Reply to comment

David,

I don’t think my motive or manhood need to be questioned. And I don’t “hate” mathematics. I do believe it should be treated as a tool, not an oracle.

The problem with mathematics as applied to gravitation is that it’s ambiguous with regard to the basis of gravitational acceleration.

Look at the conceptual discussion of the field equations at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/einstein/node3.html

Already there’s an interpretation, based on the mathematics, of “positive pressure” and an ambiguous treatment of the “flow of energy” that obscures the basic premise of GR, that geodesic motion is uniform motion. There is no “pressure” with geodesic motion, and the only energy involved with the "collapsing ball" is kinetic. Although the mathematics succeeds in characterizing the dynamics of gravitation, the seeds are already sown here for derivations based on misinterpretation, on a confounding of the basis of gravitation (the geometric distortion of spacetime) with an analog of force-like “attraction.”

So your “two-choice dilemma” leaves out my choice, which is that the mathematics of the field equations is fine up to the point where it is wrongly interpreted, and over-extended. If I’m wrong, my motives and manhood are irrelevant. I would hope that you will choose to point out how “pressure” and “energy flow” apply to gravitation as a geometric principle, and how we can legitimately move, step-by-step, from a geometric principle to a radiation of energy.