What Creates Gravity?

I do not believe in SR or GR.. I am only exposing the logical inconsistency in the creation of SR and GR.
1.The derivation involves too many formulaes which can not be posted here for obvious reasons... space constraint.
2.However it is possible to understand it in simple English.
3.The homogeneous field of gravity is negelected in the derivation of geodesics(assuming flat space time).Instead the field of gravity is used to justify the transformation of space time from flat to curved.
4.The GR theory is a relativistic theory.It actually uses the concept of frame of reference for point particles... And that is ridiculous becuase it neglects the variation in geodesics caused due to negligibly small presence of non-homogeneous gravity.
5.It assumes that a gorup of arbitary point like particles can be considered to be in a state of rest.... Which is simply impossible becuase the no measurement can be made on such particles without disturbing the state of rest.... if such a measurement were possible then the Quatum theory would not have come into existence.
If all frame cant be assumed to exist to an arbitary small levels then the question of general covariance doesnt arise and therefore GR falls even before its first step.
6.In real world space and time make sense only if we consider the space time to be flat. Otherwise space time has no meaning at all.
A light moving in a stright line is actually moving in a straight line becuase nothing can be attributed to what can not be reached...

Another assumption which is widely used is that the Force of gravity is always directed towards the source of gravity...
The magnitude of force depends on the mass and the position of the object from the source of gravity. However it also assumes that force remains a vector of fixed direction....
In other words the "direction" of gravitational force doesnt depend on mass or position... which is totally wrong... infact with distance the direction should become less certain...
There is a simple principle behind it... as any wave moves in infinite space it looses its directional sense...(throw a pebble in water and after a sufficient distance it becomes difficult to define the source of origin..as the curve tends to become a straight line...just like the curve we see on the earth)
Therefore not only the magnitude of gravity depends on mass and position but also direction of gravity...
This fact is not considered in the gravitational wave theory...GR again fails to predict the wave nature of gravity.

Then you are an idiot and there is no sense talking to you at all. I saw a glimmer of a slight chance you were going to come up with something interesting in your last post, and maybe talk about whether we have true tests of GR or just linearised spin 2 gravity. But no, that was just wishful thinking on my part. You are sadly just an idiot. Oh well.

The experiments proved nothing new.
Infact with every experiment they prove that space time is flat becuase they use the coordinates of flat time space.
The GR equation is solved with reference to some standard solutions which may or may not be true...
And the results are only approximate..
Several other theories have been running parallely to explain those experiments.. most notable among them is Whitehead's theory of gravity.
It will stupid to look experimental coorelations when the degree of uncertainity involved is very high. The experiments only support a model or theory.. A theory never gets proved.
Therefore experimental discussion will only spoil the necessary skeptism required to discuss such matters.Again when we look at the theory we see that there is no force in the GR because all frames are inertial...
Any gravitational force which we see is due to change in the curvature of space time.
Einstein was mad. And that is the general public opinion.
Where is the curved space time ?

One more thing , the equations are made to behave grvaitationally by using a constant which reduces it to Newton's gravity at lower speeds.
The assumptions of GR doesnt inherently lead to gravity.

Define "force" A "change" in curavture??? What "change" in the Schwazschild Solution produces what we think of as the force of gravity? You have completely lost it, haven't you? Oh, you seem to have mentioned Whitehead at least a couple of times now. I smell a wannabee "philosopher" with ideas far above his mental capacity. Whitehead's work was indeed interesting, though it is clear you have no understanding of it. And sadly, it is completely ruled out on several grounds. Check out On the Multiple Deaths of Whitehead's Theory of Gravity coauthored by none-other than one of my original teachers and mentors (and general all round genius) Actually, the one time I was stupid enough to think that I knew something that no-one else did (and no-one seemd to be able to correct me), I took it to Gary and with one quick sketch on his board, he demolished my argument and taught me more black hole math-physics than you would normally learn in a year

GR is a postulate based on no simpler postulates than its 20 page equations.
We experience force everyday ... dont we ? Try to Jump on the floor and it will become obvious that curvature of space time doesnt propel you into an effortless trajectory... Obviously you are jumping against the inertial destiny of matter surrounding you.
The water in the dam falls under the force of gravity...
And the theory claims that there is no force. It claims that forces vanish when consider the space time as curved... !!
If such a space time exists then it exists only in mathematics and not in real world.Actually any straight line coordinates can be transformed into curvilinear coordiantes but does that change the knowledge of properties contained in the coordinate system..? No.
The chain of causuality remains entact... the magnitudes and directions of the properties might change...but not the cause and effect..
Similarly by transforming the flat time space into curved time space doesnt and shouldnt make the force vanish otherwise the causuality gets violated.. If a water from the dam fall then it is bound to produce a force to move the turbine.. without force the turbine can not move...
In other words GR claims that turbine never moves in curved space time becuase the gravitational force is absent in the curved space time.
Whitehead's theory explains all the experimental observations...except few , however the theory is not dead as the proponents of the GR make us believe.What I am criticizing here is not just GR but the general approach towards relativity type solutions including quantum gravity...
Curved space time can never replace the real physics because that is what matters.. Curved space time is an illusion created to serve mathematicians not physicists.
Curved space time is not a real coordinate system....
Reimann theorem states that only real coordinates can coorespond to real space and time..(rods and watches)
Curved space times is only the parametric representation of flat space time... the curvature is related by the metric of curved space time.
The metric can exist in any form ... and therefore it is used to adjust to the observed gravity...
Had there been no observation of grvaitational field then we wouldnt have asked the question... !!
The theory still fails to answer why this metric only ?
In other words why gravity ?
Why not something else ?(What is force ? Force is equal to mass X acceleration.. or you can understand it as resistance to any change)

The curvature of space time accounts for the gravity and not the change in curvature.
However it is obvious that the the curvature changes as we move forward in time...
GR doesnt claim to know all the time contained in the universe history... it only suggests possible scenarios depending upon the mass density and cosmological constant.. It doesnt rule out scalar fields..

