GENERAL RELATIVITY – A Temporal Interpretation
Einstein’s theory of gravity is a very clever, mathematical method of predicting behaviour within gravitational fields using the concept of “Spacetime”. His field equations include both geometric terms and temporal (time-like) terms.
The theory has survived every challenge and experimental test to date and is continually being verified today in systems like the GPS. Only a complete fool would argue against it and I am certainly not foolish enough to make such a claim. I fully support the theory and am in awe of Einstein’s great achievement.
If GR were incorrect, your SatNav would be incapable of getting you to your destination since the GPS incorporates the corrections necessary to account for the differences in time rates between orbital and ground-based clocks. These clocks run at slightly different rates for two reasons.
First the orbital clocks run slow due to their greater velocity (Time slows down with greater speeds) and secondly, they run faster because of their higher elevation in the Earth’s gravitational field (Time slows down the nearer you get to a large mass). If these corrections were not made, then the system would very quickly become inoperable.
The field equations are;-
But don’t let them scare you. Put simply ;-
On the right-hand side, the total energy of a gravitational field (including all forms of energy like momentum, stress or pressure), is equal/equivalent to the left-hand side, the distortion effects on space and time caused by the field.
There are four values of the suffixes “mu” and “nu” and so there are sixteen of these equations but six of them give the same result and so they boil down to just ten equations.
Without getting into the complex mathematics of all the second order, partial differential equations used to derive these, which would present a great challenge to all but the most accomplished mathematician, it is possible to gain an intuitive, physical understanding of gravitation from simple deductive reasoning.
It is necessary first though, to accept, or at least entertain, my claim in my last article, namely, that the workings of gravitation are purely the result of time curvature within the field – the changing rate of progress of time as you change your position.
This might seem to be disagreeing with GR but in fact, it is not. It simply suggests a subtly different interpretation of the theory that must give the same results. GR adds the effect of the increasing “compression” of space in strong fields (the geometric effects), to the direct effects of time curvature (Newtonian gravity).
But first, no one, not even the great Albert Einstein has ever identified a physical cause for this compression or curvature of space and so the mathematical relationships are accepted as “abstract”. They work OK. They tell you that it must be so, but they do not provide a mechanism, a causality for the effective “shrinking” of space in very strong gravitational fields which adds to the attractive effects from the changing time rates.
In my last article, I demonstrated how this time curvature will attract you and you will “gravitate” towards a slower “clock”, but this same time curvature produces a secondary effect of space curvature, only significant in strong fields and which effectively reduces distances for the traveller.
This effect is greater in stronger gravitational fields until for the strongest field, for a black hole, at the event horizon, where time actually stops altogether, space has compressed to zero volume and becomes an effective hologram around the surface of the sphere at the horizon.
It is noteworthy that this same effect is evident in Special Relativity, where, at the speed of light, time also stops and distances (in the direction of travel) have also become effectively zero. These two effects from SR and GR are a huge slap in the face for mainstream preconceptions.
They are obvious clues that for space to exist, then time must be passing. It does not take too much imagination to see that space actually “emerges” from the passing of time. Time is fundamental but space is emergent. Time is the cause and space, the effect.
Because of this, we can see that time can be a cause for events, but that space never can be. So time must be the ultimate cause for all effects. This is why I have pursued this line of questioning.
Now, the Schwarszchild metric, the first exact solution of the field equations, shows below how the time rate varies with distance from a black hole. In the weak (Newtonian) field, the time rate varies only slightly over great distances, but in the strong field the time rate varies (slopes) very steeply in comparison over quite short distances. Since this is the basic difference between the two types of space-time, (weak and strong), then we can conclude this difference in the rate of changing of time, must also be the basic cause for the differences in behaviour between the two fields.
The marked increase in the rate of change of time rate with distance in strong fields must be the cause for the effective space curvature, applicable in strong fields.
It is my intention to show that space curvature, which means distances get shorter over distance travelled, and the rate of increase in time curvature which means that the time rate gets increasingly slower over distance travelled, are both the same thing. They are equivalent and the deductive proof is very simple.
