There are so many Thunderbolts videos on the topic.
(Why do I even have to do this?)
But lets get into the list of FAILED tests of general relativity:
1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
Mercury is the only planet that needs a different formula for gravity.
Einstein's formula works here.
According to some recent simulations published on Natural Society, we get wrong
results if we apply the Einstein's formula to the Earth's orbit for example.
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
This is a clear fail. It only works in the plasma regions of the sun.
So it is actually a fail.
3. Gravitational redshift of light
This is a fail too. According to the GPS specialist Ron Hatch the frequency of light does not change at all.
What does seem to change is the time. But that might again be invalid special relativity.
4. Post-Newtonian tests of gravity
These are based on the above false results.
5. Gravitational lensing
Total bogus.
These are all rings of plasma.
We do not see it where we should see it, so this is a FAIL.
6. Light travel time delay testing
Same as 2.
Again did they fool themselves.
7. The equivalence principle
Gravity is constant everywhere and constant in time.
Irrelevant, but still wrong according to Sheldrake's research.
8. Gravitational redshift
Same as 3.
9. Frame-dragging tests
Hey, after using all Einstein's corrections gravity is the SAME as if it instant.
So the simpler conclusion is to assume that gravity is actually instant.
Interestingly they still uphold the myth of black holes and such..
10. Strong field tests: Binary pulsars
The electric versions are more consistent.
They totally FORGET the idea of electro-magnetic fields.
So it is a FAIL too.
11. Direct detection of gravitational waves
FAIL!
But I expect that a passing train will cause some new discoveries,
just like they had in CERN.
12. Cosmological tests
So many fails.
Expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation..
Shall we just skip this nonsense?
Not on wikipedia anymore..
13. There is an experiment where they looked at the speed of decay of nuclear material on different
altitudes. They found a difference.
But the decay of nuclear material changes in the seasons. We do not even understand that.
So this is rather a FAIL to understand radioactive decay, instead of any evidence.
Additionally:
14. NO evidence for black holes.
15. Theoretical inconsistencies.
16. Incompatible with the most accurate theory there is: quantum physics.
And my favorite:
17. Special relativity is slightly wrong.
a. the "photon" is connected with sender all the time, just like in quantum physics.
It follows the lightspeed relative to the sender. No timeshift-trick needed.
b. entanglement and special relativity mix up clocks.
c. Sansbury's experiment with light.
Additionally:
17. The specialist myth. Only people who can understand the complex math
can verify the statements made by general relativity, If you think that it is wrong,
you have to rely on other people to correct you.
This is not correct.
a. If a theory can only be understood by specialists, it is a broken theory. It means that
even the specialists can not understand it well enough to explain it in a simple and correct way.
The theory can not be used to create a better understanding of gravity, so it is broken.
b. The hilbert space is a very simple principle. The transformation of space and time,
are simple mathematical tricks. Everything of relativity is very simple.
So we do not need specialists to see through this facade of formulas.
c. A theory that contains singularities is by definition wrong. That is a simple
mathematical principle. It means that the theory is only an approximation of reality.
************************************
While I like to discuss about it and to learn more, we had other threads about this.
This threat is actually about Thornhill's presentation on gravity.
And I already stated that he builds a new theory on gravity, because the old one has failed.
Dipoles and gravity
I still do not agree with the idea that electric dipoles are creating gravity. I wonder even
if gravity can create dipoles. It would be simple to test whether acceleration creates dipoles.
If we rotate a disk we should be able to measure a voltage difference between
the center and the edge of the disk.
Of course this should not become a vandegraaff-generator.
Gravity and electromagnetism
Gravity is very very weak compared to the electric force, so the idea that certain electric interactions
might generate certain forces does not seem so bad.
Since gravity is related to mass, for this model to work, the proton and neutron should react
more than the electron.
So quarks and such should be much more interactive than the electron.
Because quarks do not necessarily carry a charge, this becomes rather difficult.
Because every particle has a spin, it is easier to link magnetism to gravity. But this still does
not seem to work very well.
Weight changing
The best solution would be to look at what causes differences in mass in materials.
Materials with the same amount of protons, neutrons and electrons can have different weight,
depending on their arrangement. In the nuclear fusion of deuterium into helium,
the 2 atoms become one atom that is lighter, while it has the same amount of particles.
This mass is transferred by the neutrino particle.
So logically neutrinos should have some deep relation with gravity.
