Table of Contents
- 1 Preliminary
- 2 The First Discrepancy: Single Geometry Versus Dual Geometry
- 3 The Second Discrepancy: Physical Linearity Versus Metaphysical Orthogonality
- 4 The Third Discrepancy: Light’s Deviation from Physical Linearity Versus Light’s Deviation from Metaphysical Orthogonality
- 5 The Fourth Discrepancy: The Strong Equivalence Principle Versus The Universal Equivalence Principle
- 6 The Fifth Discrepancy: Dynamical Relative, Physical Space and Time Versus Dynamical Absolute, Metaphysical Space and Time
- 7 Further Discussion
Subtitle: The Five Discrepancies between General Relativity and Gravi-electrodynamics
“… [physical] science has lured us into dark woods, but a new metaphysics can rescue us.”
Author’s Note: This article presents the comparison between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics as they apply in the macro world of large bodies, and it cannot be properly understood without the background understanding of these two theories.
Scientific history is the history of scientific theories and their influences on man’s understanding of the universe. For the past 400 years, man has come up with different physical theories to explain the universe. I call them physical theories because they are based on what man can physically observe about the universe.
Within these physical theories are two especially great theories called special relativity and general relativity. To me, these two theories and especially special relativity are the closest physical theories we have to the true operations of the universe.
Now, when modern physicists talk about relativity, they are either referring to special relativity or general relativity. Special relativity and general relativity are the two branches of modern relativity.
Special relativity describes the principles of relativity as they apply to uniform frames, while general relativity describes the principles of relativity as they apply to accelerated frames.
To bring you to a new emerging event of scientific history, I must inform you that special relativity and general relativity are the two branches of physical relativity. In this post-modern era of physics, we now have a new metaphysical theory of relativity.
This new metaphysical theory of relativity is called absolute relativity. It is called absolute relativity, and can otherwise be called metaphysical relativity, because it is based on what cannot be physically observed about the universe.
Also, like physical relativity which is also modern relativity, metaphysical relativity which is also post-modern relativity has two branches, one is electrodynamics and the other is gravi-electrodynamics.
Electrodynamics, like special relativity, describes the principles of relativity as they apply to uniform frames, while gravi-electrodynamics, like general relativity, describes the principles of relativity as they apply to accelerated frames.
So, the transition from physical relativity to metaphysical relativity is a transition of science from its physical basis to a metaphysical basis, it is a transition from the physical universe to the metaphysical universe.
Now, to inform you of what led to this article. Special relativity and electrodynamics are mathematically similar. The only difference between the two theories is in the change in their interpretation of their subjects or components.
In special relativity, space, time, light etc are all given physical meaning, but in electrodynamics, space, time, light etc are all given metaphysical meaning. Special relativity, like other theories of classical and modern physics, is concerned with the observable aspects of uniform motion.
On the other hand, electrodynamics of post-modern physics is concerned with non-observable aspects of uniform motion. However, as I have stated, both theories are very mathematically similar. The important change or difference between physical relativity and absolute relativity comes when we move over to accelerated frames.
For accelerated frames, general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics are no longer similar both in their mathematics and in their interpretations. This new discovery is particularly significant considering the fact that we have not been able to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics.
I want you to now know that in post-modern physics, the unity of the universe is realized because we interpret the principles of relativity metaphysically.
What has greatly hindered us from discovering the unified field theory is the physical interpretation of the principles of relativity, and not the conceptual challenge of unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics.
So, in this article, I want to show you the five major discrepancies between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics. You must realize that general relativity is physical while gravi-electrodynamics in metaphysical.
So, before I proceed to show you the conceptual discrepancies between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics, you must understand that the discrepancies arise because general relativity is a physical theory founded on physical space and time, while gravi-electrodynamics is a metaphysical theory founded on metaphysical space and time.
This is the prime reason for the discrepancies between both theories. The terms ‘physical’ and ‘metaphysical’ will run at important points in this article. What I am about to show you about the universe is deep, I mean very deep, but it is also profound once you grasp it.
You must, in post-modern physics, get rid of the limitations that accompany sensory perception and ascend to the higher metaphysical understanding of the universe. I really want you to understand all things, for this is why I have come.
The discord between both theories forces us to decide to either follow the old way of physical science or the new way of metaphysical science. This Post-modern era is an era of decision.