The diagram shows two consecutive velocity vectors moving in the direction of, and close to, the black hole on the left. We are considering speeds v 1 and v 2 to be the Newtonian speeds defined by Equation 3 moving through two adjacent small increments of distance ds1 and ds2.
We are in the strong field so, because of the now significant rate of change of time rate over distance, the time rate, itself, is now significantly different between these two small incremental distances and this can no longer be ignored, as it is in weak fields.
This is reflected by the different time rates t1 and t2 where t1 is now significantly faster than t2. The two equations defining these two vectors are:
In other words, space has effectively “shrunk” from one frame to the next, because of the significant rate of change in time rate between frames.
If we are to describe GR in purely temporal terms, then we must modify the geometric terms associated with the curvature of physical space and re-present them as equivalent, temporal terms, reflecting the changes to the energy of time. In this way, the field equations become a true energy balance, a statement that all the positive, field energy of momentum, stress, etc., is equal to the negative time dilation energy of the field and that is what General Relativity is, in reality, (void of any abstractions).
The total positive energy of a gravitational field (including all forms of energy like momentum, stress or pressure), is equal to the negative energy of the time dilation within the field.
I am not going to write down all the mathematical manipulations here as it will take up too much space and may be of little value to the reader, but essentially, I arrive at the following temporal equivalent to Einstein’s initial geometric equation given above;-
You can see that the first term, (time) remains the same, as you might expect, but that the three geometric terms for directions 1,2 and 3 (or x,y, and z), are now represented by a summation in all three dimensions, for the way the time rate is changing in each direction at arbitrary angles to the vertical, “alpha”.
Although this is by no means a reworking of the math’ of GR, it is nonetheless a reworking of the first line that the field equations are derived from. It is the same equation that Einstein started off with expressed in purely temporal terms. This does serve to demonstrate that GR can indeed be expressed without the abstract geometry of space curvature and in terms of the energy of time alone.
Some of you may be a little perplexed, asking why have I bothered to go to all this trouble.
This is the reason;-
The accepted version of GR is partly expressed in terms of abstract geometry and with no defined causality. The energy of the field cannot be expressed in terms of geometry since geometry is not a form of energy. However, General Relativity can be expressed purely in terms of time and with a complete causality for its effects. Time is indeed a form of energy and can be equated with the energy of the field.
This has to be an improvement.
There are ongoing attempts to define gravity at the quantum level but if we have the basic understanding of the causality wrong, we will be unable to sensibly construct a theory of quantum gravity such as Loop Quantum Gravity or String Theory since both these incorporate the math’ of GR into their workings.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
JFH
| #
Utter nonsense.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
It is scientific, as well as good manners, to give at least one logical reason why this might be “Utter nonsense”. Otherwise you force me to view your comment as utter nonsense.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
Actually I agree with much of the argument until the use of black holes seriously contaminates it all. As none of the 7 or 9 black holes models match the real universe, there is a problem. Even Einstein negated black holes, as did Oppenheimer, and NASA. Ignoring the non functionality of black holes and then considering them as real calls into question the entire rationale of the discussion.
I do maintain that, if all motion stopped, then so would time, as the only way we tell time is by change. No change, no time. I tend toward the exact opposite for eh above argument. It is the ongoing of space and its contents that generates time.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
OK, we disagree, but I have given reasons as to how space emerges from time, also that GR and SR show this to be the case. What is your proposal. I don’t see one, only rebuttal. In fact, if you accept that time is change, which I completely agree with, then how do you suppose that space can effect change? I cannot see how. I can however see that a field of energy, always oscillating, always changing, that all entities “live” within (like fish in the sea), must “force” change onto all its occupants. All residents would therefore have a wave function right? There is much more justification than these arguments. I see non for your assertion. But please, enlighten me.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
There is no scientific objection to the formation of an event horizon. The objection I can see is to the central singularity inside the EH. This is a mathematical, theoretical situation that is physically impossible (i.e.infinite density). But then, if the EH forms but the singularity does not (for some practical reason), then you are right, there are no black hole singularities, but there ARE event horizons and therefore, as far as we are concerned, there are what we term black holes.
