1.0   GR’s version of gravity is the well and not the wave

    After investigating the proposals of General Relativity we realize that the 'official' version of gravity is the
    well and not the wave. The well is conceptually static. A wave is conceptually dynamic.  The rigid depres-
    sion known as a gravity well self-defeats a theory purporting to explain a dynamic universe (i.e., waves).
    There is little purpose for the 'field' waves relativity predicts if the theory physically simulates gravity with a
    funnel. Who cares if a ‘gravity wave’ or a graviton (force wave) or whatever takes 8 minutes to travel from
    the Sun to the Earth? The agent that relativity uses to explain why the Earth is attracted to the Sun is the
    well. The Earth allegedly rolls around a roulette created by the Sun’s ‘mass’ (Fig. 1). 'Field' waves can at best
    modify the shape of the well (Fig. 2 B). They are only incidental to the argument. Before they travel, our
    planet is already orbiting along an existing well that stretches from the Sun to us! Whether the wave is a
    force, a distortion of the well, or a ripple in the 'field,' it is supposed to be a dynamic entity traveling from
    source to target. An inclined plane (i.e., the curved wall of the well), on the other hand, is supposed to be a
    static toboggan that extends uninterruptedly from Sun to Earth (Fig. 2 B). These two hypotheses cannot be
    reconciled. If we remove the waves, the well can still explain how the Earth goes around the Sun in relativity.
    If we remove the well, the ‘field potential’ waves are worthless. Waves alone cannot explain how one body is
    attracted to another.

    Thus, the wave now joins the ‘field’ in the trashcan of history as a physical interpretation. The people at
    LIGO should look for new jobs. Assuming it works, the gravity well is now the only physical interpretation
    that relativity has left. Unfortunately for the mathematicians, the gravitational well analogy used in relativity
    to model the movement of planets also runs up against a few fatal hurdles. Let’s briefly review them.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 02/11/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008

    2.0   Einstein’s sandbox should not produce gravity

    Proponents of relativity allege that space-time is quantized [4] [5] (i.e., comprised of events, points, strings,
    branes, or whatever.).

    " The first theory is 'Sand' - little lumps. Quantum Mechanics tells us that light,
       energy, electric charge and so on, all come in little tiny lumps called quanta.
       So the Sand Theory reckons that when you get down to the micro-microscopic
       level, Space-Time will be lumpy - like little grains of sand on a beach." [6]

    This notion summarily renders the canvas and the well analogies moot. Relativity is not describing a
    bowling ball weighing down a trampoline. Relativity is describing a bowling ball stuck in a sandbox (Fig. 5).
    The elasticity of the rubber sheet of space-time (trampoline) tacitly invokes the force of pull. A universe
    comprised of discrete particles (sandbox) is condemned to rely exclusively on the force of push. The
    mathematician have yet to explain how a bowling ball stuck in a sandbox transmits gravity to the tennis ball
    farther away.

    3.0   Einstein’s funnel

    Throw a marble in a funnel and you will verify that its orbit accelerates until the marble disappears through
    the hole like crap down a toilet. Or go to your local casino and verify that the ball on the roulette does not
    roll on forever. At some point after the croupier throws it, the ball will come to a stop:

    " Roll a marble around so that it moves in a circle near the top of the gravity well.
       Notice that the marble keeps rolling in a circle but that it slowly drops down into
       the gravity well." [7]

    5.0   Where does Einstein’s well leave Newtonian gravity?

    Newtonian action-at-a-distance via discrete particles is a radically different mechanism than Einsteinian
    curved space. Why, then, is Newton’s gravitational law so close to reality and to relativity?

    Therefore, it is insufficient for General Relativity merely to boast greater accuracy than Classical Mechanics.
    It must in addition account for the widely differing physical interpretations that produce such similar results.
    Until Einstein's followers can explain why Newton's 'force' interpretation is so close to Einstein's at all
    speed levels of gravity, they are certainly far from understanding gravity.

Fig. 7   Bill getting squashed between the rolling Earth and Al's gravity well

Fig. 5   Einstein's Beach

Fig. 6   Mercury spiraling down Al's funnel
Al's gravity well 'predicts' that
Mercury will gradually spiral
'downwards' until it flushes into
the Sun. Observation contradicts
General Relativity's prediction.

Fig. 1
Rolling Bill

spiraling down an endless mathematical well
Relativity alleges that the Sun weighs down on the space canvas in its vicinity and
creates a dimple in the fabric of the cosmos. This depression is known as a gravity
well and prevents planets from escaping the solar system. Assuming the walls
lining the well are malleable, the waves that supposedly propagate along these
walls are irrelevant to the mechanism of how gravity is generated, which is:
ball-falls-in-hole! Therefore, the gravity waves LIGO is searching for have
absolutely nothing to do with how GR explains gravity. Without the well, waves are
worthless.
Fig. 2
The other problem with waves is that the
mathe-maticians invoke two inconsistent
explanations. One is the classical wave which
travels directly from the Sun to the Earth and has
no relation to or use for the well. Relativists also
use the curved wave which travels as a ripple
along the wall of the well. So which is it? Which
of these two irreconcilable waves are the idiots
of LIGO searching for? These people should all
be fired today! No exceptions!
If space-time is quantized, meaning that it consists of a sea of discrete grains (i.e., Al's infamous
'events'), then Einstein is describing a sandbox. There is no reason for one grain of sand to tug
on the one next to it when a star pushes it 'downwards'. If this weren't so, we wouldn't be able to
make footprints at the beach! Imagine putting your foot down to mark your print, and the ripples
extending to the boulder on top of the mountain. This is what Al's idiotic explanation for gravity
entails! There is no way to generate gravity under Einstein's proposal. Pastor Al's boys routinely
mix verbs (events) with geometric figures (points), talk about quantization (architecture), and call
it a 'continuum.' Then, they add as an afterthought that their Universe is really 4-D, yet they point
to a 2-D scenario (the well) superimposed on a 3-D object (the Solar System taken as a whole).
There are only two possibilities. Either
the Earth rolls or it slides along Al's
gravity well. The surface of our planet
must be in physical contact with space if
warped space is what prevents the Earth
from flying out of the Solar System.
Therefore, whether space is rigid or fluid,
Einstein's ridiculous explanation implies
that anything lying between space and
the skin of Earth should be squashed like
a shirt going through the rollers of an old
washing machine. Observation falsifies
this prediction of relativity.
flat space-time