We can only find the unity of the universe in this new way, ignorance is the sad price we would have to pay for not following this new path. Now, the first discrepancy between gravi-electrodynamics and general relativity begins with geometry.
The First Discrepancy: Single Geometry Versus Dual Geometry
Both gravi-electrodynamics and general relativity extend the principles of relativity to accelerated frames, however, they accomplish that on two mathematically different geometrical principles.
In the theory of general relativity, accelerated frames, unlike uniform frames, move in a curved, physical, Reimannian space and time, but in gravi-electrodynamics, accelerated frames, like uniform frames, move in a straight, metaphysical, Euclidean space and time.
In general relativity, the presence of mass distorts (physical) space and time and gravity arises due to this distortion. So, Reimann geometry arises due to this understanding of gravity. However, in gravi-electrodynamics, there is no such distortion.
There is no such distortion of (metaphysical) space and time because of the realization of a second non-mechanical wave in the universe. This second non-mechanical wave is the gravi-electromagnetic wave, and gravity is simply the second component, after light, of the gravi-electromagnetic wave.
So, just as light which is the first non-mechanical wave in the universe moves in Euclidean space and time for uniform frames, so also does the gravi-electromagnetic wave move in Euclidean space and time for accelerated frames. There is no fundamental distinction in geometry between uniform frames and accelerated frames.
General relativity and the entire modern relativity, therefore, stand on two geometrical principles, Euclidean and Reimann principles, but gravi-electrodynamics and the entire post-modern relativity stand on only Euclidean geometry.
In post-modern relativity, metaphysical space and time maintain their linearity for all frames. This is a sacred truth about the universe. Post-modern physics now shows us the imposed boundary on the possible geometrical principles in the universe.
From the absence of this second non-mechanical wave in general relativity springs the obvious complexity of the theory and of all other modern physical theories. No credit is given to the continuum in all these theories. Now, these two non-mechanical waves in the universe lead to the two forms of space and time.
So, the possibility of founding both uniform and accelerated frames on only one geometrical principle which is Euclidean geometry is one of the benefits of the two forms of space and time.
On the other hand, in general relativity, we have only one form of space and time, and this predisposes general relativity to found uniform and accelerated frames on two geometrical principles, Euclidean and Reimann geometries.
Can you see the difference? General relativity is founded on one form of space and time and upon two geometrical principles, while gravi-electrodynamics is founded on two forms of space and time and upon one geometrical principle. I am showing the way of the unified field.
In general relativity, we have only one non-mechanical wave which is light, and consequently one form of space and time, and they lead to the geometrical disharmony of the universe. This is the problem of modern physics. General relativity regretably broke the geometrical harmony of the cosmos.
The existence of two non-mechanical waves in the universe and consequently two forms of space and time lead to the geometrical harmony of the cosmos. Euclidean geometry is the geometry of all reference frames.
So, general relativity maintains two geometrical principles for uniform and accelerated frames while gravi-electrodynamics maintains one geometrical principle for all reference frames.
Let’s now move to the second discrepancy.
The Second Discrepancy: Physical Linearity Versus Metaphysical Orthogonality
This second discrepancy is of a more subtle nature. It is quite puzzling that the two geometrical principles of general relativity are all in an attempt to preserve linearity for both uniform and accelerated frames. What do I mean?
In general relativity, we have two kinds of straight lines or linearity. The first is the normal linearity of Euclidean spacetime, and the second is the subtle linearity of Reimannian spacetime.
To assist myself to distinguish between the two linearities, I usually just refer to the first linearity in Euclidean spacetime as a straight line and the other linearity of Reimann spacetime as a geodesic, which is really what they are called.
General relativity attempted to preserve linearity or extend the notion of a straight line to accelerated frames for a very crucial reason which is justifiable when viewed through the lens of physical science.
Why did Einstein impose linearity on both uniform and accelerated frames? What is his justification for doing this? Einstein did this because of the obvious association between linear motion (for uniform frames) and the non-sensation of inertia.
And we know that bodies falling due to gravity do not sense inertia just like bodies in uniform motion in a straight line. So, Einstein assumed that there must also be an association of a kind of linear motion of accelerated frames moving due to gravity and the non-sensation of inertia.