Reply
Reidar Moberg
| #
“The theory has survived every challenge and experimental test to date and is continually being verified today in systems like the GPS.”
All wrong. Pure fantasy.
All clocks will not speed up with decreasing gravity. Pendulum clocks slow down. Your theory is just nonsense.
A clock is a physical object. And, like all other physical objects, it is affected by gravity, temperature, humidity, solar flares…
And so on and so on.
All of this make the clocks speed up or slow down far more than any Einsteinian relavity would do.
So how do we handle these disturbances? Well, the simple solution is what we always have done. We synchronize the clocks and see to it that they stay synchronized!
OK, it might not be all simple. But throughout the years we have developed a lot of ingenious ways to make this work. And the result is that the GPS-system is the most precise timekeeping system humanity ever has developed.
And it works just fine whether there is any Einsteinian relativity or not.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Your statement that the GPS work well enough without corrections for relativity is demonstrably wrong.
Reply
Reidar Moberg
| #
My statement was that the clocks are synchronized and thus eliminating all drift. It doesn´t matter what causes the drift.
If there is any relativity involved, neither I nor you would know. Your blatant statements are just nonsense.
Try a reality check.
Reply
David Stone
| #
Unfortunately this article is severely misguided in many ways. For the mathematics see: http://vixra.org/abs/1610.0214 and all the other papers by Crothers. Just in case you wish to disagree (which you may well) I will describe a real gravitational field. Two massive objects attract one another, which means that each must be at a lower point on the manifold described by Einstein, and the path between them must linearly provide a 1/r2 path in two opposite directions between them. Clearly this is a physical impossibility and is not a possible solution to his GR tensor equations either so the theory is proved false by observation.
The GPS does not use any relatavistic corrections, except to correct the clocks for gravitational potential, there is no correction for the relative velocities of satellites which probably shows that SR is also false.
Not a good article as noted by others.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
I do not have to disagree. It is you that disagrees with the scientific mainstream’s acceptance of black holes and which we are now beginning to prove by observations. I am aligned with science, you are not. General Relativity does indeed use Newtonian gravity (but in the very small). Any “curve” looks straight if you consider a short enough length of it.
“Strictly speaking, the use of Minkowski space, to describe physical systems over finite distances applies only in the Newtonian limit of systems without significant gravitation. In the case of significant gravitation, space-time becomes curved and one must abandon Special Relativity in favour of the full theory of general relativity.
Nevertheless, even in such cases, Minkowski space is still a good description of an infinitesimally small region surrounding any point (barring gravitational singularities). More abstractly, we say that in the presence of gravity space-time is described by a curved 4-dimensional manifold for which the tangent space to any point is a 4-dimensional Minkowski space. Thus, the structure of Minkowski space is still essential in the description of general relativity.”
Ken Hughes
| #
Clocks are indeed synchronised on Earth before the satellite clocks take off, but it does matter that when in orbit, the satellite clocks start to run at a different rate than the ones left behind on Earth They quickly get out of sinc’, unless they were preset at a different “rate” so they are in sinc’ when in orbit. It is the TIME RATE that is different. If you cannot understand the basics, then .I won’t waste my time arguing with you
Reply
Reidar Moberg
| #
Ouch! You should inform the US government about this basic!
Because what they say on their GPS website is:
“The control segment consists of worldwide monitor and control stations that maintain the satellites in their proper orbits through occasional command maneuvers, and adjust the satelitte clocks.”
I’m sure they’ll be very pleased to learn that all this synchronization could be done before the satellites are launched.That would be soooo much easier than todays procedure which is to start the clocks AFTER the satellite is in steady orbit.
This is because they seem to believe that accelerating a RUNNING clock to about 20G might cause it to malfunction.
But I´m sure you’ve got some math that proves them wrong!
