Yes, because the error is in the very foundation of the theory of relativity - in the Lorentz transformations. See Preprint Memoir on the Theory of Relativity and Unified Field Theory

Dear Ismail Abbas M. Abbas, since 2023, there has been a new way to understand relativity (see the attached paper). The relativistic equation denotes a longitudinal value C*t, but with what "t"? Minkowski´s time of events is the common way the community has handled this "t", a Ct value that always increases and is sensitive to the initial value selected, aside from its historic time dilation due to previous energetic surroundings. Planck and Einstein gave a crucial time "tau" (tau = h/E) in nature, an intermittence named "quantas". So, the novel way is to consider the 4th D as Ctau (energy wavelength), which embraces the 4D with the 3D space contraction, besides time dilation and mass increment. A way that unifies relativity with QM (see next attachments). Hope this paper will inspire in your research, regards

Those references don't seem to exist, or your are not properly citing them.

In all cases, Einstein's Relativity hasn't "collapsed", as opposed to what stupid anti-relativists like Lev Verkhovsky would like.

As I keep saying, if you believe that Relativity is wrong, then turn off all your modern electronic devices. These are full of components that wouldn't exist without Quantum Field Theory, which is a relativistic theory.

Additionally, you might want to look at this very new peer-reviewed publication that proves, once again, that anti-relativists are wrong: Article Einstein’s cat: a thought experiment on the universality of ...

Also, a 3-minute video abstract (also peer-reviewed) of the this new publication is available here: https://youtu.be/nxAPELzc8hc

_______________

“The hardest thing to understand in the Theory of Relativity is why so many people want to believe it is wrong.” (Val G. Rousseau)

The answer below is only a commentary and not a rigorous answer:

1- Minkowski was one of the greatest mathematicians, but one of the least physicists.

This is why his space is catastrophic and only increases misunderstandings and confusion.

I dare say that Minkowsky and all the other great scientists of the time did not fully understand what a space is.

2- The idea of combining the space of the Schrödinger equation SE of quantum mechanics with the space of Einstein's general relativity is ridiculous, because they actually constitute a single space without any need to falsify it (if SE is replaced by its square).

Cairo's theory of techniques naturally unifies the two spaces into one, and this is why it is the only theory of everything, or unified field theory. i- Able to solve classical physics PDEs in their most general form.

ii- Able to solve quantum physics PDEs in their most general form.

iii- Able to solve integration and differentiation problems in pure mathematics and derive statistical distributions in their most general form.

Finally, when I hear the name Minkowski space, I feel depressed.

@Jose Oreste Mazzini

Here is the status of Cairo's theory:

• Not peer-reviewed within mainstream physics: These ideas are published in IJISRT, which is not considered a leading journal in theoretical physics and falls outside major databases like arXiv, Phys Rev, or Springer journals.
• Speculative and unconventional: The claims that Cairo techniques are “smarter than Einstein” or complete unified field theories remain unsupported by broader physics literature and lack experimental validation

Also, about the author:

Lack of Academic Recognition

• No affiliation with a major university or research institute is listed in his publications.
• He does not appear in physics citation indexes, such as: INSPIRE-HEP Web of Science Scopus Google Scholar (as a cited physicist)
• No presence in major peer-reviewed journals (e.g., Physical Review, Nature Physics, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Annals of Physics, or Foundations of Physics).

🧪 Red Flags Indicating Pseudoscience

CharacteristicPresent in Abbas’s Work:

- Published in predatory or non-peer-reviewed journals (like IJISRT)✅ Yes

- Uses grandiose claims (e.g., “proving Einstein wrong,” “foundations of physics need to be demolished”)✅ Yes

- Introduces new physics theories without testable predictions or experimental support✅ Yes

- Work is self-published or hosted on ResearchGate, often without peer review✅ Yes

- Highly idiosyncratic terminology (e.g., “Cairo techniques,” “B-matrix chains”) used without external validation✅ Yes

- Lacks references to mainstream literature or prior work in mathematical physics✅ Yes

In other words, this is just totally worthless pseudo-science.

V. G. Rousseau

Here is one answer among many from physicists who know and understand much better than your famously mistaken modest level University of Louisiana

Please read to learn and educate yourself.

(Stephen I. Ternyik added an answer 1 hour ago.

Equation (2) is a detailed tensorial way of expressing the connection between the curvature of spacetime and physical matter and energy. It extends Einstein's field equations into a form that emphasizes the role of derivatives and curvature tensors in four-dimensional spacetime. It allows us to understand and predict gravitational phenomena—from planets orbiting stars to the expansion of the universe—by solving these equations. They form the mathematical foundation of Einstein's theory, unifying gravity with the structure of spacetime.@ V. G. Rousseau

A man from the University of Louisiana?

This man, with such low scientific knowledge and expertise, not to mention his inability to understand even the slightest new subject, claims to be a professor at the University of Louisiana, which is detrimental to the university.

He uses his imagination or hallucinations to claim that the Cairo Techniques theory and its B-matrix chains are nothing more than an illusion.