The geodesic becomes the representation of this linearity which according to Einstein occurs in Riemannian or curved spacetime. This, to me, is probably the greatest genius insight to ever emerge from physical science.
Thus, the geodesic, which is the shortest distance between any two points or events in Riemannian spacetime, is the path described by bodies undergoing free fall. And the straight line is the shortest distance between any two points or events in Euclidean spacetime.
So, in general relativity, we find the association of linearity with the non-sensation of inertia. However, in gravi-electrodynamics the association is different. In gravi-electrodynamics, orthogonality and not linearity is associated with the non-sensation of inertia for both uniform and accelerated frames.
And in gravi-electrodynamics, orthogonality is manifested at the basic level of absolute motion, and not in the Euclidean principles of absolute relativity. Gravi-electrodynamics goes even further to inform us that the non-sensation of inertia for uniform and accelerated frames are founded on two different absolute principles.
The first is the absolute principle of inertia for uniform frames, and the second is the principle of non-inertia for accelerated frames. You will learn about these principles in this blog and also in my e-guide.
This realization brings us to a profound understanding of the difference between the relative principle of inertia in modern physics and the absolute principle of inertia in post-modern physics.
The relative principle of inertia which states that rest and uniform motion are indistinguishable is associated with linearity, while the absolute principle of inertia which states that uniform rest and uniform motion are indistinguishable is associated with orthogonality.
This marks the paradigm shift in the understanding of fundamental principles. The foundation of science has shifted from relative principles based on linearity to absolute principles based on orthogonality.
Now, even the absolute principle of non-inertia for accelerated frames is associated with orthogonality and not linearity.
This brings us to a crucial loophole in general relativity. This loophole is that linearity for uniform frames is associated with the (relative) principle of inertia, but for accelerated frames, linearity is not associated with any second fundamental principle.
Einstein Teaching General Relativity
In other words, where is the principle of non-inertia (for accelerated frames) in general relativity? This principle, which is associated with orthogonality, could not possibly have been found in general relativity which is dependent on linearity and is deeply rooted in physical science.
Thus, this loophole in general relativity is only natural because the universe is truly established on orthogonality and not on linearity. Linearity satisfies the conditions of physical science, while orthogonality satisfies the conditions of metaphysical science.
So, according to the second discrepancy, general relativity associates the non-sensation of inertia with linearity, while gravi-electrodynamics associates the non-sensation of inertia with orthogonality.
This discrepancy between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics further extends into the third discrepancy, which is based on the behaviour of light relative to accelerated frames in the macro world of large bodies.
The Third Discrepancy: Light’s Deviation from Physical Linearity Versus Light’s Deviation from Metaphysical Orthogonality
On May 29, 1919, an experimental test was carried out which proved one of the predictions of relativity. This greatly celebrated experiment proved that light deviates from a linear path when it passes through the gravitational field around a massive body like the Sun.
This experimental verification was hailed as the proof of general relativity. General relativity which describes accelerated frames informs us that light deviates from linearity in the presence of a gravitational field.
And remember that this is because of mass curves spacetime around it, and this curvature which is gravity, in turn, deviates light from a linear path. So, in a way, general relativity associates the deviation of light from linearity with gravity. Now, in gravi-electrodynamics, we have another fundamentally different result.
What happens to light in the metaphysical universe? Is it the same as what happens to it in the physical universe? No. In the metaphysical description of accelerated frames, light deviates from orthogonality and not linearity, and this orthogonal deviation is not due to gravity.
In the metaphysical universe, the deviation of light from orthogonality is not in any way associated with gravity (or mass) because in gravi-electrodynamics gravity is not the curvature of spacetime, rather it is a limit of inertia. It is important that you understand this.
Now, unlike the deviation of light from linearity which occurs far from us and can only be observed under rare conditions of intense gravity, the deviation of light from orthogonality is a pervasive experience in the universe that comes home to us.
Have you ever wondered why you sense inertia when you accelerate? This is why. You sense inertia when you accelerate because light deviates from orthogonality for all accelerating non-charged bodies.
Now, this is where it gets interesting! This deviation of light from orthogonality which in turn causes the sensation of inertia describes the weak phase of the principle of non-inertia, while the adherence of gravity to orthogonality which in turn causes the non-sensation of inertia describes the strong phase of the principle of non-inertia.
