This thread is devoted to problems with General Relativity Theory.
Problem 1
Part A
GR models are hydrodynamic.
But the real universe is atomistic and granular.
Therefore the GR models cannot account for he granular CBR and space.
Taken from A Critique of General Relativity, by Wasley S. Krogdahl, Professor Emeritus, Astronomy and Physics, University of Kentucky.
Part B
GR is too general.
What is general is non specific and lacks power over more specific models.
Hence GR is a weak theory due to a lack of specificity.
Part C
There is a lack of sufficient reason given for the cosmological constant within the theory.
The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction, and 2) implies an increase in gravitation between two masses which increases over distance.
The two points indicate GR concept of the cosmological constant is not well founded and concludes to a counter intuitive result.
Such makes the theory of GR problematic.
Problem 2
Part A
GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.
Part B
GR assumes symmetry, but has no underlying reality to account for the symmetry.
Yet the S-T symmetry is problematic, for "symmetries are caused by things and not the cause of things. If relativity is always true then there has to be an underlying reason. Attempts to evade this problem inevitably result in contradictions. Ibid, 124-5.
JM
Problem 1
Part A
GR models are hydrodynamic.
But the real universe is atomistic and granular.
Therefore the GR models cannot account for he granular CBR and space.
Taken from A Critique of General Relativity, by Wasley S. Krogdahl, Professor Emeritus, Astronomy and Physics, University of Kentucky.
A consequential objection to all general relativistic models of the universe is that they are hydrodynamic. That is, they postulate that the matter of the universe is spread continuously throughout. The real universe, however, is atomistic and granular. It consists of discrete objects from electrons and protons to molecules, planets, stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies. General relativity is an essentially field theory, not capable of accounting for the granular appearance of the cosmic background radiation or the vast vacancies between galaxies.6
GR is too general.
What is general is non specific and lacks power over more specific models.
Hence GR is a weak theory due to a lack of specificity.
The theory is also ambiguous in several respects. For one, it cannot say whether its model universes are oscillating, static, or forever expanding. It depends upon observation to identify which kind of universe is the actual one. This is not a telling objection, since appeals to observation are always in order for any theory. One may view such uncertainty, however, as a comparative disadvantage with respect to a theory whose model(s) is (are) specific.
There is a lack of sufficient reason given for the cosmological constant within the theory.
The positive value is said to be false 1) as derived from an acceleration of the space expansion which is a fiction, and 2) implies an increase in gravitation between two masses which increases over distance.
The two points indicate GR concept of the cosmological constant is not well founded and concludes to a counter intuitive result.
Such makes the theory of GR problematic.
Related to this ambiguity is the value of the “cosmological constant”. It could conceivably be positive, negative or identically zero (non-existent). A complete theory would ideally be able to give a reason for a particular choice. The cosmological constant is said to be required in order to account for a presumed acceleration of the expansion of the universe. However, this hypothetical acceleration is rather a consequence of neglecting to take proper account of time dilation in clocks receding at high velocity. The acceleration is not real. Moreover, a positive value would imply a force of gravitation between two masses which, beyond a certain point, increases with distance; this is a highly counterintuitive result.7
Part A
GR requires space time to be both a non substance, but with substance like properties. Such a notion is not logical, nor consistent. Yet is a notion within GR that is accepted. The illogicality of a space-time continuum that is not a substance, but has substance like properties is problematic. Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp 123-4.
Part B
GR assumes symmetry, but has no underlying reality to account for the symmetry.
Spacetime symmetries are features of spacetime that can be described as exhibiting some form of symmetry. The role of symmetry in physics is important in simplifying solutions to many problems. Spacetime symmetries are used in the study of exact solutions of Einstein's field equations of general relativity.
JM
Comment