Now let's see how Google search supports this theory:

(The statistical theory of Cairo techniques, also known as Cairo techniques, is a numerical statistical method that aims to unify classical and quantum mechanics. It proposes that many physical phenomena, including those described by Schrödinger's equation, can be understood through statistical analysis using B-matrix chains. This theory posits that classical and quantum mechanics are not distinct, but rather different manifestations of a more fundamental statistical reality.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Unified Framework:Cairo techniques propose a unified framework for understanding both classical and quantum mechanics, suggesting that the latter is a subset of the former when viewed through a statistical lens.
• B-matrix Chains:The theory utilizes a system of B-matrix chains to represent and solve problems in various fields, including heat diffusion, quantum mechanics, and even mathematical calculations like numerical integration.
• Statistical Assumptions:The core of Cairo techniques relies on several universal statistical assumptions, which are then used to derive numerical calculations and rules applicable across different domains.
• Beyond Schrödinger's Equation: While Schrödinger's equation is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics, the statistical theory of Cairo techniques suggests it's just one particular case within a broader statistical framework.
• Applications:The theory has been applied to diverse problems, including: Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Analyzing sound wave behavior in audio rooms, highlighting the quantum aspects of sound. Addressing heat diffusion and other thermodynamic processes. Solving mathematical problems like numerical integration and infinite series.
• Rejection of Classical Physics Limitations: Cairo techniques aim to move beyond the limitations of classical physics by incorporating statistical principles and providing a more complete description of physical phenomena.

In essence, the statistical theory of Cairo techniques offers a new perspective on physics, suggesting that many phenomena can be understood and solved through a statistical lens, potentially unifying classical and quantum mechanics within a single framework.)

[Google Search]

V. G. Rousseau , V.G., the problem with your "red flags of pseudoscience" is that they end up discrediting any possible theory that is non-incremental.

If there IS a major new theory waiting in the wings, then in order for us to have failed to see it so far, it'll have to disagree in some major way with our current beliefs (see: Pauli's "Stupidity Principle": to have any chance of being correct, a new theory must look absurdly wrong at first glance, otherwise it's worthless)

That means that it won't be eligible for publication in mainstream journals, because they demand compatibility with previously peer-reviewed work.

So the author will have to self-publish or publish somewhere like RG. The associated claims will likely seem grandiose ("overturning current physics"), and will likely use custom terminology in order to avoid some of the "baggage" of current technical terms that won't apply in quite the same way in the new system, and so on.

The idea of a "magical checklist" for identifying crackpots was tried and discredited in the 1990s. Sure, after a lot of iteration, we ended up with a points system that could consistently eliminate almost everyone outside the mainstream that we considered crackpotty. Success!

The trouble was, that when we ran Newton and Einstein through the same checklist, they actually scored higher on the crackpot index than any of the people that we considered to be genuinely raving lunatics.

So you're using a discredited pseudoscientific assessment method that's guaranteed to identify crackpots, but also guaranteed to misiidentify anyone who is capapble of making a genuine non-incremental contribution as a crackpot. In effect, you're rejecting the possibility of anything that disagrees with current theory. And that's not scientific, it's religious-fundamentalism, masquerading as objective science.

So the only person you've identified as a pseudoscientist here, is yourself.

Ismail Abbas M. Abbas

Dear Mr h-index=(only 7),

> "claims to be a professor at the University of Louisiana"

For reference, my affiliation is real: https://www.xula.edu/directory//people/valery-rousseau.html

You are trying to claim that "Einstein's Relativity has collapsed", and my response is that there is absolutely no sign that it has. As of today, no a single experiment that ever shown any "collapse" of Einstein's Relativity.

Eric Baird

I was only responding to the claim that "Einstein's Relativity has collapsed".

We see these sorts of claims popping up literally everyday, and yet, not a single experiment in the last 120 years has ever shown any collapse of Einstein's Relativity. This is a fact against non-scientific claims.

A MAD man from Louisiana (V.G.R)?

---------------

This man, with such low scientific knowledge and expertise, not to mention his inability to understand even the slightest new subject, claims to be a professor at the University of Louisiana, which is detrimental to the university.

He uses his imagination or hallucinations to claim that the Cairo Techniques theory and its B-matrix chains are nothing more than an illusion.

Now let's see how Google search supports this theory:

(The statistical theory of Cairo techniques, also known as Cairo techniques, is a numerical statistical method that aims to unify classical and quantum mechanics. It proposes that many physical phenomena, including those described by Schrödinger's equation, can be understood through statistical analysis using B-matrix chains. This theory posits that classical and quantum mechanics are not distinct, but rather different manifestations of a more fundamental statistical reality.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

• Unified Framework:Cairo techniques propose a unified framework for understanding both classical and quantum mechanics, suggesting that the latter is a subset of the former when viewed through a statistical lens.
• B-matrix Chains:The theory utilizes a system of B-matrix chains to represent and solve problems in various fields, including heat diffusion, quantum mechanics, and even mathematical calculations like numerical integration.
• Statistical Assumptions:The core of Cairo techniques relies on several universal statistical assumptions, which are then used to derive numerical calculations and rules applicable across different domains.
• Beyond Schrödinger's Equation: While Schrödinger's equation is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics, the statistical theory of Cairo techniques suggests it's just one particular case within a broader statistical framework.
• Applications:The theory has been applied to diverse problems, including: Solving the time-dependent Schrödinger equation. Analyzing sound wave behavior in audio rooms, highlighting the quantum aspects of sound. Addressing heat diffusion and other thermodynamic processes. Solving mathematical problems like numerical integration and infinite series.
• Rejection of Classical Physics Limitations: Cairo techniques aim to move beyond the limitations of classical physics by incorporating statistical principles and providing a more complete description of physical phenomena.