Just to complete the discussion.
The GR transforms away the gravity by using curved space time.
The transformation is only mathematical because we know that Gravitational bodies exists for real.And without mass the transformation wouldnt have existed.
I mentioned Whitehead to illustrate a simple fact that it is always possible to construct a different differential equation of which Schwarzchild's equation is the solution. Whitehead need not be true.

I am unsure what you mean by "space is rushing away" but if you are in reference to the fact that the universe is accelerating, as opposed to collapsing in as would be thought because of the "big bang". but the universe is actualy accelerating in its expansion. This is evident when you start looking at galaxies and star systems that are further from earth. the further something is from earth, the faster it is accelerating away from us, and subsequently from the "epicentre" of the big bang. The acceleration is easily seen when comparing two galaxies that are somewhat near to each other in the night sky, and viewing both, the one that is further away will be experiencing more red-shift from the Doppler effect. and therefore is moving fastter away from us, and each more distant object we find is more and more red shifted.

GRAVITATION1. The surface of the expanding globe pushes us away from the centre of the globe in the same relation as we and everything else expand.2. Energy flows as waves between the atomcores of the globe and the expanding eneregybundles in these waves get hits towards themselves from the from the energybundles that open up from the atomcores. That is why they open up their energy towards the atomcores and move this way their kinetic energy to the expanding atomcores.3. There comes energywaves also from the space and these waves have energybundles that have had interaction with eachother by the energywaves that open up from themselves. From these energywaves that open up they have received themselves energyfields at the same principle than the centers of the galaxies have received energyfiels around them from the stars. So the stars have arised from the energywaves that come from the giant energy concentraions of the galaxy centres and can be assumed to be particles of a substance of larger size. This way the energybundles comimg from the space move their kinetic energy more towards the atomcores of the globe than the energybundles that move between the atomcores of the globe do.4. When one remembers that for example the energywaves opening up from the globe have interaction with the energywaves coming towards the globe, one can easily understand this theory. In other words to say, the energybundles that push themselves away from the globe clean / absorb with themselves the opening energywaves coming from the energybundles that move towards the globe. Now the energybundles moving towards the globe expand without pushing themselves away from each other. That is why a larger amount of them move towards the globe than would have moved if the globe did not open up energy as waves away from itself.The external pressure towards the orb is so based on what kind of energywaves the orb itself opens up away from itself, because the energywaves opening away make the energy in a way to bend towards the orb.The interior pressure pushing away from the orb is based on how massive small energybundles the piece itself opens up away from itself.The smaller energybundles are, the less they get hits from the expanding energywaves of the atomcores. The massiver and the smaller energybundles the orb itself opens up, the less they have interaction with the atomcores of the pieces nearby the orb and the less they move their kinetic energy towards them.Simply it does not exist any so called drawing force. That is why it is unnecessary to even try to make an explanation how the so called drawing force would transfer.

Yes, it is. Galaxies, yes, that are a significant distance away from us - well outside the Virgo Supercluster.Star systems, no, unless you are referring to star systems in the galaxies mentioned above. Casual mention of star systems would usually refer to those within our own Galaxy, and certainly show no signs of Universal expansion, nevermind acceleration of the expansion. I'm not sure what you mean here by "epicentre" - I appreciate that you place it in quotes, but there is no centre of the Universe of any type. The expansion always appears to be centred on the point from whereever you happen to be observing. This doesn't show the acceleration - it just shows that the Universe is expanding. The expansion rate could be slowing, and you would still see more distant galaxies more red-shifted than closer galaxies.

What?

Hi Change of Pressure,Your post is a cut-n-paste from the One Simple Principle website, specifically this page titled GRAVITATION. You've cut-n-pasted this text before, specifically on this page as a reply/comment to an article at ScienceNews, and possibly you are also "Move on" at Just a moment... who posted the identical cut-n-paste on this page.This is from the Forum Guidelines:

7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

This is the only warning you will receive. Your next violation of the Forum Guidelines will bring a permanent suspension.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This is my own text from onesimpleprinciple com. I dont understund why i have to write that again here? But ok, i changes my text little bit, are you happy now?Redshifting*
In a area between the expanding atomcores of the stars the photons push themselves away from the centre of a star faster than the atomcores. Relatively the expanding atomcores dont draw away from the expanding centre of a star.The photons that expand and open up energywaves make the photons in front of them explode all the time more than their energy according to their orbit of movement backwards.The energy of the photons speed up at the same relation as they expand. The movement towards the less thick area that doe not expand or bend.Old photons can pushing themselfs faster what they expanding/exploding or what they getting bigger. This is entropy, you know?This explains the common red transition of light. The common transition of light is a provement to a thing that photons do explode and open up energywaves at the same time.You cant see, hear, taste, smell or feel space, You cant make any test with space. Theory of expanding sapce is religion! is same if you believe, there is angel. Religion!