Falsifiability of General Relativity?

[webolife]

If the compression vector is outward, how does that explain matter any any level or hierarchy, let alone what keeps electrons in "orbit" about an atom?
If momentum is not primordial, what preceded it? I say centropic pressure! Plus energy. The same two elements of physics we see in play universally today.
Radial pressure --- you are thinking of an emissive model, pushing outward by...what mechanism? ...and what mechanism "holds it back in?" If everything is pushing everything else away, where is entropy?
Centropic pressure --- my vectors are also radial, but exactly the opposite direction, in [near]"equilibrium" with momentum, Newtonian in nature but always in cahoots with the centropic pressure vector. Since entropy is centropy, there can be no big bang, expanding or accelerating universe. What keeps your "radially pressured" universe together?

which is pointing to an omitted/invisible participant/variable. A big gap.

How do you fill your gaps?

[MotionTheory]

When there are gaps at derived/down-stream, check for gap(s) at the root: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_ ... _reference
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

To be shown (I will make a video soon), frame of reference for a moving object - FAILED https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

I.e. Classical; GR; Quantum; String; EU; etc Physics based on BROKEN frame of reference!

For about 9 months now ... I have the (instead of 'a' because I only has 1) theory for new frame of reference. Quite difficult to convey without first tear existing physics apart. This path is quite painful but perhaps necessary.

If the compression vector is outward, how does that explain matter any any level or hierarchy, let alone what keeps electrons in "orbit" about an atom?
If momentum is not primordial, what preceded it? I say centropic pressure! Plus energy. The same two elements of physics we see in play universally today.
Radial pressure --- you are thinking of an emissive model, pushing outward by...what mechanism? ...and what mechanism "holds it back in?" If everything is pushing everything else away, where is entropy?
Centropic pressure --- my vectors are also radial, but exactly the opposite direction, in [near]"equilibrium" with momentum, Newtonian in nature but always in cahoots with the centropic pressure vector. Since entropy is centropy, there can be no big bang, expanding or accelerating universe. What keeps your "radially pressured" universe together?

which is pointing to an omitted/invisible participant/variable. A big gap.

How do you fill your gaps?

Beating up a couple down-streamers

Steve Crothers: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015
Energy momentum tensor
https://youtu.be/QBorBKDnE3U?t=5m41s to 8m31s

Stephen Crothers: The Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity | EU2017
Lorentz transformation
https://youtu.be/6zWy6_Mog70?t=34m5s

[webolife]

Sorry, could you summarize how you would explain the beginnings of energy, momentum and the existence of objects that universally "hold together" versus fly apart a la your version of entropy?

[MotionTheory]

Your conjecture reversed direction of both pressure and entropy. It is fine, when direction of time is also reverse. Otherwise, conjecture failed by both: 1) open a bottle of high(relative to ambient) pressure air = after period of time, pressure in bottle dropped; 2) wait a ridiculously long wait time, this bottle won't repressure/coalesce into high pressure by itself.

Pressure has similar tendency as entropy.

Entropy, by definition and verification(via known systems), is the tendency of re-arranging a system toward lower energy configuration. It is easy to agree because it makes common sense, plus qualifiable+ quantifiable+ repeatable.

Entropy describes affect/transformation of a system. Interaction of parts/components of this system CAUSE this transformation. When entropy observed is impossible for a reverse engineered system, it meant - the reverse engineered system is NOT the actual/matching causal system.

Gravity is one of those impossible affect for all current existing(exclude mine) hypothesized/theorized systems. thus, wrong systems!

Let's go through an example. On earth surface, given a container/pond with 10km^3 volume of pure water and you saw cm^3 of ink dropped into the water. After a day... you see clearly inky-water volume contains inside a 4cm diameter volume. Well, this is impossible (statistically wise) unless the reverse engineered a system includes a 4cm diameter container/boundary (e.g. a flask). Gravity is the equivalent to coalescing all diluted ink back into a volume of pure ink. Okay, it is possible only when WORK put into this system. Since there isn't any work involved/introduced, hence gravity is another impossibility scenario in the current existing models/systems.

The RIGHT system (fundamentally) for everything must be closed and energy-conserved. 'closed' = a container with finite radius within xyz space (absolute emptiness volume in math sense). 'conserved' = system energy remains constant over time (for our purposed of understanding the universe, maybe galactic time scale is sufficient).

Sorry, could you summarize how you would explain the beginnings of energy, momentum and the existence of objects that universally "hold together" versus fly apart a la your version of entropy?

You might have misunderstood and or my post wasn't clear. I asserted, our universe is sustain by RADIAL AND CENTROPIC pressures at the same time in a closed energy-conserved system. I am working on a video to present this system - it will get done soon (hopefully *as it* rather moving the goal post to refine toward a *better than now* presentation).

Current physics models contained either Radial or Centropic = it is only half of the system! So, they need anti-world/another-dimension(s) fudge factors to balance the system energy for the corresponding equations.