In essence, the statistical theory of Cairo techniques offers a new perspective on physics, suggesting that many phenomena can be understood and solved through a statistical lens, potentially unifying classical and quantum mechanics within a single framework.)

V. G. Rousseau " and yet, not a single experiment in the last 120 years has ever shown any collapse of Einstein's Relativity. "

Wow. You really don't know this subject very well, do you?

Please, spend some time browsing the Einstein online archives, and educate yourself.

Einstein never got his general theory to work properly, and in 1950, rejected the original SR-based 1916/1917 architecture, saying that he no longer believed that the concept of a non-gravitational physics (SR!) was valid, or that we should use an inherently non-gravitational theory to derive the base relationships for for a theory of gravitation.

In about 1952, researchers realised that if we assume that SR is correct for relative velocities, it also has to be correct for relative accelerations, which means that the problem of a forcibly-accelerated body remains a problem in flat spacetime, and accelerating a mass can't possibly warp the metric. ...

... which invalidates Einstein's general theory, because the GPoR relies on accelerated matter warping the metric. Without accelerative gravitomagnetism, we can't implement a general theory of relativity.

So Einstein's attempt at a general theory, which tried to incorporate both the SR equations and the GPoR, was always a geometrical impossibility.

And then in 1960, the community also realised that in rotating-body problems, the SR math was incompatible with the PoE. Which is hardly surprising with hindsight, because the whole basis of special relativity -- inertial mass without gravitational mass --- violated the PoE from the outset.

As Einstein pointed out, you can't have gravitational waves in a theory based on SR, because SR's energetics don't take anything "gravitational" into account, and are already balanced before we try to model g-waves. So there's nowhere for the required energy to come from. Einstein also objected to g-waves because he believed that physics should be perfectly time-symmetrical, and g-waves removed energy from a system in forward time, and added energy in reversed time. SR required symmetry.

So if LIGO is correct, and g-waves are real, then the SR foundation of modern physics is wrong.

Similarly, since the SR relationships rule out the possibility of gravitomagentism, Gravity Probe B, while it might validate arguments based on the "gravitational" side of GR1916, also invalidate the idea that the SR equations are the underlying equations of motion.

So that's two nice modern experiments that invalidate Einstein's system.

Oh, a third: the famous Pound-Rebka-Snider gravity-shift tests. Their Mossbauer-based hardware was supposed to be recoil-free, but when they actually built it, it showed a bad thermal redshift, forcing them to improvise a cryogenic cooling system. The redshift caught them out, because according to Einstein's theory, it wasn't supposed to exist. Einstein had already mentioned a hypothetical thermal redshift effect as meaning that the whole system would need to be rewritten. And then the Harvard team went and found it.

Because nobody had expected this sort of a thermal redshift, it invalidated decades of serious experimental work on attempting to measure gravitational shifts in starlight, because stars are rather hot, and suddenly there was this new thermal effect that nobody had factored into their calculations.

You can find a partial list of problems with Einstein's GR here:

Preprint Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity

Einstein's 1916 theory lasted less than a year before he had to change it (1917), and the 1917 version was the one that predicted that we'd never see any distance-dependent cosmological redshifts. So GR1917 was experimentally disproved in 1929 by the Hubble redshift result. We responded by chnaging GR again, and deleting Einstein's 1917 Lambda (Einstein: "the biggest blunder of my life"). But by doing that, the geometrical incompatibilities with GR1916 that Lambda was supposed to solve, came back again, and have never been fixed, since.

Anyone who tells you that nobody's ever found any serious problems with Einstein's system is either ignorant, naive, brainwashed, a bullshitter, or just plain lying to you. I'm quite serious.

If you don't believe me, believe Einstein.

Eric Baird

Telling bullshit won't make you right!

The problem for low level IQ is to distinguish error from incompleteness.

The author asserts and proves that special [1]and general relativity are incomplete, but their results aren't false, and showed that the proof of Einstein is disastrous.

We have little hope that you can understand our basic assumption or what we are saying, because it requires more intelligence than you have.

On the other hand, there's no hope that this ignorant and eccentric man from Louisiana will be able to do so.

Eric Baird

1-Author, A Rigorous Reformulation of Einstein's Proof of Special Relativity, 2022

The West is losing the scientific battle in all fields of physics and mathematics.

Thousands of superficial research projects are being conducted in artificial intelligence, without understanding its strict definition.

Thousands of superficial research projects in quantum mechanics, without understanding its definition.

Thousands of superficial research projects on Einstein's theory of general relativity, without understanding its stress-strain tensor.

Etc.

That's the bad news.

The good news is that the West can be saved, but it's now or never.

The West can only be saved by adopting the statistical theory of the Cairo technique as the universal and benchmark theory for all subjects.

This theory requires years to master its three prerequisites in the 4D unitary x-t space:

1- A perfect knowledge and understanding of all the universal laws of physics;

2- Thorough knowledge and understanding of transition probability and transition matrix chains;

3- Proficiency in algorithms and programming languages such as C++ and Fortran.

