Many people may wonder what the point of this is. Most directly it is one of ethics. Having appreciated just how many fundamental faults there are in Relativity I could have walked away and continued writing financial software. I could have laughed up my sleeve at Astrophysics for the rest of my life. But it is the Soul of science itself which is at stake. And science is close to the spirit of this society.

But why has the error of Relativity persisted? There are potentially many good reasons. Around the time of the foundation of Relativity, mankind’s understanding of the Universe was striding forward like never before; and likely it shall never advance at that rate again either. Bombs were getting incrementally more massive, and even though it was not clearly understood how to build atomic weapons, it was becoming pretty obvious where that process was headed. It thus made sense to confound the state of academic physics to dissuade as many people as possible from learning such ideas.

Relativity seems to have become something like a protective seal over the potential of science releasing weapons of war on a scale only vaguely imagined midst the horrors of The Great War. It was perhaps the brainchild of people driven to paranoia by the notion that if widely understood, science could potentially make anyone into a powerful tyrant capable of destroying entire cities with a small device. Much of that paranoia still exists, even if passed down from generation to generation unthinkingly – without even perhaps realizing why it is being done.

It is certainly not so easy to produce atomic weapons as those ancient custodians of knowledge imagined. So I believe that this fear is no longer necessary at all. I do not believe it ever was necessary. But they could not have known that. And the real danger nowadays is that academia and the minds of people have been confused to the point where knowledge systems themselves are breaking down. The psychological dissonance caused by popular faulty logic has severely hampered knowledge growth in most disciplines. Once it is possible to persuade people that illogical ideas are supposedly true in the department of high and mighty Astrophysics; then such psychological destruction easily permeates through all pursuits of understanding. How this happens in detail deserves entire theses worth of study.

Most of the claims to the validity of Relativity amount to nothing more than faulty arguments from authority with a decidedly unhealthy dose of peer-pressure and group-think. The mathematics can also look intimidating. But if its core philosophy is expressed properly then no idea should ever be difficult to comprehend; especially after reducing it to essential logical principles. (However some ideas may take considerable time and effort.) I could easily paste many pages of computer code all over the place if I wanted to intimidate the physicists and the mathematicians. That method would baffle almost everybody. But I am trying to make the issue broadly understood. I am not trying to confuse anybody.

This is why, the method of logical positivism is so vital. For logical positivism insists that the reader prove or disprove any theory for themselves. Science suggests that there is an expert in a white lab-coat who is going to look at you reproachfully and sternly and then emotively coerce you into pretending that you understand something that on thorough inspection – is illogical. There is no short-cut to thinking for your self.

Since the discovery of planets beyond Saturn using Newton’s laws, Astrophysics has been hailed as the benchmark of the scientific method. Science was elevated as the primary source of knowledge because Philosophy had for the most part become sophistry. The very word ‘metaphysics’ had its original meaning turned around from one of highest understanding into a euphemism for nonsense. What the scientists largely don’t appreciate is that this word ‘metaphysics’ entails a broader set than science. Because when you are deciding: what is and what is not science – then you are doing metaphysics; whether you like it or not – by definition.

Relativity itself is mostly sophistry with numbers. How widely has the institution of science been diluted by such sophistry? If the very cornerstone of what society regards as genius is so lacking in logic, then how contaminated is the rest of academia? There is an old African saying: A fish rots from the head downwards.

There is an implication for this analysis which has profound consequences for Psychology. On a personal level, this is the most vital. If a part of your mind is in a state of sub-conscious dissonance, then that part of your thinking capacity will be blocked off from your awareness. Because Relativity is illogical, and so many people do not realize this, they in affect have allowed some of their consciousness to be cut-off into a state of closed dissonance.

At the moment where they gave up on comprehending Relativity, a piece of their psychological being became deformed. In the professions directly associated with these theories, if a person was taught to bow down and accept Relativity through sheer belligerence, then that person has become belligerent. If this process was through meekness, then that type of thinking permeates their being. Outside of vocations directly associated with Relativity, people have absorbed a sense of logical inferiority because subconsciously they know that they could never understand it. Every time an image of Einstein presents itself to them in the media, this subconscious process is reinforced.