[webolife]

Yes I did misunderstand just a tad. However your "radial plus centropic" is satisfied by my centropic plus [angular] momentum, which is essentially a tangential vector. Yes, absolutely TIME is the same centropic vector, which is represented nicely by the periodicity of orbital mechanics, ie. an orbital vector model, involving momentum, centropic force, and orbital period. What I am saying is that all motion is describable by these fundamentals, resulting in the observation that Newton's inertia is only ideal, and that Galileo's curved paths are in physical fact the universal order. This also affirms the finitude of the universe, as a fundamentally closed system.
To keep this on the general OP topic, this "centropy of time" is the downfall of the paradox of the twins, as essentially the impossible amount of energy required to jettison the astronaut twin on his journey leaves "time" out of the analogy altogether, and the wayward astronauts return to earth is also super-idealistically entropic, ie. he must "fall" back home at a rate that also ignores time. So imagining some sort of "time" warp to account for this is sheer exercise in futility. Or in short, the conditions in which the paradox could be tested are actually impossible. Clock adjustments made for orbital space voyages are entirely explainable by looking at the entropic requirements of the system. Plus some simple experiments can be done in which the speeding clock "ticks" faster than a relatively stationary one. Tie a string about the end of an hourglass egg-timer, and twirl it rapidly for a couple minutes. The timer is done, but the egg isn't. Apparently the egg experienced "time dilation"

However, you are still misunderstanding diffusion, as it is pure fact that material remaining and or displacing the vapors in your bottle is of greater density than the material leaving it. The mechanical force/pressure [or cold temp] used to contain the material originally in the bottle [or scuba tank, for example] has nothing to do with centropic or "radial". Entropy requires a net drop in energy in a transaction, so higher energy vapors escape while lower energy material remains or displaces it. The escaping vapors operate by diffusion, the opposite of entropy. Warm air rises only because denser cold air displaces it in a lower potential state. The cold air is entropic, the warm air is diffusive. A rocket blasting/thrusting itself into space leaves more material behind than the mass of the rocket in order to escape gravitational "pressure" [entropy] and achieve orbital "equilibrium." The material ejected is entropic, not the rocket. If filling the void of space was essentially entropic, space shuttles would have had to use more fuel to return to earth than to leave it. Entropy also eventuates orbital decay, not the increase of orbital radius. Another reason why big bang doesn't physically work. Essentially you need to add to your vision of "radial plus centropic" balance the realization of net energy loss [aka "falling"] in order to get your "vectors" in the right direction.

[MotionTheory]

...

There are too many unnecessary variables got throw in. Let's remove: electron, momentum, orbiting, tangential, so on..

Place 2 at_rest_neutrons close to each other - they will experience a net pressure radial/outward direction.

place 2 at_rest_neutrons far enough from each other - they will experience a net pressure inward/centropic direction.

Please describe a system/theory satisfy the 2 scenarios above. Also would be cool to explain/details what cause the pressure and even more cool to details how pressure act as a force and super cool to details how this force satisfy Newton 3rd law of motion and maybe we should hash this out in a new thread rather than OT this one

[webolife]

We can do a new thread if you like. I've discussed my ideas on numerous threads, some dedicated to just this topic. But before leaving, I have to challenge your "at-rest-neutron" assumption. We cannot satisfactorily describe physical phenomena in hypothetical scenarios. But to get you started, here is a one-dimensional diagram of two neutrons [could be any two "independent" objects] and their respective centropic fields:

--> ----------> p. <---------- | ----------> .p <---------- <--

Key:
.p = neutron [proton plus electron] ----------> .p <---------- = Neutron in its field
----------> = centropic field vector
| = "boundary" condition

Notice that the interplay of the two fields results in opposing force vectors at the "boundary" condition, all in the context of centropic pressure. A boundary does not necessarily infer an object, per se.
The "outer" vectors represent the possible net effect of the universal centropic field at this scale. Any transaction of these two fields will result in a slight net reduction of field energy [ie. entropy]. --> Centropy = Entropy <--

If a viewer is in range, "light" of some frequency*[see footnote] will be detected. See diagram in earlier post for reminder of the viewer's relative position in the field.

But at the same time this happens the entire field ray jumps with it, since it is just one [self-connected] field.
One field but containing in this simplification two objects, the activated electron at the source/center of the field, and the viewer toward the periphery of the field. looking at the whole event it would be like this:
D. X -----<--o<-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(---))<-------
This is a single light action event, initiated by the fall of the electron, but accompanied simultaneously by the fall of the field vector which pushes against the eye/retina from "behind" (this is what I meant before by "outside").

Now for a closer look at the viewer/eye/retina on the right, cornea(------------ retina)--back of eye):
E. X<--o<---------------------------------------------------------------------(<-------------)<--)<--------------

*frequency = not of waves but of the periodic motion/action of the the central object[s], eg. electron oscillation

[neilwilkes]

"In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time."

Generally accepted does not make it right. You can have 1,000 people in a room and at any given time 999 of them may agree with statement A instead of Statement B, which only one of them agrees with. Does the consensus make them right? NO - it does not. Sheer weight of numbers (in this case people saying that thus & so is correct) does not automatically imply correctness - merely mob rule.

[nick c]

"In physics, special relativity (SR, also known as the special theory of relativity or STR) is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time."

Generally accepted does not make it right. You can have 1,000 people in a room and at any given time 999 of them may agree with statement A instead of Statement B, which only one of them agrees with. Does the consensus make them right? NO - it does not. Sheer weight of numbers (in this case people saying that thus & so is correct) does not automatically imply correctness - merely mob rule.

Hi Neil,
I do not think that forum member "viscount aero" is still active so they probably are not able to respond to your post.
The "viscount aero" quote above is not a statement of the position of the poster, but rather a reiteration of the mainstream position on SR. Viscount aero disagrees with that quote and probably would agree with your response.
This is indicated by what he/she stated on another post on this thread: "I shall clarify: STR was falsified by the Hafele–Keating experiment."