The requirements and conclusions of the theory of B-matrix techniques are presented in Figure 1.

📷

Fig. 1. Diagram of the theory and practice of Cairo techniques.

V. G. Rousseau : " Telling bullshit won't make you right! "

Specifics, VG, specifics. Simply waving vaguely at a set of arguments and a paper that gives them (and more) in more detail, with lots more references, and characterising it as "bullshit", without pointing out a single identifying error ... is itself bullshit.

You seem to be establishing a pattern here of accusing other people of doing whatever you happen to be doing at the moment. Would you by any chance be a MAGA supporter? ;)

V. G. Rousseau ... by the way, welcome to ResearchGate.

What you'll notice about RG, is that what you get out is based on what you put in. We try to be a meritocracy that rewards helpfulness and frowns on empty posturing and pomposity.

Everybody who starts here initially gets the benefit of the doubt: a positive "credit" for credibility that's not based on who they might be in the outside world. What you do with that initial credibility is up to you.

If you try to provide useful and relevant answers, and can defend your position using logic, geometry, evidence, and/or rational argument, then your "stock" goes up, and people will tend to treat your point of view courteously, even if they completely disagree with it.

On the other hand the RG physics community here has a low tolerance-threshold for corporate-style bullshit.

This, unfortunately, means that we get fewer academics than we'd like, partly because some academics seem to spend their entire careers bullshitting, and never being called on it by their students or colleagues. Some folks are used to getting automatic deference purely because of their place in the hierarchy, and that doesn't work here.

So when they are dunked into a genuinely intellectually Darwinian environment, where sloppy thinking gets you an automatic demotion, and public stupidity earns ridicule, it must be a real culture shock.

On the plus side, we try to have short memories, and try not to hold grudges, so if you have a bad start here, but apologise and start over, we'll try to respect the fact that you are at least making an effort to fit in.

Hi Ismail Abbas M. Abbas !

I notice that you haven't provided any clickable links to your research.

If you want people to read your work (a specific new paper), you need to link it, and/or give the URL, and/or the doi, or some other unique identifier. If you have paper open in your browser on ResearchGate, and you copy the URL into a post, RG will turn it into a special RG link.

I'm very happy to look over your main paper, but you need to actually point me directly to where I can find it! I'm not going to spend ten minutes Googling for it, and then wonder whether I'm reading the correct version.

It is funny to see all those stupid anti-relativists who use modern electronics devices to post all their bullshit, ignoring that these electronic devices would not exist without Einstein's Relativity since they all include components that are based on QFT.

(It is even funnier to think that those losers who read this are going to hurry and do some Google searches to check that what I just said is true.)

The problem for people with low IQs, like this ignorant and impolite man from Louisiana, is distinguishing error from incompleteness.

The author asserts and proves that special relativity [1] and general relativity are incomplete, but that their results are not false, and has demonstrated that Einstein's proof is disastrous.

We have little hope that this retarded man from Louisiana can understand our basic assumption or what we are saying, as it requires intelligence beyond his own.

On the other hand, there is no hope that such an ignorant and eccentric Louisianan will ever be polite.

V. G. Rousseau

1-Author, A Rigorous Reformulation of Einstein's Proof of Special Relativity, 2022

This is a great example:

Can you derive and explain Einstein's general relativity in one page?

Yes.

1- The deformation is not scalar (only one component).

The deformation has 16 components.

The deformation in a 4D unit x-t space is composed of 16 components called curvature.

Cxy Cxy Cxz Cxt

Cyx Cyy Cyz Cyt

Czx Czy Czz Czt

Ctx Cty Ctz Ctt  . . . . . . . (1)

It is called the deformation or curvature matrix/tensor C.

Stress is not a force/area scalar (a single component).

Stress tensor has 16 components.

Stress in a 4D unit x-t space is composed of 16 components, called stress tensors.

∇2xx  ∇2xy  ∇2xz ∇2xt U(x,y,z,t)

∇2yx  ∇2yy  ∇2yz ∇2yt U(x,y,z,t)

∇2zx  ∇2zy  ∇2zz ∇ zt U(x,y,z,t)

∇2tx  ∇2ty ∇ 2tz   ∇2tt U(x,y,z,t)

. . . . (2)

Where ∇2 xx= ,d^2U/d^2x )partial and ∇2 xy=d^2U/dxdy)partial  , .........etc

This is called the stress matrix/tensor B.

The Lorentz law in x,y,z,t which is a universal law of physicist meaning the the 4D unitary x-t space is preserved, which implies,

B . A = I . . . . . (3)

Equation 3 is equivalent to Einstein's stress-strain tensor, and even more precise!

Contrary to Einstein,

Contrary to Einstein, stress or energy density, like gravity, causes space to curve, not the other way around.

How to find a simple solution to equation 3?

1- It is clear that the curvature components are symmetric (Cij = Cji) and the shear components are zero in free space.

2- It is also clear that the stress tensor components are symmetric (∇2 xy = ∇2 yx, etc.).

3- The principal components of the diagonal entries are equal.

We then obtain the resulting equation:

Ctt = constant .G /C^2. . ∇2tt near the surface of the Sun. (4)

where G is the universal gravitational constant and C is the speed of light.