This is just how the mind works: Your sub-conscious mind cannot be untrue or illogical. If your conscious mind rejects truth and logic, then the subconscious takes a piece of your awareness away from you. In affect you begin the process of disorganized thinking which can multiply from mere neuroses into schizotypal traits, and in extreme cases into morbid psychopathic behavior. I am not suggesting that if you accept Relativity then you are totally insane. What I am saying is that insanity is a refusal to accept truth and logic. And that if you accept Relativity as being true, that you are at least partly neurotic.

What needs to be done is to require the stubborn Relativists to go back and revisit that point in time when they first claimed to ‘understand Relativity’. They need to re-examine that state of mind which lead them into such pretense. Was it fear of others thinking them stupid? Was it some type of embarrassment that so many of my detractors have tried to cajole me with into accepting the illogical as if it were logical? These situations will certainly vary a lot. I have read many accounts of emotionally intense reactions to those who have tried to disagree with an idea whose purpose seems to be nothing more than a device to protect people from themselves. Or is it that humanity is just illogical, generally speaking?

I sometimes wonder if there is anybody else out there with extensive experience in computer programming, philosophy of science and the psychology of war – as well as having an all-consuming passion for Astrophysics and Cosmology…

“Psychology?” I hear the scoffers mutter. “Yes, Psychology”, I answer: The first and most important tool of anyone who tries to think about anything.

So if you have read this far then well done, for this is a thoroughly mind-bending topic. The logic within the theory is perhaps easier to comprehend than the consequences for our confidence in society at large. It has been far simpler for me to deconstruct Relativity as a false paradigm, than it is to present these findings to a skeptical public. Subconscious dissonance is a very stubborn barrier to break through. I am not asking you to have faith in what I say. I am pointing out that you must have faith in logic. Physics is not a popularity contest.

The most difficult part of any intellectual endeavor is to be honest with yourself about what you truly comprehend. This is a very subtle art. But if you are angry then your subconscious mind is giving you a hint that you need to take a step back because you have missed something. The easiest way to assess this is to be honest with others.

Perhaps you are in doubt about my analysis of Relativity and are feeling a bit annoyed with this article? If so then perhaps just consider these core scenarios in isolation:

1A: Gravitons would not move beyond the event horizon if gravity is curved space.

1E: Source energy for graviton-photon lensing would violate the velocity of light.

2A: If time stops at the event horizon, then gravitons would also stop here.

2L: My nose is not a black-hole.

3B: It would be possible to see into the future if the rate of time itself could be changed.

These I consider irrefutable. 2F and most of the other scenarios are also irrefutable but may prove a bit more difficult to appreciate by non-computer programmers.

But I really enjoyed 2F the most because it shows how Relativity tries to place a limit on the velocity of all events in the universe, but it simply assumes that an object will emit gravitational waves with the instant foreknowledge of where they will end up. They are said to move in relation to a body that they must be formally connected to instantly in some way – and they thereby violate the limit on the velocity of light as regards that particular information. This is typical of how easy it is to not see the subtle logic required in any system until the rigors of the computer program force such logic out into the open. All computer programmers should appreciate this particular point.

Scenario 2A on its own should bring the reader to realize that General Relativity is incompatible with Black-holes to the point of total contradiction. After all, if time has stopped at the event horizon then how can gravitons moving through time get past this obstacle? Much of the theorizing goes on longer than it may seem to need to do. But this is in order to try and salvage as much of Relativity and astrophysics as is possible – despite the clear computational contradictions.

My central aim is to have a working theory, not to disprove even the smallest subset of any theory unless I have no other logical option. At no point have I yet been forced to disclaim any empirical data – only the theoretical assumptions as to what the data actually means have been engaged. Indeed the biggest error most people make in such assessments is to confuse the empirical data with the theoretical evaluation of that data. Section 3 of this chapter (Relativity and Time) is a prime example of that.

But it should by now be clear that both General Relativity and Special Relativity have more contradictions than answers within them. In ethics, the concept of relativity is taken as a contradiction; in physics, it should be too. Einstein’s Relativity theories are simply not objective. Newton would dismiss them with contempt, I am certain.

But it would be a mistake to abandon everything Einstein claimed. Likewise it would be a mistake to abandon the marvelous engineering that gave us the empirical claims to gravitational waves because those who claimed to discover them believed Einstein’s false ideas. After all, an observation of a phenomenon is not the same as the reason for that phenomenon.

