenter with this (part of the comment first, then Borchardt chimes in): ”Science does not wear a uniform and is not well served by collective effort; this is why nearly all major innovation emerges from individuals and not from collectives.” [GB: That does seem to be the case, with Newton and Einstein being good examples. . . .]

I have myriad jokes about collective efforts, especially committees, e.g. “A committee is the only known lifeform with multiple bellies and no brains” (Isaac Asimov) and I think it was Robert Heinlein who quipped “To assess the intelligence of a committee, divide the IQ of its stupidest member by the number of members.” But I am not going there . . . now. What I wanted to address is “Einstein acting alone.”

From the book: “Einstein’s Destruction of Physics” by Peter Sujak:

Einstein acted fully in accordance with the dictum in which he proclaimed that ‘genius is in knowing how to hide your sources’. He simply usurped the results of these physicists and did not cite authors of these ideas and their results in his works. In every other field of intellectual property, except science, he would have been sued for this procedure in the courts.

More proposition(s) of (the) proportionality E = mc²  was propounded till 1905 e.g. Nikolay Umov – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Nikolay_Umov “He was the first scientist to indicate an interrelation between mass and energy proposing the formula E = mc² as early as in 1873”.

Einstein’s 1905 paper, a so-called central work of special relativity was his first paper on this topic. The paper contained not a single reference although, as was shown, at least 10 papers with similar content were known at that time.

Hilbert in 1915 quickly understood Einstein’s capabilities at this point. In his lectures he stated, “Every boy in the streets of Gottingen knows more about 4-dimensional geometry than Einstein” or, “Do you know why Einstein said the most original and profound things about space and time in our generation? Because he learned nothing at all about the philosophy and mathematics of time and space.”

Poincaré from 1899 till 1904 (the lectures at Sorbonne, proceeding from conferences in Paris, Sant Luis) declares that absolute motion cannot be find on dynamical, optical or electromagnetic bases. The general form of this principle Poincaré called “the principle of relativity” on 24 September 1904 at the Congress in Saint Luis. He declared that “in accordance with the principle of relativity the physical law has to be the same as for observer in rest as well as for observer in uniform translation motion. From this principle a new sort of mechanics must arise in which no one velocity can exceed the velocity of light”. E. Giannetto in his 1998 comprehensive work [51] ‘The  rise  of  Special  Relativity: Henri  Poincaré’s  works  before Einstein’ concluded that there is no doubt Poincaré must be considered the actual creator of special relativity.” All these basic notions of Poincaré were stolen by Einstein into his Special Theory of Relativity without proper references.

Einstein in his works from 1905 till 1907 discarded the ether from physics, but his more than 5 papers from 1920 to 1934 covered the matter of ether as an unexceptionable physical reality. In his published lecture at a conference held in Leiden in 1920 [43], in his another paper published in his 1920 [12, V7, D31], and especially in his work ‘On the ether’ from 1924 [12, V14, D332] Einstein declared the opposite claim that, without the ether, it is not possible to explain the physical world around us.

In the 1924 paper (when continuous Millers experiments kept confirming (the existence of an) ether) Einstein became more of an enthusiastic advocate of the existence of the ether than supporters of the ether before the year 1905. In his 1924 paper Einstein ‘discovered’: – “The mechanical ether, designated by Newton as ‘absolute space’, must therefore be considered by us as a physical reality”.

And there is more, much more. Note—the General Theory of Relativity is based upon “space” being empty, so the existence of an aether invalidates Einstein’s GTR, at least requiring major reconstruction.