    2.0   Is gravity inwards or outwards?

    A couple of equations that Einstein developed led him to conclude that the mass of the Earth ‘weighs down’
    the canvas of space (or space-time). Like his disciples, Einstein had to assume that space is a physical
    medium. The physical interpretation that Einstein proposed is conceptually no different than if you were to
    place a bowling ball on the canvas of a trampoline. The depression in space or sinking of the manifold
    called space-time is known as a gravity-well. [1] [2] [3]

    However, in space, there is no preferred direction. The Earth ‘weighs’ the alleged canvas radially. I cannot
    draw for you the idiotic relativistic proposal because I would have to put gazillions of wells all around the
    planet. I have only illustrated three of them consistent with the manner in which relativists routinely draw
    and describe the wells (i.e., pointing outwards, radially) (Fig. 3).

    Unfortunately for them, observation proves the contrary. A parachutist falls towards the center of the Earth,
    meaning that he slides along gravity wells meeting somewhere in the core of our planet (Fig. 4). If there are
    such things as gravity wells, they should be pointing inwards (i.e., concentrically). This summarily falsifies
    the 'predictions' of General Relativity.

Fig. 3   Gravity-wells
According to the idiots of relativity, the
mass of a celestial object such as the
Earth pushes ‘down’ on the canvas of
space and bends it like a bowling ball
would weigh down a trampoline. The
Moon then rolls around and falls into this
gravity well. Since there is no preferred
direction in space and we have to
account for gravity in all directions, the
gravity-wells extend in all directions. This
is impossible to draw, so I just illustrate
three such wells in Fig. 3 and show the
Moon rolling down one of them.
Fig. 4
Fatal problems with
Einstein's well
Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
So please, you stupid, gullible relativist, do me  favor...

DRAW FOR ME THE GRAVITY  WELLS OF THE EARTH!
However, if we want to illustrate why a
parachutist is attracted to the center of our
planet, we must draw concentric gravity wells
which meet somewhere in the interior of our
planet.  The parachutist in China and the one in
the US are both allegedly sliding down gravity
wells which end in the Earth's core! This
falsifies the 'prediction' of General Relativity.

    Relativity has yet to answer why Mercury does not follow these rules. If Mercury is a tiny ball falling in the
    funnel created by the Sun, why doesn’t Mercury speed up and spiral into the Sun or come to a stop as
    ‘predicted’ by all gravity well experiments (Fig. 6). If we factor the friction that relativity ‘predicts’ as a result
    of frame dragging (and which the Gravity Probe B project allegedly confirmed), Mercury should have long
    ago ground to a stop or disappeared into the Sun.

    Indeed, Thomson used a similar funnel argument to debunk Bohr’s ludicrous planetary model of the atom
    100 years ago. In spite of this, the mechanics continue to use Bohr’s planetary model and boast in their
    appalling ignorance that Quantum Mechanics has never been falsified.

    Just in case, GR cannot argue that centripetal (gravitation) and centrifugal (angular momentum) forces
    cancel each other to maintain orbital stability because relativity dispenses with force and argues that a
    curved wall of physical space prevents Mercury from flying out of the Solar System. There is no such thing
    as force in GR!


    4.0   Einstein’s roulette should squash you

    Another argument that the gravity well fails to address is that, if the Earth rolls like a roulette ball around a
    space depression generated in its vicinity by the mass of the Sun as insinuated by relativistic math, the
    crust of our planet would be in physical contact with this physical trough and would squash our
    atmosphere (not to mention us) as it rolls on it (Fig. 7). Let’s recall that relativists propose that the space-
    time highway is billions of times stiffer than steel. Indeed, if the atmosphere and every atom on Earth is
    enclosed within space, it is surprising you can move at all within such perfectly rigid medium. If, instead, our
    planet slides rather than rolls around the Sun, again the friction between the surface of our planet and
    physical space would generate sparks like a low-rider scraping the pavement. In fact, the Gravity Probe B
    project managers carried out their expensive experiment on the belief that the gyroscopes can detect and
    measure this friction. The skin of Earth must absolutely come in physical contact with the well if the well is
    to prevent the Earth from leaving the Solar System. This is Einstein's idiotic 'well' explanation for gravity,
    allegedly implied by his equations, and now conclusively ratified by the idiots at NASA and Stanford.

    Relativity also predicts that we should be rolling North-South like a wheel rather than East-West like a top. If
    our equator is more or less facing the Sun, our planet should be spinning head over heels like Pluto.

    If, on the other hand, the mathematician argues that the Sun pelts the Earth with Quantum gravitons, how
    do we reconcile these stones with our planet’s orbit and spin? The Earth has more than one motion: it
    spins on its axis while it revolves around the Sun. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incapable
    of reconciling these two motions with warped space or with gravitons.