# General Theory of Relativity

### Keywords

tensor algebra, Centripetal acceleration, Linear acceleration, time, fourth dimension

My opinions about General Relativity are still in a state of flux. It is a beautiful theory, but its basic assumption that acceleration and gravitational fields are identical runs contrary to my basic discoveries about the inertia of charges.

The Pure Charge Model tells us that all of the inertia of a pure charge can be accounted for in terms of the generation of a magnetic field of motion. Looking at a charge at a scale where we can see its field of motion, ( Yes I know we cannot actually do it. ) we see that gravity, linear acceleration and centripetal acceleration are three distinct things.

• Linear acceleration causes the field of motion to change in magnitude.
• Centripetal acceleration causes the field of motion to rotate
• Gravity has no effect on the magnitude, shape or orientation of the field of motion.

My second objection to the General Theory of relativity would be that time is simply not the fourth dimension.

My third objection is that nature does not obey mathematics. Mathematics can at best be made to describe some of the workings of nature. The mathematics of general relativity is like a secret religion in which the plebs are not able to understand anything, but must obey the priests. I personally can follow the reasoning through Tensor Algebra to the use of Chistoffel symbols, but shortly after this, my text book starts telling me the maths is too difficult to give in detail. The next thing I know, we have a differential equation conjured out of mid air with so many possible solutions that anything can be shown. My problem with this kind of mathematics is that I just cannot believe that the mathematicians are able to understand the link between reality and the mathematics.

My own assertion is that nature works through mechanisms. The success comes from understanding the mechanism and then describing it mathematically. Nature cannot do mathematics, she can work through the geometry of a situation and she can perform vector addition at a point (because this is fundamentally geometric). Nature requires outside help to create or destroy energy. Energy can change from one type of energy to another through a process involving forces acting through a distance. Newton's Principia is remarkable in that it understands this. The mechanism of a planetary orbit is a point to point incremental process. It just so happens that we can do the maths and shout ellipse, but nature knows nothing of ellipses or of their equations.

But having said all this, general relativity has a lot of parallels with my own theory of gravity. The difference is that in my pure charge universe, there are simple mechanisms and the mathematics which describes them is within the comprehension of an English A level, or US first year university mathematics student.

There is also a problem with the pure charge model in that as planets form from dust and gases, they form their own stasis and I have not yet decided how this affects the kinetic energy stored in their fields of motion. I have developed a stasis field theory to account for this, but I find it a little less appealing than general relativity. Another theory I have ranks third in my preferences. This allows magnetic energy to exist in tight loops within the fabric of space in an interaction caused by the massed (as soldiers mass) electrical energy density fields of a planet moving through the energy density fields of its sun and the rest of the matter in the universe.

We just do not know how valid the Pure Charge Model is in the real world, but I am am convinced that at least 75% of the inertial mass of a real electron comes from its magnetic field of motion. It seems to me most likely that real electrons consist of both electric and magnetic energy density fields and that both generate fields of motion so that the behaviour of real electrons is close to the behaviour of pure charge electrons. This still leaves a big question mark over the nature of the kinetic energy of a planet, a sun or a galaxy. I know how to resolve this experimentally, but it is a rather difficult experiment to perform.

All we need to do is to create an electric field and measure the magnetic field it generates. Because the magnetic field needs to be continuous, the electric field must be generated between two concentric cylinders. Movement of the apparatus parallel to the axis of the cylinders should generate a circular magnetic field within the space between the cylinders. Simple, but the magnetic field generated is very very very weak!. If the electric field is able to feel the earth's orbital velocity, we are talking about measuring 0.2 micro Tesla against about 50 micro Tesla of the earth's magnetic field. Simple, but did I mention that there is an odd half million volts per metre electric field present. The problems come if the apparatus fails to register. We would then have to try to see if we could detect motion within the laboratory by say making the apparatus the bob of a large pendulum. Then we would be trying to measure less than a nano Tesla!

See a simple account of the new Theory of Gravity
See a mathematical description of the new Theory of Gravity