General Relativity & Gravity

General Relativity & Gravity

pg 3

There are so many subtly implied concepts in the word ‘movement’ computationally. In Relativity, velocity is always relative, so even if the two objects are moving relative to each other, how does the one object attain the information that there is such movement relative to the other object?

If an object only gave off gravitons while it was moving relative to another object, then it would somehow have to detect that movement rate of the other object to be able to do this. If such detection of relative movement is instantaneous then we violate the principle that nothing can move faster than the velocity of light.

Because the movement of one object is relative to another object, the graviton can only be emitted when one body has an existing relationship with another body. So the required amount of energy can only be calculated in reference to another body.

To avoid this problem, a gravitational wave would have to flow in all directions evenly regardless of other objects. We would then have to consider the motion of the body in absolute terms in order to calculate a velocity source for the energy of the gravitons. This would then violate the principle of all motion being relative!

A gravitational wave must be a spherical ‘wave’ moving away from the source in all directions because that wave cannot predict where it is going to impact without violating the velocity of light. When it does impact, then this sphere-shaped ‘wave’ could perhaps collapse into a graviton at the single point of impact.

Each wave would somehow have to have the information of what their destined object for impact actually is (destination-signature) or else they would collapse after reaching any object, and we would in affect have a gravity-shadow. If it were possible to somehow change the destination-signature, then we could generate a gravity-shadow which would be the source of some pretty interesting technology.

But would this collapse of the gravitational wave be instant? Not in Relativity.

So the process of the collapsing wave after the initial impact would have to branch out from that impact at the velocity of light. But the rest of the un-collapsed wave is still moving away from the impact at the velocity of light! So the affect of collapsing the wave could not ever catch up with the actual wave it is trying to collapse!

This may seem like quite a tangential argument. But I am just trying to ensure that there is no actual violation of the velocity of light. I thus cannot see a way to calculate the gravitational wave without violating the velocity of light for quite a number of different reasons.

But the idea that giving the photon zero mass can save Relativity from failing is incorrect for a much simpler reason: If a photon departs my nose at the velocity of light, and all velocity is relative, then my nose is moving away from the photon at the velocity of light (Special Relativity). This means that my nose has infinite mass relative to the photon (think about it).

This makes my nose a black-hole relative to the photon. So the photon could not depart the black-hole of my nose. It would be sucked right in. All objects should be black-holes from the relative velocity of photons – and this is also true for gravitons! The concepts of relative motion (and also Relativity as a whole) break down completely for objects at the velocity of light.

If an object at the relative velocity of light emitted a graviton then that object would have infinite mass relative to the graviton. This would curve space to such a severe degree that the graviton would not be able to escape the object.

When trying to calculate most of the principles of Relativity with computational precision, these and other endless problems arise. Each time I reread this, I think of more contradictions all of which are solved with Sum Theory.

I have documented about 20 separate contradictions in this chapter, about 20 in the last chapter, and I have roughly jotted down about a dozen more, and ignored another dozen or so for the sake of brevity. I’m sure that you could easily find a few more such contradictions if you put your mind to it.

But can you resolve the contradictions?

pg 3