Sithri wrote:Thanks for the reply crawler. I don't understand the math tricks, but I do understand the underlying philosophy. I can't possibly see why Einstein's SRT and GRT are held as cornerstones of thought when so easily philosophically deconstructed. Is it true that GRT depends upon SRT?
I aint no scientist, but. There aint no such thing as STR. Or, there is, about 100 ovem. Koz even Einstein changed his mind re STR say 25 times, stopping only when he died. And u could say the same re GTR.
And i doubt that any of 1000 Einsteinians believe the same things re STR & GTR. If they had to tick boxes re aspects of STR & GTR u would find that none agreed.
And all ovem would be wrong re every box anyhow, praps not wrong re the silly historic Einsteinian answer, but wrong re the true real actual answer. Hell, STR sits in a class of its own, a theory that was proven wrong
before it was theorized.
So does GTR depend on STR? Yes, but GTR changed STR. All a sudden STR only worked if not accelerating & if not near mass.
Einstein didnt need STR to help any aspect of his equivalence of gravity & inertia stuff (which arose from his observer in an accelerating spacious chest thortX). But then he used STR to help formulate his spacetime.
And Einstein didnt need any aspect of STR in his bending of a light ray crossing his spacious chest thortX. But then he used STR to help formulate his false 1.75 arcsec of bending of light passing the Sun (i say false because here he ignored the thortX, the spacious chest only gave only 0.87 arcsec).
Einstein was lucky. Lucky that he accidentally predicted 1.75 arcsec of bending, when his chest thortX gave only 0.87 arcsec. The only thing that Einstein contributed to this physics is that he correctly predicted the slowing of light near mass, albeit due to the wrong reasons (which is called equivalence)(having zero to do with that other equivalence of gravity & inertia). Anyhow the accidental prediction of 1.75 arcsec is the reason we are stuck with Einsteinology today.
I dont include the 43 arcsec per century swing of Mercury. That wasnt a prediction, Einstein merely worked backwards creating a wordsalad equation to give the desired result, its called fraud.
I should add. Hipparcos showed that the bending is indeed 1.75 arcsec. I know that 0.87 arcsec is due to gravity, ie a kind of ballistic bending (but different)(i can explain).
And therefore another 0.87 arcsec must be due to another cause, & this cause is the nearness of mass. Einstein was correct. But the cause is what i call photaeno-drag (i can explain), not gravity.