Of course, neither can we take it on faith that those experiments are entirely valid either. After all, the scientists working with those intrepid engineers have failed to grasp the illogical implications of General Relativity. Engineering and science are often worlds apart from one another. Although few engineers will admit this openly because it is not seen as good publicity to acknowledge that trial-and-error is a far more useful method than using a textbook is. All such theories only came from relentless trial-and-error anyways.

But certainly, any experimental attempt to unravel the exact function of the force of gravity can only be encouraged, regardless of the theoretical background. It is a very difficult thing to even open up this line of enquiry, psychologically speaking. I would be horrified if any of this analysis is ever used to try and thwart such wonderful attempts at understanding gravity like the LIGO experiments for example.

When I set out to write this chapter a year ago, my central aim was to try and prove whether gravity fluctuations occurred at the velocity of light or instantaneously – purely from the basis of just computational logic. I have not as yet succeeded in doing so entirely.

Just because I have surely proven General Relativity’s conception of gravitational waves to be almost totally wrong, does not mean that I cannot still conceptualize and compute gravity as a good-old-fashioned-force whose fluctuations ripple at the velocity of light. This seems entirely computable so long as I disregard most of Relativity, specifically the graviton.

The notion of gravity propagating at the velocity of light without the other Relativistic principles I shall blithely term ‘elastic chewing gum gravity’. Consider gravity as a piece of elasticized gum. Two objects when held closely together by the gum are held strongly. As we pull them apart, the gum stretches and the intensity of the pull weakens. If one object moves its position then the consequences of this affect only reach the other object some time after that initial movement, because the fluctuations in the gum must move at velocity.

I have claimed that Sum Theory still upholds the notion from Relativity that the velocity of light cannot be exceeded. Yet I also strongly suspect that gravity might propagate instantly. This paradox will be resolved in Chapter 30 (Sum General Theory). For now, if we consider that gravity could propagate beyond the velocity of light, and that some aspects of waveforms might also do this (from the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments), we are likely to concede that the velocity of light can in some cases be exceeded. The exact conditions of how this occurs must still be defined. But before that is accomplished we must clearly determine what the velocity of gravity actually is.

Of course elastic-chewing-gum-gravity is a bit weird because its strands somehow never get entangled with each other – so the description of it being ‘gum’ is rather metaphorical. The point being that the gravity between two objects is itself an ontological object that stretches. But the total energy-value of the gravitational ontology is the same regardless of the distance between the objects it unites. This gravitational ontology is not the same as the force between the objects – instead it is the actual energy value of the structure that propagates that force. To appreciate this, consider a tug-of-war. The rope is not the same as the force pulling on the rope.

But I still have no reason to accept this idea is true. I can equally as easily compute Newtonian-Planck gravity (instant gravity with quantum time). So it appears I am no closer to knowing the velocity at which changes in gravity take affect. But! I do believe that I have laid solid foundations both ontological and epistemological from which to do this by decimating General Relativity almost completely.

But before taking the next step, I wish to return to the possibility of instantaneous gravity because of the astounding applications for it. A device could be constructed which altered the movements of large bodies like asteroids, using them as enormous instantaneous signaling devices. The sheer scale of such a device seems ridiculous by 21st century standards. Imagine altering the orbits of the moons of Jupiter purely to send an encoded message to another star-system via instantaneous gravity!?

Consider just how subtle the receiving equipment would need to be to detect such movement? The gravity of a moon of Jupiter would surely have a tiny affect on an object several light-years away. Then consider how many such fluctuations would be required to send a message in something like Morse code! How much energy would this device consume? But a few centuries ago much of what goes on in the world today would have seemed just as unlikely. If instantaneous gravity is correct then the problem reduces to one on the scale of the engineering.

At this point it is hardly prudent to do such scary calculations such as what size object would be the smallest with which to send a signal, and how sensitive the measuring device could be. Elastic-chewing-gum-gravity still must be proven incorrect for this to be a meaningful effort. But it is not the construction of such a device centuries from now which motivates me.

Instead what compels me is the possibility that such devices may already have been constructed by aliens just a few millennia in advance of us. The receiving or detecting part of the apparatus seems at face value to be enormously easier to engineer than inter-planetary billiards.