Reidar Moberg
| #
Forgot to post the link to the quote:
https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/
Ken Hughes
| #
Reidar Morberg, The link you have provide is fine, but it does say it’s aimed at school students. It doesn’t go as deep as it might into the workings and the theory behind the GPS. Sure, there are fine adjustments made in orbit to the clocks to compensate for the changes of orbit and the consequential change in time rate. Initially, If you research adequately, the clocks are pre set with a course setting to compensate for the different time rate at orbital elevation, and also for the effects of special relativity. The gravitational correction are about five times those needed for inertial effects on time. I don’t believe I am disagreeing with anything. The link demonstrate the geometric operational methodology, but it doesn’t mention the adjustments for the clocks, since it is not necessary to know about for operating the system. It is necessary for the design of the system. The operators need to know about the signals, distances and geometries. Thy do not need to know about the clock corrections which are done infrequently to compensate for changes in orbital elevation.
Wally
| #
Exposing the Real Albert Einstein: https://principia-scientific.com/exposing-the-real-albert-einstein
Albert Einstein was a Fraud: http://coconutrevival.com/?p=5656
Einstein, plagiarist of the century: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einstein.htm
and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMTQFFFeOVs
Einstein was rabidly supremacist, racist, xenophobic : https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/12/einsteins-travel-diaries-reveal-shocking-xenophobia
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
My God !
Reply
Wally
| #
Exposing the Real Albert Einstein: https://principia-scientific.com/exposing-the-real-albert-einstein
Albert Einstein was a Fraud: http://coconutrevival.com/?p=5656
Einstein, plagiarist of the century: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_einstein.htm
and:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMTQFFFeOVs
Einstein was supremacis: : https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/12/einsteins-travel-diaries-reveal-shocking-xenophobia
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Ken, thanks for this interesting discussion. I note “But first, no one, not even the great Albert Einstein has ever identified a physical cause for this compression or curvature of space and so the mathematical relationships are accepted as “abstract”. They work OK”
and then I refer you to the following quote:
“However, unanswered questions remain, the most fundamental being how general relativity can be reconciled with the laws of quantum physics to produce a complete and self-consistent theory of quantum gravity.”
Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity.
In your paper you graph the field strength as strong and weak against time rate, without defining the transition point. Then you establish v1 and v2 as separate velocities as a function of distance to the black hole.
My question is, how do you have velocity without mass/energy? As soon as you introduce those requirements you are heading down a path leading to the Planck constant due to the step function inherent in travelling down the steep slope shown in your graph, so we still have the unanswered questions regarding the laws of quantum gravity.
You reference G in your equations. Do you think this has a constant value in the region of a black hole?
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
You barrage me with many questions. I’ll try and unpick them.
First, my observation that there is no causality for the curvature of space still stands. There simply isn’t one.GR shows this curvature must occur (effectively) but it does not say how. You immediately introduce a separate issue of the incompatibility between GR and QM, but this is not relevant to the point in question. I will however respond to your (separate) query. It is my understanding that GR only apples above the scale of the wave form of time and light. At that scale (our large, slow scale) the classical rules of nature govern our existence. Below that scale (faster than the wave), entities do not see the complete wave of energy we know as time, but only fractions of it. Ultimately, as you get smaller (faster) you will only experience the energy quanta and no wave effect at all. But your question drags me forward in my presentations and I have been forced to introduce ideas here that I had planned to introduce later. (i.e.the wave form of energy we experience as time).
Secondly, There is no well defined transition between what we term as weak or strong gravitational fields. It’s a smudge, a region where you can less and less get away with ignoring space curvature, until it becomes too significant.
Thirdly, It is not my graph of time rate. It is the Schwarzschild metric expressed in graph format, a well known and well accepted solution to the field equations.
Fourthly, I take v(1) and v(2) as the same in terms of their effect on space curvature. Read my second article, it shows how acceleration must happen (even if you initially apply a constant velocity), simply due to time curvature.
I do not pretend to answer ALL questions. That seems to be the trouble with presenting new ideas. Everyone think you ought to be able to answer every unknown, every paradox, every conundrum. You must see that is unreasonable and certainly no reason to reject a new idea?
