Moc science forum beginner
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 33

Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject:
"The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"



"The Conflict Between Quantum Theory and General Relativity"
The General Relativity Theory and Quantum Theory are two fundamental
theories accepted by modern physics. The former theory deals with the very
large while the latter deals with the very small. A problem arises when
attempts are made to merge them at an intermediate scale. The two theories
just don't mesh well. The former theory seems very well verified by
astronomical observations while the latter theory has provided predictions
of incredible precision at the scale of atomic particles. Of the two, the
validity of Quantum theory seems beyond question due to the accuracy of its
predictions. Combining the theories produces the conclusion that, at the
subatomic scale, space is violently curved to the point that it is more akin
to a foam than to what we normally consider as space.
Attempts to reconcile the two theories have led to the development of
superstring theory which, as made obvious by a recent program on NOVA, can
lead a reasonable man to question whether a fundamental error has been in
one or both of the theories. Of the two, the accuracy and precision of the
predictions of Quantum Theory lead to point the finger of suspicion at
General Relativity. The observations which are alleged to proven General
Relativity have only been made using the effects of the Sun's gravitational
field or observations made on distant objects which are made without the
ability to measure the orbital parameters (necessary if a meaningful
conclusion is to be drawn). Unfortunately, the Sun's field is about a
million times too weak to reveal second order effects which, if present, can
become predominant at high field strengths. The same is true of the
astronomical observations of massive objects. Without the ability to obtain
precision orbital data, observations made of the effects occurring around a
neutron star, for example, cannot be used to determine the existence of such
second order effects. Since General Relativity requires that space be
"curved" by the presence of matter, a requirement of no other theory
(cosmological observation has reveals that our universe as w whole is not
curved), it would seem that it is General Relativity which should be
suspect. Accordingly, efforts should be made to find whether and where its
derivation is either in error or non rigorous.
If one examines the conclusions of General Relativity and compares
those conclusions with those of a similar theory which is not under
suspicion, Special Relativity which was used in its derivation, one finds an
interesting disparity. This disparity can be seen by comparing the
relativistic transformations attributable to each theory. In an FLT system
of units one finds the transformations:
Transformation of Transformation of
Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
Force (F) 1 1
Length (L) 1/(1V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
Time (T) (1V^2/C^2))^0.5 (1$)
Space (S) 1 (1$)
Note 1  The term "$" represent the combined terms in the time
transformation expression provided by General Relativity. This
transformations represents a time contraction so as to be compatible with
the definitions of Special Relativity. It is the reciprocal of General
Relativity's Time Dilation.
Note 2  General Relativity requires an additional term to account for the
curvature of space. This term is provided as the "Space Transformation".
Until this degree of freedom re3presented by "curved space" was added, Dr.
Einstein found it impossible to solve the mathematical equations involved.
If General Relativity contains an error, it should be possible to find
the source of that error in its derivation. Once one takes the trouble to
look, it is easily found. The derivation solves the second derivative
expression:
(dS)^2 = (dX)^2 + (dY)^2 + (dZ)^2  (Kt*C*dT)^2
It will be noted that the term involving C includes a constant term, Kt. The
terms involving X, Y, and Z do not have such a term. The effect of the
omission is to force the mathematics to assert that the required coefficient
is equal to unity, an assumption of a fact not in evidence. If a term, Kl,
were provided along with the "length" terms, no error would since the
solution would provide the value of unity for Kl, but a potential error
exists if it is omitted. Solving this equations requires a mathematical
process called integration and in that process the omitted term would be
forced to have a value of unity. Mathematically, this is a NO NO as every
undergraduate student of Calculus knows. As a result of this erroneous
omission, Dr. Einstein labored unsuccessfully to solve the equations of
General Relativity for 18 months until he resorted to the nonEuclidean of
Riemann (fakery borne of desperation?). The use of this geometry led to a
solution by providing an additional degree of freedom to the mathematics,
but the mathematical error remains to compromise work using General
relativity as a base.
The correct solution for the gravitational field yields a space
transformation for length which, like the Lorentz Transformation for Length,
is the reciprocal of the Time Transformation (the reciprocal of General
Relativity's Time Dilation. We may then write:
Transformation of Transformation of
Dimensional Entity Special Relativity General Relativity
Force (F) 1 1
Length (L) 1/(1V^2/C^2)^0.5 1
Time (T) (1V^2/C^2))^0.5 (1$)
With this revision, space is no longer required to be curved and its
transfornation may be ignored. The revision would not be viable if it were
not consistent with the results of observation and if it were not consistent
with other means of derivation.
(http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity/htm. One must recognize that the
observations made which allegedly verified General Relativity were made in
the Sun's gravitational field which is about a million times too weak to
make a determination. Observationally, either interpretation is valid, but
the revised theory does not require that space be curved, reveals the source
of gravitational energy, and even shows how universes are created! (I was
surprised too!). Isn't time that Dr. Einstein's screw up was repaired?
The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
CLASS STATUS.
All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.
Please make any response via Email as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
Email: einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided. 
