General flaws in General Theory of Relativity

[reilpmeit]

I was reading about modern physics, and
looking some videos ,mostly about ToR and some Quantum mechanics.There are quite a few things that got in my eye.
First most shocking thing to me, is when I was looking in space-time diagrams ,is that if object is not moving in space that it is (somehow magically ) moving in time. That is just flawed assumption. Like there is some generator of time,that magically "aging" things.That simply is not true.
Without movement there are no transference of energy,so do "aging". There is really only present time.Yes,there is concept about past and future,but that has nothing to do with " magical generator of time". Earth is revolving around Sun. For one revolution ,we call a "year has passed". But in reality it is that Earth has passed from its starting point,going around Sun,and back to staring point. It has nothing to do with magical generator of time.
If Earth is not revolving around a Sun,we will have not concept of year(at least not in sense we have it now)
Same goes with rotation of Earth around itself.For one rotation we call "a day has passed".
Again it is not that time has passed,but Earth has rotated("passed") around itself
What I want to explain that time as concept has only validity if things are moving(changing from original state),and especially if that moving is repeatable. Like Earths rotation around Sun and itself.One thing in common is that they are cyclical.But they are not synchronous events,so it's asynchronous .And from time perspective (apparently) unrelated.

I'm writing this because those Theory of Relativity guys(as i saw in video) later spoke about how there's no gravity at all,and there is just "spacetime".
Yes there is gravity in your time diagram! Removing gravity and interposing it as time(or space) is just ludicrous. Adjusting reality to your theory,rather than adjusting your theory to reality will not get you anywhere. If there are no real gravity massive objects will not be spheres,rather they will be of random shapes.

If it's true that there is this "mystical generator of time" there would not be ,for example superconducting.This "generator" would not allow nucleus of atoms to be steady(because they are will be "aging"),so electrons could not pass without resistance.And we know that this is not true.


They speaking about curvature of flat space like it is something "big thing",and well, that is not case.From point of mathematics,line is straight (or plane is flat) if perpendicular lines that intersect that line, are parallel. If they are not,there is curvature.And it can be easily calculated with geometry of circles ,parabolas,hyperbolas.More convenient way to calculate curvature will be with integrals(calculus). That's it.

Next flaw is about gravitons. If you have body of mass,let's say it is perfect sphere(and because it have mass ,it have gravitational field),they assume that it can be pinpointed to one point with gravitational field,and that is just plain stupid.

Who says that gravity inside object is same as around object? What observational facts tell us that?None

Let say you want to put a human inside center of earth.First,for the sake of argument let put him in bubble that is made of material that can hold super extreme pressure. With him in that bubble in center of earth what will happen in terms of gravity? Will he fell any gravity effect him? No,because in center there is gravitational equilibrium It will be same as he is in space. So how could there be gravitons?
(Side note:If we remove bubble there will be be an extreme disbalance in terms of density/buoyancy that maybe fusion could happen)

This are things that seem most "suspicious" but there are probably more of them.

 

[John G]

Most fundamentally there probably is just movement from one information state to another but time can still be a coordinate for your states. That lets you do things like change the reference frame which doesn't do any state to state movement; it just does coordinate transformations which is still kind of weird since you can have different order of events. You can still use gravitons for the zero gravity center of the spherical mass since all the graviton transactions all around you would cancel out/balance.

 

[reilpmeit]

From point of information,without movement of objects,concept of time is useless.It's unimportant information.

Space is space,it can have as many dimensions as you want it to have.
GToR guys treat space like it depends on some coordinate system,like it is coordinate system itself. Well,that is another flaw and simply not true.

There is no need for any coordinate transformation.If you want to add time dimension,you could use tetrahedron coordinate model.And there will be no need for any frame references.

No you can't use gravitons because density is much more important than just mass. Buoyant atoms tends to go at surface,more dense at center.We know that from thermodynamics

 

[reilpmeit]

Lets say two objects are going to collide in space.One is 1 kg ball of hellium gas , another is 1 kg ball of iridium.Collision happens.Is there any exchange of energy?Maybe little,minisclule.It's not same if we had collision of two balls (1 kg) of iridum.Or if we had two balls of hellium. Density/buoyancy is more important than just simple notion of mass.More buoyant matter (hellium) takes much,much more space than more dense one(iridium).

 

[Mark7]

Lets say two objects are going to collide in space.One is 1 kg ball of hellium gas , another is 1 kg ball of iridium.Collision happens.Is there any exchange of energy?Maybe little,minisclule.It's not same if we had collision of two balls (1 kg) of iridum.Or if we had two balls of hellium. Density/buoyancy is more important than just simple notion of mass.More buoyant matter (hellium) takes much,much more space than more dense one(iridium).

Do principles of elastic vs inelastic collision apply to 'balls of gas'?

 

[John G]

From point of information,without movement of objects,concept of time is useless.It's unimportant information.

Space is space,it can have as many dimensions as you want it to have.
GToR guys treat space like it depends on some coordinate system,like it is coordinate system itself. Well,that is another flaw and simply not true.

There is no need for any coordinate transformation.If you want to add time dimension,you could use tetrahedron coordinate model.And there will be no need for any frame references.

No you can't use gravitons because density is much more important than just mass. Buoyant atoms tends to go at surface,more dense at center.We know that from thermodynamics

GR kind of treats time in a spacelike way and yes it treats spacetime in a coordinate system kind of way. Yes the idea may be more useful than literally correct; it does though usefully describe things. There is certainly more going on that just zero gravity at the center of that sphere. For example there's pressure aka the mass around the center attracting itself and crushing the zero gravity center point.

 

[reilpmeit]

I want to get back to this topic in much more detail,but my health problems did not allow me.
For past month that was almost only thing on which I spend time. Sorry

Do principles of elastic vs inelastic collision apply to 'balls of gas'?

It should apply to any collision. But things are not that simple. There are other forces. Electric,magnetic,electromagnetic.
There must be gravitomagnetic,and gravitoelectric too. We need (correct)Theory of Unified Fields for that.
But state of modern physics is very pale. Just look of definition of strong force. That is a mess.