Limitations of Relativity

We got black holes from Relativity; it was Carl Schwarzschild’s solutions of Relativity that gave us black holes.

Let’s step back from what Relativity says for a moment to recognize what Relativity is. Einstein’s Relativity was born of Galileo’s Relativity (better articulated by Newton… -that there are no privileged inertial frames of reference) mixed with the “constancy of light speed” (-that all observers see light to move at the same speed irrespective of relative motion); Lorentz transformations already existed at the time, the real innovation of Relativity was taking all observations seriously, making time and space malleable whereas in Newtonian Physics light speed would have to be… It’s not wrong! -The universe behaves just as Relativity says, to a reasonable extent.  It remains a profound and cherished innovation.  Still, let us make this very clear: Relativity is an outline of circumstances…the circumstance of no privileged reference frames mixed with the circumstance of light moving at the same speed for all irrespective of how fast they move relative to each other. These are very real circumstances that exist in our universe, and subsequently we can, shall, and do experience the implications of such circumstances much as Relativity says we should. However, our universe is composed of more than circumstances. Relativity is not talking about particles; Relativity does not consider what we’re actually made of (all the neutrinos, photons, ions, molecules, solar systems…). The extent of Relativity’s scope is circumstance; and yes, Relativity is an astute assessment of what happens in those circumstances, but it is by no means any type of authority on all macro circumstances. Relativity’s view is far too narrow to have the audacity to presume authority beyond its circumstances.

For instance, the notion that nothing can escape Schwarzschild radius after it’s been created, not even light because of escape velocity…   The problem with that is electromagnetism is an afterthought.     The theory considers only gravity; within the mathematics Schwarzschild Radius is formed out an idealized ball of gravitation.   It doesn’t work that way in the universe though.  The universe isn’t made of idealizations.   As explained in the TIME essay, particles are effectively light, in mutual association.  The particles of our universe bear both gravitational and electromagnetic traits.  Understanding the universe necessarily requires incorporating all known traits into our models.   It follows Schwarzschild radius is 10^36 times more a ball of electromagnetism than it is a ball of gravity. As soon as real particles are caught within Schwarzschild radius the particles lose cohesion and the radiative energy they’re comprised of is set free.  It’s going to produce gamma ray bursts [nova], not singularity*; robust understanding of physics as well as observation are both very clear about that.

*”Singularity” may be taken to read whatever quantum information fluctuation interpretation is being preferred at this moment.  Planck length hasn’t permitted singularity to exist within black holes for a while now.

Black Holes Do Not Exist!

Sure, system collapse to is a reasonable approach to the question of neutron degeneracy...
...however that approach is inconsistent with observation.
Presenting a unique understanding of "nova":


Time dilation is born of real, comprehensible, tangible circumstances...
Relativity is incapable of telling us anything about those circumstances because they exist beyond its scope.


Return to main page...

Limitations of Mathematics

"Modern Physics" means better than yesterday's physics...
...and we're coming from a place of perfect crystalline spheres and epicycles.
Limitations of Mathematics

Big Bang Theory

It was better than Steady State Theory...
...but it's not talking about our universe.
Big Bang Theory
Copyright © 2021 Rift Zone