General Relativity proven wrong by Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking: “A law is no law if it only applies in some cases”. A correct theory of physics must work with quantum mechanics and astrophysics. Today we can’t reconcile theories of quantum mechanics with astrophysics. Why can’t we find answers to nature’s most basic questions like dark energy and dark matter? Are we working within an unsolvable framework?

Professor Stephen Hawking pronounced in 2017 that he through observations could prove Albert Einstein’s General Relativity wrong. If the fabric of time and space expands, all space should expand. Why did not areas with matter expand? They seem to be constant mosaics in an expanding universe.

Gravity in general relativity is based on geometric calculations of the curvature of the fabric of space and time. This gives good calculations of gravity, but seem to lack a clear cause-effect explanation. Nobody can explain this fabric. It is based on a flat fabric which folds, and an unknown force pulling down on this fabric. What is this force? Is the universe flat?

General relativity seems to be based on several hypothetical elements which nobody can explain. When we also take in account Stephen Hawkings observations of non-expanding space in areas with matter, mosaics of non-expanding space, the theory seem to have several weaknesses.

When we try to reconcile quantum mechanics and astrophysics, we most of the time try to adapt quantum mechanics with general relativity. If Stephen Hawking thought general relativity could be wrong, and the theory also contains unexplained hypothetical elements, should we trust this theory to be correct?

If you have a problem you can’t solve, you might have to start over and attack it with a different approach. What seem insolvable often have a solution if you change the rules and your angle of attack. Could the laws of general relativity place the unification of quantum mechanics and astrophysics into an unsolvable frame? Could the loyalty to general relativity hinder a better understanding of physics and our universe?

‘It is recognized that theories are only used because there are no better alternatives, not because they represent the final answer. One realizes that it is not possible to come up with new solutions, and thus new knowledge, but that it is necessary.’ (Professor Per Arne Bjorkum)

Isaac Newton described gravity in his book “Pricipia” in 1687 where is published his law of universal gravitation:

F is the gravitational force working between two objects, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, r is the distance between the objects and G is the gravitational constant.

Gravity according to Isaac Newton:

·???Newton described the force of gravity to be universal, it was working between all objects with mass.

·???The gravity force had to be proportional with the masses of each object multiplied.

·???Gravity was working over great distances between the objects.

·???The force of gravity decreases when the distance between the objects increases, where the force decreases proportional with the square of the distance between the objects.

·???Gravity had to travel with unlimited speed.

Could Isaac Newton’s the description of gravity be more correct than Albert Einstein’s General Relativity (1915)?

General Relativity was proven to have a better calculation of gravity by Sir Arthur Eddington in his expedition to observe the solar eclipse of 1919. General relativity predicted 1.75 arcsecond deflection of light from a star by the sun. Based on Isaac Newton’s calculations it should be 0.876 arcsecond deflection. Einstein’s first calculated in his paper of 1911 the light deflection of starlight by the sun to be 0.83 arcsecond, almost the same result as Isaac Newton’s calculations. The calculations were corrected in his paper on General Relativity of 1915 to 1.75 arcsecond. Eddington observed in 1919 the light deflection to be 1.61 ± 0.30 arcsecond. The observations seem to match Albert Einstein’s predictions better, and was seen as a proof of General Relativity.

General Relativity from 1915 had better predictions of the deflections of starlight than Isaac Newton’s predictions from 1687.

Should this rule out Isaac Newton’s universal law of gravitation?

We must assume Isaac Newton had limited resources and instruments to back him up in 1687. When Albert Einstein created his theory of General Relativity he worked closely with several resourceful scientists and they had better instruments available.

Could the arguments earlier in this article by Stephen Hawkings around “mosaics of nonexpanding space” in areas with matter, and the hypothetical elements in General Relativity, disprove General Relativity? Should we take new look at Isaac Newton’ universal law of gravitation? Maybe we should try to explain the explain the law of universal gravitation better, and audit the calculation based on new observations and knowledge? This might allow us to reconcile quantum mechanics and astrophysics. As Stephen Hawking wrote: “A law is no law if it only applies in some cases”. A correct understanding of nature must work in both quantum mechanics and astrophysics.

Bent Rolf Pettersen, 2024.