Replacing the mass of the Sun with the correct value in kg, and its radius with its proper value in meters, we obtain

Ctt = 1 E-9 m^-1,

the same value concluded by Einstein in 1915.

V. G. Rousseau : " ... these electronic devices would not exist without Einstein's Relativity since they all include components that are based on QFT. "

Einsteinian relativity is not compatible with either QFT or CFT.

QFT incompatibility:

If we have a moving massed particle, the uncertainty principle blurs the position of the mass and momentum into a mass-probability field and a momentum-probability field (Namsrai). The correspondence principle then requires any compatible classical theory to have classical counterparts, a mass field and a momentum field.

• The mass-field is the particle's standard static inertial-gravitational field.
• The momentum-field is the particle's spacetime orientation field, and also the particle's velocity-dependent gravitomagnetic field (v-GM). Geometrically, it's implemented as a proximity-dependent tilt of the particle's gravity-well that at minimal distance aligns it with the massed particle's worldline.

This v-GM field component, essential for agreement with QM, is incompatible with special relativity. Special relativity (Lorentzian relativity, with its characteristics borrowed from Lorentz aether theory) requires the presence and motion of matter to have zero effect on a region's lightbeam geometry. If we allow the existence of a momentum field, we switch from Lorentzian relativity to Hertzian relativity, which has some different mathematics.

Hertzian relativity is far more compatible with the GPoR than Lorentzian. But Einstein was emotionally and professionally committed to the Lorentzian narrative, so that's what he based GR1916 on. And that's why why the bloody thing doesn't work.

SR is a "perfect system", but is not properly extensible (except by manually and artificially "welding" external results onto it). As Feynman pointed out, it is a defining characteristic of a perfect system that you can't change or modify or extend it. It's already finished, if you want to tinker, you have to throw the thing away, and start over, and create a brand new perfect system. If QM is correct, then SR is "wrong physics", and GR1916 is "wrong physics" for including an SR component.

We can still have a general theory of relativity, but not Einstein's version.

CFT incompatibility:

If we accept that the external mass-field of a massed particle represents the particle's spatial extension (Einstein), then if the motion of a mass is associated with momentum, the motion of a mass-field should be associated with a momentum-field. It would be pretty perverseif a moving mass-field didn't have a similarly-distributed momentum, if mass-distribution in a moving system didn't affect mometum-distribution.

But this is what we are asked to accept and internalise, because the core SR relationships don't survive the introduction of momentum fields.

Given that the PoE requires all inertial masses to also be gravitational masses, and to have mass-fields, the only logical ways that we can avoid disproving the SR equation-set under a classical field theory woudl seem to be either by declaring either that SR is only valid in universes where gravity does not exist (i.e. not ours) or declaring that SR can only be valid in the absence of matter.

However, as Einstein pointed out in the context of the hole problem, if you have an absence of matter, and nothing to watch, and nobody to do the watching, and no actual observations being made that need relativising, then your description is not a description of physics, relativistic or otherwise.

SR then becomes a null description, a geometry derived from the simplifying assumption of flat empty space, whose results can only be correct for flat empty space. As a physics, SR then literally applies to nothing.

Y'all are aware that nobody reads your propaganda anymore, right?

V. G. Rousseau ... so your response to a set of reasoned scientific-logical-geometrical-mathematical arguments that suggest that your position may be wrong ... is a one-liner that addresses nothing in the reply, but tries to generate an emotional response, and includes the word "propaganda".

Are you SURE that you're not a MAGA supporter? ;)

----

If you want to participate on a world-wide scientific forum, it's advisable to try to actually post some scientific arguments and responses, and not just sink to the "Yo momma ..." level. Otherwise, all you are achieving is the trashing of your own reputation, and by association, making the mainstream physics community look like a bunch of boors.

As I've mentioned, we don't have as many active currently-employed academics here as we'd like. This means that your actions here will reflect disproportionately-strongly on the reputation of your colleagues. You are, to an extent, representing the ethical standards and scientific attitudes of current physics academia. At the moment that you post, you are their voice.

Try not to make them look like idiots.

Paul Dirac wrote: "It appears as one of the fundamental principles of Nature that the equations expressing basic laws should be invariant under the widest possible group of transformations" (Long range forces and broken symmetries, Proc. R. Soc. Lond., A 333, 403-418, 1973).

The erroneous equating of the scale factor to unity has led to a narrowing of the group underlying mathematical physics -- from conformal (15 parameters) to linear-orthogonal (10 parameters). The conformal group will link physics with projective geometry, the Erlangen approach -- with their interesting, rich in content structures and interrelations

Definition of the components of time and the collapse of Einstein's theories of relativity.

A correct definition of the components of time leads to the collapse of Einstein's theories of relativity.

In the three-dimensional geometric space x, y, z, and with real time t as the external controller, all of physics and mathematics are incomplete, even ill-defined.

For example, the Laplacian operator ∇2 is defined as follows:

∇2=∇2xx +∇2yy +∇2zz

which is incomplete and ill-defined.

Similarly, the (thermal) diffusivity D is defined as follows:

D=k/Roh .C in normal convention.

which is also incomplete and ill-defined.