Velocity without mass and energy? – I’ll cut to the chase, there IS a preferred reference frame. Actually it’ a field of frames, not just one frame. It is the field of energy we experience as time. A wavelike field (over duration), an oscillating field. Clearly this is “stationary” (apart from the fact it red shifts in gravity) and as you move through a sinusoidally oscillating field, the effect of the field on you (time) will reduce in a circular way, (Lorentz). This is what special relativity shows. So the answer to your question is you CAN have velocity relative to the field. (The field IS energy).
Finally, you mention “G”. I don’t hold much importance to the constant “G” as I do not believe it is a real, physical measure of anything. It is simply a constant that come out in the math’. It’s a natural relationship that’s all. I don’t know if it will vary and frankly, I don’t much care. Newton invented it. It’s not my creation. What I am prepared to say about black holes at this point is that the significant attribute is that time stops at the event horizon and that’s all we need to know. Time stops and space becomes a zero volume as a result.
I expect you might have many more questions as a result of my answers, but please be patient. My future articles will answer most of them I’m sure.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Ken, it sounds like you might have started at the end and are now working back towards the beginning. Unless you can answer questions one session at a time, you are expecting the readership to accept your work as a fait accompli.
“What I am prepared to say about black holes at this point is that the significant attribute is that time stops at the event horizon and that’s all we need to know.”
We need to know a whole lot more. I think black holes will ultimately prove fundamental to the operation of the whole universe.
All time does not stop at a black hole, because we can still observe the effects, which include jets of cosmic rays at some sites and rapidly orbiting dust. Time only stops for the assembled mass that experiences the shredding effects of the high gravity. You introduce “field of frames”. This sounds like previous discussions of “worm holes” and “parallel universes”. Convenient, but incomprehensible terminology unless accompanied by a distinct and tangible definition. I view time as more like a spring with compressible quanlities, but very much associated with assembled mass or energy.
Having said this I look forward to reading the rest of your presentations.
Reply
lifeisthermal
| #
My problem with Einstein´s solution is that he completely discards the energy of the force gravity. A force must have a source. I believe he asked Newton to forgive him for it, and I don´t think Newton would. Time is a measure of dilation/dissipation/expansion/space of energy, but not a measure of energy itself.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Well, if some of you lot are disagreeing with Einstein, then I can never convince you of anything. I would ask, who the hell do those people think they are to disagree with General Relativity? You disagree with the whole of the scientific community! I wrote at the very beginning of my article that only a complete fool would offer such a disagreement and I reiterate that here.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Your argument is the same one used by the church years ago to persecute those who didn’t accept the teachings of the church. Both general and special relativity are based on the photon and a constant speed of light for which there is no evidence. There are experiments and observations showing objects going faster than the speed of light but these are ignored by the scientific community. This is because they are trained, like the priesthood, to accept these beliefs as a matter of faith.
The creation of the photon, or particle nature of light, comes from the photoelectric effect and the belief that the photon is the only explanation possible. The photoelectric effect could also be another version of the piezo electric effect where a changing electromagnetic wave (light) distorts a bond in a crystal causing a current. Instead of calling people who don’t accept your beliefs fools you should call them heretics and advocate burning them at the stake.
Reply
David Stone
| #
Ken, you obviously don’t believe in the scientific method. “Einstein is right because we all agree that he is”. Do you really think that statement is a scientific one? It is not. There are many reasons why GR should be examined carefully, and my layman’s description of the alleged gravitational field (manifold) shows exactly why. Every textbook will not take any notice of the field between two similar masses, they assume a single mass and a “tiny test mass” which has no reverse attraction, because there is no solution for two or more masses, such as the universe! I will not expect you to want to discuss the tensor calculus, the physics department has attempted to redefine it to the extent that they ignore the original inventors and their proofs of its properties. Once you have lost the fundamentals you can write anything, but it is essentially meaningless, as is the Einstein pseudo-tensor, a meaningless collection of mathematical symbols. The lack of a gravitational force in his theory surely rings a bell with you, how does distortion of space result in a force, unless space is not entirely empty? Where does the necessary energy come from? Well?
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
I would say, Einstein is right (for the time being and until we can improve on his ideas), because of all the experimental verification to date. Please don’t put words into my mouth especially words I don’t agree with. I simply meant to point out that the scientific community (who do operate using the scientific method), has a certain weight of opinion which should not be dismissed lightly and certainly not without providing an equally supported theory which no one has done so far (including anyone here).
