III.a) The Principle of Equivalence of Einstein’s Theory
Basic idea of the Principle of Equivalence of General Relativity is to apply same temporal effects of acceleration to gravity. This Principle of Equivalence, incorporated by GR in 1916, allowed Albert Einstein’s theories to justify a second relativity of time, independent from the one defined in Special Relativity.
In other words, the effects upon time and space of velocity in Theory of Special Relativity (SR) extended to gravitational field in the General Theory of Relativity (GR).
Gravity interacts with space by its deformation; this is the known geometric effect of space-time curvature. It is no longer enough to have a four-dimensional geometry of space (such as Minkowsky’s geometry in SR), it is necessary to curve the axes of this mathematical geometry themselves in order to measure effect of gravity on space-time in Einstein’s theory of 1916.
I get the impression that General Relativity adjusted what did not quite fit in Special Relativity. If gravity means acceleration, it was easy to imagine a certain equivalence, like thought experiment of the lift.
Surely, this second theory deals with the problems and criticisms received in the ten years that separate it from Einstein’s first theory.
For example, one can always argue one is in a non-inertial system and thereby invoke Einstein’s theory of 1916. All systems are non-inertial to an extent; the thing is that in many cases, loss of precision in information assuming that it is inertial is either manageable or negligible, or results coincide due to other misleading coincidences.
People does not only resort to GR when an experiment has problems, but also when SR comes into insurmountable contradictions, such as in case of the twin paradox. However many times I read the solution that relativity offers to it, I do not understand it. Why is not the Earth that suffers accelerations and decelerations instead of the spacecraft, from a purely relativistic point of view? Does General Relativity end up saying exactly the opposite to SR when it creates preferred systems of reference by gravity?
I suspect it rings a bell to all of us that it is equivalent to have a constant acceleration to not moving and submitted to a gravitational field. This is basic idea of the Principle of Equivalence and the thought experiment of the lift. However, this example of the lift would work neither for the light nor for a person and a gyroscope, because none of them would suffer same gravity force.
Of course, the thought experiment of the lift is just an example. Like the gyroscope!
In my opinion, this Principle of Equivalence supposes a simplification of reality, as it concentrates on specific aspects of it, and it seems to forget other energy aspects with possible effects similar –but very different conceptually speaking. Some of these are below:
Let us note that the Principle of Equivalence is only partially correct, and only from the point of view of the attraction or pushing force. For example, from the point of view of movement, acceleration and gravity are not the same; an accelerated body moves and one in a gravitational field does not.
From an energy point of view, we would also have to take into account equivalences between gravity and pressure. Let us think of gravity in the center of a star; in fact, it could be zero if the sum of the gravitational components cancelled each other out, however other properties will not cancel.
There is certain equivalence between velocity and temperature. See experiment of Invisible Clock in the book Scientific Experiments in Global Physics.
A rather negative aspect of Einstein’s theory is that simply incorporates principles instead of explaining the physical causes of the phenomena observed. Even worse, bearing in mind its principles; it forbids searching for certain causes or reasoning.
The books Global Mechanics and Physics and Global Dynamics present a new theory of everything dealing with matter and movement. They elucidate effects from the Principle of Equivalence in Einstein’s theory in an alternative fashion, with the interrelation between the mass and the global aether –reticular structure of matter supporting potential gravitational energy, kinetic energy, and mass.
The physical cause of time effects in SR would be variation in mass resonance cause by movement of mass through the global aether; and for time effects of gravity in GR would be variation in mass resonance due to variation of tension exerted by the global aether on mass with variations in the intensity of gravitational field.
The Principle of Equivalence presents gravity effects on mass and energy, and manages to explain the predictions of General Relativity –although they are more explanations than predictions. Amongst the most famous of these are gravitational lenses, precession of the perihelion of Mercury, and gravitational redshift.
The book Physics and Global Dynamics elucidates these same natural phenomena using a new physical paradigm, which does not curve time and space.
Furthermore, if the new theory of everything – alternative to Einstein’s theories – explains why atomic clocks alter with velocity and gravity without dilating time, then it seems that Einstein’s theories may be incorrect. Even after so much empirical proof!
In other words, it is not that General Relativity is the most successful theory, or that its approximation of reality is the simplest one, or that on occasions, this approximation has only formally achieved his goals by changing the definitions of second and meter in 1967… It is that Einstein’s theory is incorrect.
Finally, despite its formal achievements, it contains flaws that are experimentally detectable, as they are independent of the above formal conventions, such as dragging of light by gravitational field or luminiferous aether in the new Distant Michelson-Morley experiment, proposed in the book Scientific Experiments in Global Physics.
Einstein’s predictions are not strictly speaking predictions. At least, the most impressive, precession of the perihelion of Mercury was a known natural phenomena, moreover, Paul Gerber discover in 1898 the same formula Einstein used. Physicists suspected trajectory of light curved when passing close to stars, the problem was to quantify this phenomenon. In addition, I imagine they knew or suspected redshift at the time.