SETI (Search for extra-terrestrial intelligence) has constructed large numbers of radio telescopes to try and detect radio signals from other worlds. The difficulty with this is that how do we know which frequency to search for them on? And how would we know the difference between an artificial signal and a natural one? Interferences are surely the worst problem. What if the rates of the bits of information within the signals are just too finely compacted for our detection devices? What if they are too far spread out?

The IGC (Instantaneous Gravity Communicator) has a much narrower and thus more observable scope of range, and would be far more useful to advanced extraterrestrial intelligence than electromagnetic communication. This could be why they are not using primitive electromagnetic communication methods at all: It is far too slow to be useful over celestial distances. It may be more worthwhile to simply send a spaceship than a signal. It may be more discrete as well.

A more down-to-Earth implication is that there is a large error in calculating how asteroids can come close to obliterating life on Earth. These errors compound with time and the eccentricity of the orbits. Satellite collision predictions are often out by margins as large as 10km on a daily scale. Getting gravity perfect has never been more important.

However, the holy grail of understanding how gravity works will always be the possibility of an anti-gravity propulsion system – or even a gravity-shield of zero gravity. And neither will ever be achieved without countless failed attempts. Although it must be said that intuitively speaking, instantaneous gravity would seem far harder to block or invert than elastic-chewing-gum-gravity.

But even if gravity does propagate at the velocity of light, I am still certain that most of the principles within the Theories of Relativity need to be done away with. But let us not be rid of them completely. There are still at least three principles within Einstein’s Relativities that are worth keeping. I may never prove instantaneous gravity exists, have the IGC constructed, and find E.T. after all. Anti-gravity may be impossible on a useful scale. Yet, I may still find something better.

For I feel that this thesis at least should function as a litmus test for reason and academic understanding. Not only for the benefit of that most noble of epistemologies – that which is higher than science – that method which us philosophers call ‘logical positivism’; but also as a warning to the horrendous methodological pitfalls which have sucked so many people into the intellectual black-hole of Relativity.

But I am getting ahead of myself. I still have to disprove elastic chewing gum gravity for these ideas to be viable. I have to confront the empirical claims that suggest gravitational waves do exist. So at this point I need to do something which is always a last resort in theoretical physics. I must further examine the actual empirical data. Specifically the LIGO experiment called GW150914.

Contrary to popular belief there is often a vast gap between science and engineering. So I still believe that there is vital data in the LIGO experiments of Earth-moving significance – despite their acceptance of what is clearly an illogical paradigm. A computational analysis of experiment GW150914 will form the core of the next chapter with the foundational theoretical framework being here established. After that I will put the pieces of Einstein’s puzzle back together again and outline the principles of Sum General Theory – specifically the inner structure of how it is that white holes give off energy and mass. I suspect that at their core might be a process that I can only call ‘unfusion’ whereby Helium is ripped apart into Hydrogen.

It is never enough to prove a theory wrong. We need a theory that is correct! But the most amazing thing about Cosmology and Astrophysics is that no theory is ever entirely correct. There shall always be missing pieces of information. There will never be a ‘theory of everything’. This is what is so inspiring: That anybody will always be able to make a fundamental contribution to the topic.

Why did nobody ever realize that if time stops at the event horizon, then gravitational waves would not be able to depart the black-hole?

That question is surely not hard to ask? Even someone from junior school could have seen that. The problem is that most people don’t realize that the most complex logic is just a series of many very simple steps. All it takes is perseverance… and faith in logic. The methodological perspective of logical positivism is an entirely different psychological state to that which merely memorizes sentences and numbers, regurgitates them, and then considers such to be ‘understanding’.

When Einstein was confronted with theoretical quantum mechanics, he notoriously claimed that ‘God does not play dice with the Universe’. While that is certainly debatable from many vantage points; if I could have the chance to say just one thing to Albert it would be this:

God is not schizophrenic.

 

This was an extract summary
The full Chapter 28 is here:
Gravitational-Waves+General-Relativity.pdf


See the article that follows on from this which includes
evolutionary software depicting General Ralativity:
Analysis of the LIGO experiment GW150914


Discussion here:
Cosmology Forum

.