I can’t over-emphasize that you have to get your own copy of The Theory of the Universe, something is going on right in front of us which we cannot observe because of the metaphysical nature of the universe.
The Man in the Accelerating Car above Senses Inertia because of Light’s Deviation from Orthogonality
When we move into the metaphysical universe, we move into the domain of understanding, and in the metaphysical universe, orthogonality is elevated just as linearity is elevated in the physical universe.
The deviation of light from orthogonality causes the sensation of inertia during accelerated motion, while the adherence of gravity to orthogonality causes the non-sensation of inertia during free fall.
The deviation of light from orthogonality is an internal experience of motion which brings us closer to the understanding of the laws of the universe than general relativity can. The deviation of light from orthogonality is an everyday experience unlike the deviation of light from linearity which is an astronomical observation.
The deviation of light from orthogonality and the adherence of gravity to orthogonality are the two central aspects of gravi-electrodynamics. General relativity is not such an encopassing model. It is mainly concerned with gravity.
These two different experiences of accelerated motion are what lead to the weak and the strong phase of the principle of non-inertia. So, all accelerated frames are governed by the principle of non-inertia.
In gravi-electrodynamics, the deviation of light from orthogonality causes the pervasive sensation of inertia, and this is associated with a fundamental principle. This is very much unlike general relativity which informs us that light deviates from linearity and which is not associated with any fundamental principle.
The Man Free Falling above does not Sense Inertia because of Gravity’s Adherence to Orthogonality
In this article, we are comparing the physical with the metaphysical, and we are asking ourselves, which of these two theories describe the way of the universe? Which of these two theories is the truth?
In this post-modern era, science has gone beyond what is provable and what is not provable, but is now concern with what is true and what is not true. Scientific truth is now our objective. This is what these discrepancies between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics are all about.
Do we go with the physical or do we embrace the metaphysical? Nothing brings the clash between physical science and metaphysical science to a focus like the discrepancies between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics. Remember I told you afore that we are in the era of decision.
Linearity goes way back to the foundation of physical science, even to Newton’s first law of motion. In post-modern physics, orthogonality lies at its foundation and the orthogonality principle is the first absolute principle in the universe.
So, according to the third discrepancy, in general relativity light deviates from linearity and due to mass or gravity, while in gravi-electrodynamics light deviates from orthogonality and not due to mass or gravity.
The deviation of light from orthogonality and the adherence of gravity to orthogonality are inherent, non-interdependent behaviours of light and gravity in the metaphysical universe.
Now, let’s move to the fourth discrepancy.
The Fourth Discrepancy: The Strong Equivalence Principle Versus The Universal Equivalence Principle
While the universal equivalence principle is a progress from the strong equivalence principle, this fourth discrepancy seeks to expose and criticize the disunity between the weak equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle in general relativity.
Gravi-electrodynamics informs us that these two great equivalence principles are equal. They are unified. The universal equivalence principle of gravi-electrodynamics states that the weak equivalence principle and the strong equivalence principle are equal.
In general relativity, which is founded on the strong equivalence principle, the strong equivalence principle stands apart from the weak equivalence principle. But in gravi-electrodynamics, this is impossible in any way. Both principles are intertwined.
It is even my firm opinion that if Einstein had considered the possible equality of both equivalence principles, he would have arrived at the unified field theory, and would not have taken the path of general relativity.
But I think we must still give him credit, going as far as to identify and to distinguish between two equivalence principles in the universe was a very bold move, and it’s what an ordinary mind would have been very uncertain about.
The disunity between the weak and the strong equivalence principles is inherent in general relativity because of its wholly geometrical description of gravity. But the unity of the weak and the strong equivalence principles is inherent in gravi-electrodynamics, because in gravi-electrodynamics, gravity is an acceleration limit of the universe.
There is no way one can conceive of this post-modern idea about gravity and not realize that the universal equivalence principle as a primary consequence. The universal equivalence principle is the way gravity accelerates greater than any accelerating body.
Contrary to general relativity, gravi-electrodynamics informs us about the real field existence of gravity. Gravity is not a purely geometrical phenomenon in gravi-electrodynamics. It is this new field description of gravity that has provided us with the universal equivalence principle.
Now, let’s proceed to the fifth discrepancy between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics.