In contrast, in the four-dimensional unitary space xyzt, ∇2 is defined as follows:

∇2 = ∇2xx + ∇2yy + ∇2zz + ∇2tt

It is this last term that determines the curvature of space in Einstein's general relativity and defines the world of quantum mechanics from that of classical physics.

For example, Einstein's general relativity is nothing other than the universal Lorentz law, that is, the conservation of four-dimensional unitary space in free fall (Dirichlet boundary conditions = 0).

The above theory induces Einstein's general relativity in a single sentence. In the matrix/tensor formulation,

∇2xx ∇2xy ∇2xz ∇2xt

∇2yx ∇2yy ∇2yz ∇2yt

∇2zx ∇2zy ∇2zz ∇2zt

∇2tx ∇2ty ∇2tz ∇2tt

x

Cxx Cxy Cxz Czt

Cyx Cyy Cyz C yt

Czx Czy Czz C zt

Ctx Cty Ctz C tt

= I(unit matrix)

where C is the curvature of geometric space.

The last equation is itself the Eistein equation of general relativity.

Note that the above discussion is completed with the information field rule:

No distribution without permission.

The theory of general relativity is essentially defined by the energy density U(x,y,z,t) and the four-dimensional unitary space xyzt, in two distinct ways:

1- The geometric space xyz is infinite, and time t is integrated into it as a continuous spatial variable.

This is Einstein's classical theory of relativity from 1915, which we consider incomplete and sometimes misleading.

2- The modern theory of general relativity proposed by the author in 2020, which is more precise and complete.

In any case, the theory of general relativity is defined by the following matrix/tensor equation:

[The proposed theory induces Einstein's general relativity in a single sentence. In the matrix/tensor formulation],

∇2xx ∇2xy ∇2xz ∇2xt

∇2yx ∇2yy ∇2yz ∇2yt

∇2zx ∇2zy ∇2zz ∇2zt

∇2tx ∇2ty ∇2tz ∇2tt

What is the energy density of space-time!

x

Cxx Cxy Cxz Czt

Cyx Cyy Cyz C yt

Czx Czy Czz C zt

Ctx Cty Ctz C tt

= I(unit matrix)

where C is the curvature of geometric spacetime.

. . . . (1)

Einstein's fatal error was to invert equation 1, a flawed process that asserts that curvature creates gravity and not the other way around.

Equation 1 shows how and why the energy field of sound waves cause space-time to bend in a similar way to general relativity.

The Hidden and Little-Known History of Physics and Mathematics:

1- The universal law of physics:

U(x,y,z,t+dt)=B. U(x,y,z,t) . . . . (1)

in a control volume bounded by Dirichlet boundary conditions is rarely mentioned.

where B is the well-defined transition matrix and U(x,y,z,t) the energy density vector field.

Note that the quantum theory of transition matrices Q is intrinsically included in Equation 1 by simple substitution Q=SQRT(B).

2- It can be argued that Universal Law 1 is not only extremely important, but that it is the only universal law.

In other words, any other universal law can be derived from Equation 1, or be a subset of it. 3- Consider the intensity of the sound field and its reverberation time:

TR = 4 V / 6 A S C. . . (2)

Derived experimentally by W. Sabin a hundred years ago.

No physicist or mathematician has dared to address equation 2 in the last hundred years, and will not be able to do so in the next hundred years, simply because it is a universal law of physics or a subset of equation 1.

3- The solution found for the first time from equation 1 follows simply from:

∇2xx ∇2xy ∇2xz ∇2xt

∇2yx ∇2yy ∇2yz ∇2yt

∇2zx ∇2zy ∇2zz ∇2zt

∇2tx ∇2ty ∇2tz ∇2tt

x

Cxx Cxy Cxz Czt

Cyx Cyy Cyz C yt

Czx Czy Czz C zt

Ctx Cty Ctz C tt

= I(unit matrix)

where C is the curvature of geometric space.

The last equation is itself the Einstein curvature equation of general relativity.

A. Einstein loved the complications we call ugly mathematics.

The Einstein tensor [(Gµν) describes the curvature of spacetime in general relativity. It is a mathematical object that relates the geometry of spacetime to the distribution of matter and energy within it.]

Our goal, as the Q&A session indicates, is to find a physical description equivalent to Einstein's general relativity using cutting-edge physics.

The little-known and rarely mentioned genius Wallace Sabine was a professor of mathematical physics at Harvard and, in between, a leading consultant on sound quality in the finest concert halls.

Let's return to W. Sabine, who experimentally demonstrated his famous law of reverberation time, or the mean time between two successive reflections, TR, in regularly shaped acoustic rooms:

TR = 4 V / 6 A S C. . . (1)

where C is the speed of sound, V the volume, A the internal surface area, and S the absorptivity (corresponding to the diffusivity) of the walls.

Since then, no physicist or mathematician has dared to address equation 1 in over a hundred years, and will not be able to do so in the next hundred years, simply because it is a universal law of physics or a subset of the Cairo techniques. We can now theoretically prove Sabine's formula from the statistical theory of Cairo techniques, in the same way that we proved Einstein's classical general relativity in 1915, namely:

Note that any universal law can be deduced from the statistical theory of Cairo techniques or be a subset of it, simply because it is the theory of everything.

