Inversion of General Theory of Relativity

Concerning the famous General Theory of Relativity, we could add the following.

While no interpretation exists for the gravity forces, anyone could express any personal opinion, that is any theory he had, without anyone else to prove that their opinion was wrong. In that case Einstein expressed the personal opinion that the gravity forces are created from the particles’ tendency to approach each other because of the curved space- time created around them.

He expressed his opinion to the student language with (basically unsolved) field equations, without of course these equations to have any affirmative value, or even larger value, from the spoken (through a text) expression of his opinions, simply they express his views accurately.

However after the set up of the equation, to the following results (precise special results and approximately general results) was given prophetic meaning and foreseen the existence of different physical phenomena.

Thats how the chain was created: subjective opinion for the gravity interpretation / creation of the corresponding equations / use of the equations for further foresights.

The weaknesses of the chain are two: First, nature doesnt know the equations, neither their answers, because it ignores the conventional human construction, called mathematics. Furthermore, it refuses to participate in any kind of mathematical prediction, and second that everything is based on the certainty of the first link, which is the starting case.

Already, after the discovery of the micro-field magnetic mass and the gravity interpretation with the abilities of the magnetic mass, the first and basic link of the chain broke.

The foreseen from the equations phenomena could happen or not, but when they happen are caused from another reason, as shown with the relative phenomena of the gravity lenses. That’s why we don’t believe that it is a valid reason the Shwarzschild (1916) answer for the existence of the gravity ray.

Not even that exists a negative mass cause of the H. Weyl and T. Levi – Civita (1917 – 1921) answers. Characteristic case of unfortunate foresight. And only for that foresight the theory should be rejected.

Not even gravity waves.

At these equations, nature is called to obey in mathematics and not mathematics to nature. Only equations made from the creator and not the student of nature would have such authority!

Additionally and after the completion of the main part of my work I consider worthwhile to investigate the subject of the General Theory of Relativity, as well as the way of creation of other strange forces and from a different point of view.

As we know when a force produces work, in essence the produced work is “borrowed” from the energy produced by the force. For example, the thermal energy of the fuel-kinetic force vehicle transportation. And that’s why nothing is spared in nature, nothing is wasted, everything is exchanged, everything is borrower.

If the gravity field was made and is made every time in a different point in space (while a body moves) this way, as foreseen by the General Theory of Relativity, with the unexplained curved space around the material bodies, therefore, in an inexpensive way, with no mood for work, then the gravity field would not include energy, it wouldn’t have dowry!

Truly, it is obvious that Einstein did not expect the endowment from Nature of the gravity field with some kind of energy, because then he would not suggest the General Theory of Relativity, but he should say that the gravity forces are caused from that energy. He should also justify its existence, which obviously he couldn’t do. So he suggested the curved, in other words, the creation of forces from “compressed circumstances”, as a substitute of the apparent absence of energy. In that case, the gravity forces though, would be unable to produce work, because they had nowhere to “borrow” it from.

Then we could fall from the terrace and reach the ground, with no injuries (that’s good), but simply we could change position in the curved space, and then the water falling from high could not produce electric energy, it would not even turn the water mill (that’s bad). Finally, they would exist two kinds of forces, the one’s that produce work and the one’s that don’t and in general we would live in a strange world, if you could please imagine it.

None of the above though happens, the gravity field produces work, therefore it includes energy. That’s something that it escaped the attention of Einstein. The forces coming from “compressed circumstances” are not verified.

The thoughts above are enough to make us think that something is not right with the General Theory of Relativity, even if we don’t know the exact energy nature of the gravity field, as I revealed in y research (a magnetic field’s energy is found), or the real reason for which the light is curved in space, which I also revealed it is different from the one foreseen in the General Theory of Relativity (it is found that is a simple refraction).


If we would like to extend the above preoccupation to all the basic forces in Nature, that is to find how they are produced, we will find that the problem is focused in the interpretation, except the gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces (and the following unification with other known forces), because it is shown, that they also originate directly from matter, without finding anywhere apparently the existence of energy amounts. The problem exists because of the false understanding or perhaps the ignorance, that exists on the Nature and the structure of the elementary particles, taken as a point particle or even a chord.

In the contrary the model of a ring particle, resulted from an experimental analysis and I presented, includes within the energy of a magnetic field, in which the size is inversely analogous of the dimension (radius) of the ring and therefore all the above forces are of a magnetic nature.

In other words, forces produced from energy in a way absolutely natural and known in Nature.