The Fifth Discrepancy: Dynamical Relative, Physical Space and Time Versus Dynamical Absolute, Metaphysical Space and Time
In general relativity, physical space and time are dynamical, in that they can contract and expand. This dynamical nature of space and time in general relativity was used to prove the expansion of the universe, and to even contemplate the possible contraction of the universe under certain conditions.
This dynamical nature of space and time partly begins from special relativity, where we find that space can only contract, while time can only dilate for uniform frames.
Now, in gravi-electrodynamics, what is dynamical is metaphysical space and time. This push into absolute physics exposes to us that for uniform frames, uniform space can only contract while uniform time can only dilate. While for accelerated frames, accelerated space and time become dynamical in that they can expand and contract.
In general relativity, the same form of relative, physical space and time apply to both uniform and accelerated frames, while in gravi-electrodynamics, different forms of absolute metaphysical space and time apply to uniform and accelerated frames.
Uniform space and time apply to uniform frames, while accelerated space and time apply to accelerated frames. This is the basic understanding of the great conceptualization and the qualitative nature of the universe absent in physical science.
Gravi-electrodynamics is not only concerned about the quantitative aspect of the universe which is the intoxication of general relativity and the whole of physical science, but it is also concerned about the qualitative aspect of the universe.
Bodies in uniform motion and bodies in accelerated motion do not move in the same form of space. This qualitative distinction between uniform and accelerated motions sets the distinction between the laws of motion for classical physics and those for post-modern physics.
So, according to the fifth discrepancy, in general relativity, physical space and time which both have one form are dynamical, while in gravi-electrodynamics, metaphysical space and time which both have two forms are dynamical.
I must once again tell you that the discrepancies between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics are the discrepancies between a physical theory and a metaphysical theory. Both theories do not exist on the same plane.
Gravi-electrodynamics takes us to a higher metaphysical understanding of the universe, which is where we shall find the unity of all things. This is what sets gravi-electrodynamics apart from general relativity. General relativity which is physical does not show us the unity of the cosmos, but gravi-electrodynamics does.
Nevertheless, and ironically, if you look closely at the comparison between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics, you will find that both theories are as similar as they are dissimilar.
In both theories we have geometrical properties, light’s deviation from geometrical criteria like linearity and orthogonality, we have equivalence principles and the dynamicity of space and time whether absolute or relative space and time, it all depends on the theory being considered.
This article compares general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics on the grounds of what is true and not what is provable. So, even though general relativity as purported has been proven, it is still not a true theory of the universe.
It all depends on the true nature of the universe, whether it is physical or metaphysical. And since the universe is metaphysical, general relativity becomes an unfit theory to describe the universe.
This is why, in a way, the discrepancies presented above are not just discrepancies, but the obvious divide between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics. Both theories are underlyingly fiercely contrary to each other.
Since gravi-electrodynamics without bias is the truth, we can now see why general relativity even though it is a false theory has being tenable for the past 100 years. General relativity is the closest a physical theory can come to the metaphysical laws of the universe.
However, I must point out that general relativity is an inverted description of the universe which is what the five discrepancies evidently show. In post-modern physics, and in gravi-electrodynamics, the true upright picture of the universe is restored.
At most, we can say that general relativity is the shadow of gravi-electrodynamics. This is evident from the subtle similarities the five discrepancies above ironically show between general relativity and gravi-electrodynamics.
These five discrepancies are not set before you so that you can choose to see the universe in two different physical ways, but rather so that you can choose to either see the universe physically or metaphysically. Both perceptions are contrary to each other.
Gravi-electrodynamics teaches you to penetrate into the perception of the metaphysical universe which is where scientific truths exist. You will not understand the root cause of these five discrepancies without realizing the physical foundation of general relativity and the metaphysical foundation of gravi-electrodynamics.
Euclidean geometry and orthogonality that run throughout this article are sacred ideals in the metaphysical universe, and in this post-modern era, the foundation of science has shifted from its dependence on linearity and its deviations to its dependence on orthogonality and its deviations.
Orthogonality and its consequences in the universe greatly simplify physics in a manner that cannot be achieved by physical science, which is founded on linearity. Science is in a new era of understanding, and the metaphysical has come to replace the physical, as we all ascend into the domain of scientific truth.
– M. V. Echa