It is undeniable that Einstein had a great imagination and a special dominance of mathematics. However, the fact that he continued along the path of relativity of time instead of searching for more intelligible solutions leads me to think that he did not achieve an overall view. Besides, he might have designed his field equations ad hoc in order to explain curvature of light and precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
The three predictions of GR deduce from its field equations, though their derivation is too complex for purposes of this exposition. This discussion will be very superficial and will limit to the most famous parts of Einstein’s theory, without going into mathematical complexity, which characterizes GR, and all new futuristic theories based on it.
Sometimes, mathematical aspects simply obscure logical reasoning; if we take them out and they are implicitly included in the reasoning, there could not be conceptual errors due to mathematics. After all, they are no more than pure mathematics, and that way we avoid tensions in our brain, as we do not need to assimilate more and complex concepts.
The book Physics and Global Dynamics offers an alternative explanation of these predictions under a new paradigm, which maintains Euclidean geometry and absolute time, similar in precision and comparatively much simpler than GR.
The three most important predictions in General Relativity are the following:
Double curvature of light, magnifying or gravitational lenses effect
Albert first stated that light deviates when it passes close to massive bodies in equal proportion or angle that Newton indicated in his planet gravitation theory. Afterwards, he corrected to a value exactly double the previous one; –Meanwhile there were several failed attempts to verify experimentally the actual deviation.
Only known explanation for this change is purely mathematical in nature, as it comes from the field equations of Albert’s theory. It is a shame he did not pursue the physical causes behind this behavior, as in this quantitative difference underlies one of the most notable keys of new paradigm of the Global Physics.
After various failed attempts –for different reasons– the solar eclipse of 1919 served to prove empirically that last predictions of Einstein’s theory in this sense were correct.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury
This explanation is undoubtedly the brightest star in the universe: a deviation of 43'' arc seconds every 100 years in axis of planet Mercury orbit. The General Theory of Relativity explains it with such a small error that it leaves no room for reasonable doubts about its quantitative correction.
However, I would like to say that in 1898 Paul Gerber explained this precession before the relativistic physics with the same exact formula.
The precession of the perihelion of Mercury quantifies by GR thus:
If in this formula, we were to change the 6 for 2π, the precession of the perihelion of Mercury would give the formula proposed by Global Physics in the book Global Gravity Law. This way, we would have two contradictory theories with no room for reasonable doubts.
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity adjusts to observations because, in fact, it gives a double gravitational effect to kinetic energy by means of its field equations. The first one will cover the hypothetical increase in mass –note the paradox of the invariant mass–, so to keep proportionality in Newton’s gravitational law. The second one is an additional effect that instead of applying it to global mass as a gravitational force, applies via a distortion of space. Well, it could be everything is a distortion of the continuum space-time.
Artificiality of Einstein’s theory is due to impossibility of recognizing true laws of gravity, given its unconditional insistence on the principle of equivalence between inertial mass and gravitational mass, thereby disregarding and ignoring the material nature of physical mass. Indeed, rather than advance the understanding of characteristics of mass, the General Theory of Relativity provoked a total denaturalization of gravity force.
Gravitational redshift (or blue shift) of light implies a lower (or higher) frequency –and thereby lower or higher energy– and it is produced when electromagnetic waves approach or move away from the center of a gravitational field.
The book Physics and Global Dynamics explains this shift is the same energy effect as curvature of light.
One must not confuse gravitational redshift with redshift produced by relativistic Doppler Effect, due to relative velocities between transmitter and receiver, or with cosmological redshift not yet satisfactorily explained in full.
Relativistic Doppler Effect has always seemed very strange to me; on the one hand, physicists usually say speed of light is the same for all observers, and on the other, there exists a relativistic Doppler Effect or relativistic redshift.
Of course, it is true that this relativistic Doppler Effect exists whether it is the transmitter or receiver of the wave in motion. Moreover, the calculi of GR offer satisfactory results.
Lack of semantic meaning comes because, normally, it is not possible to take light itself as a relativistic observer. Hence, its analysis seems to have little rationale, and has to resort to the familiar temporal dilations.
Although relativistic Doppler Effects justifies itself at the same time as an energy exchange, it happens because of temporal dilation, instead of the correct reason –which is the energy equivalence or exchange due to relative Euclidean motion.
Despite General Relativity is mathematically correct, although only locally; we should not accept such an enormous and artificial complexity plus loss of intuitive physical reality without searching for a more reasonable alternative in line with Ockham's razor. In my opinion, GR could be due to a personal deviation when it comes to an exacerbated tendency to increase complexity, for logical purposes of making plagiarism difficult to detect, hinder criticisms, and enhance personal achievements; and finally, be a victim of one’s own way of behaving.
Making relative time and space is like destroying their natural concepts, so natural that they are in the concept of life itself, which we all have. It would be beautiful for time-travel movies, but it is practically suicidal for the scientific work of neurons.
Indeed, we have two incompatible scientific theories –General Relativity and Global Physics–, which both explain the three famous predictions. The last thing I want to hear is that the best thing would be to find a midpoint, no, no, no… please, no, never! The midpoint theorem could be a normal proposition, but never as a scientific argument!