Ismail Abbas M. Abbas : " The author asserts and proves that special relativity [1] and general relativity are incomplete, but that their results are not false, "

... then that's a problem. Because special and general relativity have been known since the 1960s to be geometrically incompatible. The crisis was triggered by the Harwell Group's 1959 paper, which invoked the PoE to argue that their new centrifuge redshift result could be considered a validation of gravitational redshifts. Since a Nobel Prize was at stake, and the Harvard Group over in the US were chasing the same prize (to be considered first to prove the existence of gravitational shifts), the whole issue of the PoE in rotation problems came under a new, fierce scrutiny. And the conclusion was, in the context of Einstein's system, it Just Doesn't Work as geometry.

This is documented by/for the community in the first part of Schild's 1960 paper (the second part is some of his own stuff that he tacked onto the end that peer review then had to pass as quid pro quo for his putting his name to the first part).

The 1960 paper states that, while there is not a 100% consensus, the community and peer review (in 1960) essentially agrees that the PoE of inertia and gravitation is geometrically incompatible with SR, at least for rotating-body problems. The two structures cannot coexist as parts of a larger structure.

" Special relativity and the equivalence principle do not form a consistent theoretical system. ... Our problem is therefore this: Is special relativity valid and general relativity invalid? ... or is general relativity valid? "

Anomalously, Schild's paper gives no real arguments or details. It simply documents a community conclusion that has been made behind the scenes by anonymous participants, and is then certified by the American Journal of Physics as being in basic agreement with the facts as understood by the Editor. It is the proclamation of a "palace coup" in science, where the rules of physics as we knew them are declared to have been changed, without any supplied argument that we are allowed to dispute, and where the decision has been made by influential people behind the scenes, whose names are not given.

It's the sort of thing that we'd be tempted to say could not possibly ever happen in the physical sciences, much less physics ... except that, according to the evidence, it did. It seems that, when faced with the nightmare of an "Extinction Level Event" in theoretical physics, where we were about to lose both the special and general theories, industry figures seem to have claimed emergency powers, and stepped in and shut down scientific debate (the way they shut down the Stock Exchange when a crash seems imminent), to rescue special relativity so that academia would still have something to teach. The last time that this happened was in around ~1800, when Newton's aether mode crashed. That time it took around 100 years to come up with a replacement theory of relativistic optics (LET/SR), and now SR itself was facing a credible threat of invalidation. Rather than face a repeat of the chaos of the Nineteenth Century, perhaps it's not surprising that some people seem to have decided that this must not be allowed to happen again. The crisis needed to be managed.

1960 is the date to put on your wallchart as the date that Einstein's general theory, as defined by Einstein himself, finally died. Since 1960 "GR" has not conformed to Einstein's definitions, but has been subservient to SR (which to be fair, was how Einstein himself originally envisaged things back in about 1913). We can say that, since 1960. GR is not compelled to be exact, its principles are not considered to be completely true, and it doesn't have to agree with the GPoR any more, only with the general principle of covariance.

In 1960, the community largely reconciled itself to the fact that Einstein's 1916 model was a dream concept that could not be built. 1960 was also the date at which the community and journals, apparently taking a lead from the Schild paper, started rejecting any submissions that were not in total agreement with SR. Schild had pointed out that they faced a decision between GR and SR and had to pick a side. Having picked SR, SR-compliance was henceforth considered compulsory.

The problem with SR was not incompleteness in the structural sense. The problem was that the theory was prematurely complete, and represented a perfect solution in a universe that had no gravitational fields.

In the context of a universe in which matter-related spacetime curvature did not exist, and gravitomagnetism couldn't be used to explain local lightspeed constancy and regulation, special relativity gave unambiguous and non-negotiable answers, that could not be wrong. It was also the only answer for a universe in which physics was time-symmetrical, a principel that Einstein was committed to.

Snag is, in a more complex universe, in which the emission of gravity-waves meant that all systems lost energy in forward time, meaning that the laws of physics were time-asymmetrical and lossy, and in which gravitomagnetic curvature, by deflecting lighbeams, HAD to change the momentum and therefore the energy of light passed between moving bodies as a function of relative velocity, in a manner that SR didn't begin to attempt to deal with, and had no way of incorporating ... SR's unambiguous and non-negotiable answers had to be unambiguosuly and non-negotiably wrong.

SR cannot be a foundation for a working theory of gravity, because the SR equations depend critically on gravity not existing, and because you can't update SR to incorporate or retrofit gravity. It's inherently the non-gravitational solution. If gravity exists, and gravitational bodies obey the relativity principle, then the SR solution is no longer the correct answer. If you want a relativistic-gravitation-compatible solution, then you need a different theory.

Gravity and gravitomagnetism fundamentally change the rules of the problem that SR set out to answer, and forces different answers, different principles and structures, and, inevitably, a whole new theory.

----

I understand the temptation to make a new theory correspond as closely as possible to what went before, but in this case, it's a bad thing. Because Einstein's attempt at GR was already found to be definitionally unworkable sixty years ago. and SR isn't correct in a universe that supports gravity-waves or gravitomagnetism.

Ideally, if you have a final theory of everything, and you try to make it replicate SR, it'll choke and refuse to go on. If you've put in "overrides" (tailored assumptions and "knowns") to try to force it to generate SR as physics, then you've damaged your own system. Maybe those overrides can be taken out.

