Video 19 on What is Wrong with Modern Physics....Is Einstein’s General Relativistic Equation Right?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video, I discuss certain unknown aspects of Einstein’s general relativistic equation. First, Einstein’s general equation is a natural and accurate tensor extension of the Euler-Lagrange equation, and the Euler-Lagrange equation has been used successfully for well over a century in calculating orbits and trajectories. In fact, Einstein’s equation reduces to the Euler-Lagrange equation when the dimensionality of the tensor metric being used reduces to Newtonian metric for three spatial dimensions.
However, the Euler-Lagrange equation is being used incorrectly in the same way that Einstein’s equation is also being used incorrectly, despite both equations being correct. The issue for both equations is that we used Newton’s point-mass gravity laws in both equations, and we use the point-mass approximation for orbital angular momentum in both, and these point-mass (center of mass) forms are unrecognized approximations and simplifications.
When Minkowski identified his four-vector, which introduced time as a fourth dimension, Einstein was motivated to find a way of inserting this new fourth dimension into the Euler-Lagrange equation. However, to do this he needed to generalize the Euler-Lagrange equation to accommodate this new dimensionality. The Minkowski four-vector was subsequently renamed the Lorentz metric, which is a four-dimensional description of what we call space-time. Einstein also generalized the Lagrangian, which is the kinetic energy of motion minus the potential energy associated with a moving object within a gravitational (or electrical) field. Therefore, the Lagrangian was also generalized into what is known as Einstein’s energy tensor.
However, the solutions to both Einstein’s equation and the Euler-Lagrange equation use Newton’s point-mass and center-of-mass descriptions, which are simplifications and approximations, which make the solutions to Einstein’s equation approximations. I have also made the case that the Lorentz metric is a fabrication that has no basis in actual physics. In using the Lorentz metric in Einstein’s equation, Schwarzschild reduced the solutions for an orbit to the Euler-Lagrange solution that included a small analytical perturbation. The key here is that the solution was analytical, which was necessary in the pre-computer era.
We have shown in this series of videos and associated books that the actual forms for orbital angular momentum and the gravitational forces (and potential energy) are not analytic. Therefore, the solutions to both the Euler-Lagrange equation and the Einstein equation are not analytic. Consequently, Schwarzschild’s solution incorrectly characterized the impact of the time dimension on the orbital perturbation that he identified. And, since the impact of the Newtonian and center-of-mass representation for gravity and angular momentum are most inaccurate when objects are in close proximity, we have that measurements and descriptions of interacting objects that are in close proximity are also both inaccurate and wrong and are distinctly non-analytic. Consequently, regardless of which metric is used in the Einstein equation, the only results that would be accurate would be those that used the generalized Newtonian gravitational models and the non-point-mass models for orbital angular momentum. The shortfall in the use of the point-mass representations and approximations has been the subject of all prior videos in this series. #luthernayhm
Thank you, sir. This is very clearly explained. I hope you'll make more videos like this.
Glad my descriptions work for you. I often review my videos before posting and ask myself what was I thinking about and trying to describe. Just as often I have to redo my descriptions
Einstein thought that it was better to understand Relativity intuitively rather than focusing on the math. He thought that the math did not accurately describe physical reality.
He also explained dark matter/galaxy rotation curves in the 1939 journal "Annals of Mathematics" -
"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the Schwarzchild singularities (Schwarzchild was the first to raise the issue of General Relativity predicting singularities) do not exist in physical reality. Although the theory given here treats only clusters (star clusters) whose particles move along circular paths it does seem to be subject to reasonable doubt that more general cases will have analogous results. The Schwarzchild singularities do not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light."
He was referring to the phenomenon of dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) mass that is dilated is smeared through spacetime relative to an outside observer. It's the phenomenon our high school teachers were talking about when they said "mass becomes infinite at the speed of light". Time dilation is just one aspect of dilation.
Dilation will occur wherever there is an astronomical quantity of mass because high mass means high momentum. This includes the centers of very high mass stars and the overwhelming majority of galaxy centers.
The mass at the center of our own galaxy is dilated. This means that there is no valid XYZ coordinate we can attribute to it, you can't point your finger at something that is smeared through spacetime. In other words that mass is all around us. This is the explanation for galaxy rotation curves, the "missing mass" is dilated mass.
If you think about it, how do we reduce a galactic distribution of mass to a point-mass description. Using the generalized Newtonian gravity model, the various distinct distributions of galactic mass....including any putative dark matter....can produce a series of vectorially additive forces on an object located anywhere in space. The net force on the object is distinctly not describe using a simple point-mass law. Hence, we "postulate" dark matter to fix this problem. Einstein was ironically correct that his equation was incomplete and did not describe reality....because he was unaware of the "real" Newtonian gravitational law. In a way, Einstein was weasel wording in case there might be something missing from his model....which is also why after the fact he added an arbitrary cosmological constant to his field equation.
@@luthernayhm The best way to understand dilation (sometimes called gamma or y) is to imagine a spaceship traveling at a constant acceleration rate. When the ship reaches 50% light speed, as viewed from an Earthbound observer with a magically powerful telescope, it would appear normal because as the aforementioned graph shows, nothing has changed at that point.
When the ship reaches 75% light speed it would appear fuzzy because as the graph shows relativistic effects would be noticeable at that point.
When the ship reaches 99% light speed it would not be visible because every aspect of its existence would be smeared through spacetime relative to an Earthbound observer, not onto itself.
There is no way to mathematically describe the spaceships mass from the Earthbound observers point of view when it is traveling at relativistic velocities.
This is the state of mass in our galactic center. It's not just there, it's everywhere. It is the "missing mass" needed to explain galaxy rotation curves. The recent discovery that very low mass galaxies have predictable star rotation rates is confirmation of this.
@@shawns0762 You haven't understood a thing I have discussed in the videos. None of the thought experiments that purport to support time dilation are using the correct physics.
Lorentz metric says if you drive east or north for an hour at the same speed you end up in the same location in spacetime. (At least the distance between the arrival events is zero according to the Lorentz metric.)
The Wiki article on General Relativity states our current understanding of space time. What I have tried to address is that we have built up a 100 years worth of mathematics and modeling to support our "understanding of space time" and those models are based on incomplete and flawed logic and physics. From the perspective of logic, I only needed to find a single exception to justify changing the underlying postulate to wipe out all these descriptions, as elegant as they are, and to reestablish a new starting point for the discussion. Since general relativity subsumed special relativity or the "restricted" theory, if special relativity has flaws, then so does general relativity....plus a few more errors associated with simply using point-mass descriptions in the modeling.
My bad, it does not say that. It basically says you can’t go faster than light.
@@EnginAtik Actually, the speed limit is based on other physics. If you had understood the videos, the apparent limit is within our electromagnetic acceleration. The available power to drive a particle in an accelerator drops to zero at the speed of light and the blackbody radiation supplies a retroforce keeping particle below the speed of light...a terminal velocity.