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
As a final note to all who disagree, last night, BBC 4 re transmitted the documentary “Gravity and Me”, presented by Jim Al-Khalili with input from theoretical physicist Kip Thorne. If you seek out this programme and view it to the end you will see Kip Thorne stating quite clearly that “,…..at some very fundamental level, the effect of gravity is due to the changing rate of time in the field…….”
I first came up with this conclusion independantly in 2009 and published it in my book “Time Dilation, the Reality” in 2011. I had developed the formula for the universal law of Newtonian gravity, presented in my previous article, “Gravity is Time”.
But that is not enough evidence to make the claim since the curvature of space in strong fields needed an explanation too. In other words, General Relativity also had to be shown to be purely the effects of time curvature and This article demonstrates this This analysis was presented in the first edition of my book “The Binary Universe – A Theory of Time” in 2013. The much improved second edition was published in August this year.
Kip Thorne is a recognised expert on black holes and clearly, he finds no conflict between these ideas and the nature of black holes as we currently understand them.
You are all entitled to your opinions on this of course and I take no offense from your disagreements. However, I do find them somewhat naïve and in most cases, completely wrong, at variance with known science. You should note that everything I have presented does not conflict with known science but simply adds to it. It takes science a little further than is currently known.
I respectfully suggest that some of you should seek a little humility and open your minds to this new way of thinking, instead of just poo pooing it. I suggest you at least entertain the ideas before you dismiss them out of hand. Who was it once said;-
“The mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it”.
Oh yes, I remember now, it was Aristotle, 4,000 years ago.
Reply
Reidar Moberg
| #
I am not the one “poo pooing” your confused ideas.
A simple pendulum clock, however, does it all the time.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
All the mathematics of General Relativity is disproved by a pendulum? Really? I don’t wish to be cruel but what planet are you on?
Reply
Reidar Moberg
| #
Your statement:
“First the orbital clocks run slow due to their greater velocity (Time slows down with greater speeds) and secondly, they run faster because of their higher elevation in the Earth’s gravitational field (Time slows down the nearer you get to a large mass). If these corrections were not made, then the system would very quickly become inoperable. ”
A pendulum clock will slow down with “higher elevation in the Earth´s gravitational field”. This is elementary physics, well known to anyone that ever opened a book of real world physics.
And it applies to every planet. Even yours!
As for the first part of your statement, it is simply illogical. Your claim is that both time and clocks change speed. If that was true, anything you say about the speed of clocks or the speed of time would be completely meaningless. You cannot measure anything with a variable measure stick.
So what to do?
Well, as it happens, the speed of time does not change. Time is not a physical entity. Time is a concept, something we agreed upon and defined. And it is universal.
It is a very useful concept. Because now we can measure and compare speed, and we can relate events to each other.
And we can adjust and correct clocks. Wherever they are!
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
Of course a pendulum will speed up higher in a gravitational field. Time speeds up and so every action speeds up. We use clocks simply to demonstrate the point that time, THE RATE OF CHANGE, increases at higher elevations.
What is illogical about clocks being slowed by inertial changes and sped up by higher elevations? This is quite logical to explain the two opposing effects. If you don’t understand it then you look foolish calling someone who does, illogical.
My whole point is the time IS a physical process. Everything in this universe is a physical entity or process and there are no known exceptions. If you deviate from this, you enter the world of magic, miracles and the occult and that is unscientific. Do you believe in miracles? I don’t.
Finally, you can measure the rate of time against a maximum (equivalent to the speed of light). Th speed of time is recognised as 1.855 x 10^43 Planck times per second (of our frame of reference), which admittedly is not quite the maximum. The real maximum occurs (theoretically) at a point far removed from all mass and at zero speed (through the field of time).
I am not at all surprised by the reactions (all negative) that I have received on this here. It simply confirms that not many people really understand relativity, but most like to think they do.
Tell me, has anyone here gone through the mathematics to prove Einstein’s field equations? I suspect not from these answers.
Reply