Here's a fun argument:

Einstein seems to have been quite fond of the idea of modelling masses as point-singularities of the field. But the default result of this exercise is the overthrow and replacement of his own theory. He only avoided this by adding more ad hoc arguments designed to prop up the status of SR within his theory. But this just made the theory's internal conflicts even more entrenched.

Ismail Abbas M. Abbas Oh, by the way, further supporting your theme of Einstein saying that everything could be calculated from the preexisting shape of the metric, and ignoring the fact that introducing a physical observer-mass changes the metric, I guess that we can include on his list of scientific "sins", his second version of the Principle of Equivalence, the "Einstein Equivalence Principle", or "EEP".

The original Principle of Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass (PoE) means that we can't have inertial masses without them also being gravitational masses, somewhat limiting the application of SR, to situations in which the amount of matter present is zero. With the PoE, the previous "horizon" arguments mean that there is no such thing as a weak-gravity limit to GR, for which SR might describe matter-physics. All inertial physics becomes "strong-gravity" physics.,

Since everybody seemed to like the PoE, but it got SR into trouble, Einstein played a naughty trick, and declared a new thing which he also called "the principle of equivalence" (the aforementioned EEP), which now said that if we zoomed in on physics in a background gravitational field, then as the background field disappeared with additional zooming, we end up with flat spacetime physics, correctly described by SR. So the EEP states that any curved-spacetime physics must reduce to SR physics over small regions. The EEP is now a core part of modern textbook GR teaching, and isn't usually questioned: as we zoom in on the observer, spacetime becomes more and more flat, without limit.

Excerpt that we know that this is wrong. Because if the observer is a real fundamental massed particle, the more we zoom in on the observer, the stronger the curvature becomes!

Einstein's EEP presumes that observers and experimental laboratories are not made out of matter that conforms to the theory's own requirements!

If we have a tiny laboratory floating in deep space, studying micro-black holes, and we zoom in on the laboratory, then the background curvature disappears, but the curvatures of the experimenter and laboratory hardware don't. The micro-black-holes being studied don't suddenly lose their own gravity and explode. Einstein is misusing the "zoom" argument to "prove" that objects in a gravitational field performing physics don't have fields of their own. The background field may disappear, but the fields of the objects in it don't. The inertial physics in the freefalling lab might then be conducted against a flat background, but this is not the same as saying that the physics itself, being conducted is therefore also flat-spacetime physics, also described by SR.

Einstein is using a combination of clever linguistic tricks, which fools most theoretical physicists. It's partly the use of two different principles with the same name, that lead to different outcomes (known in fraud circles as the "bait and switch" technique), and it's also partly the deliberate misuse of the word "the". He says that "the field" disappears. He refuses to acknowledge that with a massed observer and physical laboratory, there will be other fields.

It's the "test particle" fallacy that you point out elsewhere, all over again.

Is it true that Einstein didn't understand physics and that his theories of relativity are nothing but black magic?

It is true that Einstein didn't understand physics, because physics is the universal law of nature.

He didn't fully understand physics (universal law) and didn't distinguish it from what isn't. He used black magic (a thought experiment) to combine different incompatible theories and falsely derive his theories of special relativity and general relativity, which delayed the world for another 100 years.

1- In his theory of special relativity [1], he attempted to prove the Lorentz transformation without knowing that this transformation is a universal law without proof.

He then used the black magic of two concentric spheres of light with the same center and moving independently to achieve his false objective.

2- In his theory of general relativity, he once again used his black magic (thought experiment) to arrive at his incomprehensible stress-strain tensor.

G μ ν  (nu)= 8 Pi G / C^4  . T  μ ν

We propose a more correct and precise stress-curvature matrix/tensor.

∇2xx  ∇2xy  ∇2xz ∇2xt U(x,y,z,t)

∇2yx  ∇2yy  ∇2yz ∇2yt U(x,y,z,t)

∇2zx  ∇2zy  ∇2zz ∇ zt U(x,y,z,t)

∇2tx  ∇2ty ∇ 2tz   ∇2tt U(x,y,z,t)

x

Cxy Cxy Cxz Cxt

Cyx Cyy Cyz Cyt

Czx Czy Czz Czt

Ctx Cty Ctz Ctt

= I (unit matrix) . . . Equation 1

The first matrix is called the stress matrix.

Stress is not a force/area scalar (a single component).

Stress tensor has 16 components.

Stress in a 4D unit x-t space is composed of 16 components, called stress tensors B

The second matrix is called the deformation or curvature matrix/tensor C.

It's a great start.

Contrary to Einstein, stress or energy density, like gravity, causes space to curve, not the other way around.]

Once again, Einstein's fatal error was to invert Equation 1, a flawed process that asserts falsely that curvature creates gravity, not the other way around.

The matrix equation 1 proposed by the author is

capable of solving the following two problems:

1- Special Theory of Relativity.

2- General Theory of Relativity.

The author demonstrated that the two theories constitute a single theory.

Why two?

The first theory is simply a special case of the second, as it should be.

-----

1-I. Abbas,A rigorous reformulation of Einstein derivation of the special theory of relativity,

• February 2022,