The Geometric Inconsistency of Relativistic Gravitational Lensing:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

March 31, 2025

Steve Brunelle,

You asked, "What the hell?"—so here’s your answer: The "hell" lies in your misunderstanding of my earlier comment.  

You further question the relationship between classical mechanics' interpretation of gravity (as exerted by physical mass) and relativistic space curvature. That misunderstanding leads you to overlook a critical fact: Classical mechanics consistently interprets gravity as a force creating a gravitational field, which in turn bends the path of light. In contrast, relativity proposes that light bends due to the curvature of spacetime—an interpretation that is fundamentally flawed.  

The Geometric Discrepancy in Light Bending: 

A nuanced geometric explanation exposes the opportunistic nature of relativity’s claim that light bends due to spacetime curvature, while it simultaneously misrepresents the classical mechanics' interpretation of gravitational lensing.  

1. Classical mechanics' gravitational field extends beyond the physical boundary of a massive body, allowing light to be deflected as it travels through the field. This is a geometrically consistent model, as the extended gravitational influence enables light to pass around the massive object and reach the observer.  

2. Relativity's spacetime curvature, however, is in direct physical contact with the massive body itself. Since relativity describes spacetime as a natural fabric that bends under mass, it implies that light should be obstructed rather than deflected—because the massive body would rest directly on the "bent" fabric of spacetime, blocking light from passing through. This presents a geometric contradiction within relativity’s framework.  

Thus, the relativistic model fails to provide a self-consistent geometric explanation for gravitational lensing. Instead, relativists opportunistically rely on the classical mechanics' force-based gravitational field interpretation while claiming to uphold spacetime curvature. This contradiction exposes the flawed nature of relativistic gravitational lensing, which is nothing more than an opportunistic misappropriation of classical mechanics.

Einstein’s Inconsistencies in Relativity and the Opportunistic Interpretation of Spacetime:

Soumendra Nath Thakur

March 30, 2025

Einstein formulated gravity as a consequence of spacetime curvature rather than a force. However, when Hubble's observations confirmed that the universe was expanding, Einstein did not revise his theory to accommodate this discovery consistently. Instead, he withdrew the cosmological constant (Λ) from his General Relativity equations, as it was originally introduced to maintain a static universe—an assumption later proven incorrect.

Thus, the Lambda (Λ)-CDM model which is based on the FLRW metric, includes the cosmological constant (Λ), measured to be approximately (2.1 ± 0.1) × 10⁻⁵² m⁻². This can also be expressed as 10⁻³⁵ s⁻² by multiplying with c² ≈ 10¹⁷ m²⋅s⁻²), or equivalently as 10⁻¹²² ℓP⁻², where ℓP is the Planck length.

Despite this, Einstein did not refine the interpretation of time dilation or curved space to align with new empirical findings. Had he done so, it would have required incorporating aspects of Classical Mechanics' gravitational framework, which might have undermined Relativity itself. The claim that Einstein "would have known about Dark Matter and Energy" is misleading. Dark energy, now linked to the cosmological constant, was never intended to describe an expanding universe; rather, it was a mathematical fix to prevent a static universe from collapsing.

Modern relativists attempt to validate Einstein’s theory by promoting biased and misrepresented experimental results. Instead of acknowledging frequency distortion as the cause of perceived time distortion, they insist on time dilation as an intrinsic property of spacetime. Furthermore, they opportunistically conflate the classical interpretation of a curved gravitational field with spacetime curvature, despite fundamental inconsistencies in such a representation. This behavior lacks intellectual honesty.

Photon Interactions and Pair Production: A General Perspective, Not an ECM Interpretation.

March 30, 2025

Photon self-interactions are absent in pure Maxwell’s theory. Photon-matter interactions should not be confused with direct photon-photon interactions, as photons do not typically collide within their ordinary energy range of 1–2 eV. For two photons to collide and produce an electron-positron pair, their initial energy must exceed 1 MeV (1,000,000 eV), whereas visible light photons only possess an energy range of 1–2 eV.

However, photon self-interactions can be induced through photon-matter interactions. Effective photon-photon interactions emerge in low-energy Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) frameworks. One such interaction is electron-positron pair production, where a high-energy photon—such as a gamma-ray photon—transforms into an electron (negatively charged) and a positron (positively charged, the electron's antiparticle). For this process to occur, the photon must possess sufficient energy, at least twice the rest mass energy of an electron (approximately 1.022 MeV), to generate both an electron and a positron.

The Measurability Principle and the Inconsistency of Relativistic Gravity:

Soumendra Nath Thakur 

March 30, 2025

A fundamental principle in science is that physical entities must be measurable, either directly or indirectly, through empirical evidence. If something is inherently unmeasurable, it falls outside the realm of physical science and into speculation.

If gravity is indeed a force, then Classical Mechanics provides a more appropriate framework for describing gravitational interactions. However, relativity redefines gravity not as a force but as a consequence of spacetime curvature. This fundamental shift raises an important question: How can gravity still be presented as a force within a relativistic framework? Such an approach appears inconsistent, if not opportunistic.

Furthermore, claiming that spacetime possesses physical properties while simultaneously asserting that it cannot be directly measured results in an unfalsifiable premise—one that cannot be tested, verified, or refuted by empirical means. This undermines the scientific validity of the relativistic treatment of gravity, as it relies on theoretical constructs that do not adhere to the fundamental requirement of measurability.

The Flawed Empirical Basis of Relativistic Gravitational Lensing And The Misinterpretation of Gravitational Lensing in Relativity

The claim that "spacetime itself may not be directly measurable, but its effects on observable phenomena can be" is fundamentally flawed and scientifically inconsistent. A rigorous analysis of gravitational lensing reveals a critical contradiction in the relativistic interpretation.  

If light were truly bending due to spacetime curvature, it would be obstructed by the massive body responsible for this curvature, preventing it from reaching an observer positioned beyond the gravitating mass. This contradicts the observational evidence attributed to gravitational lensing. Instead, the bending of light aligns with the classical interpretation, where light follows the curvature of the gravitational field rather than an abstract, unmeasurable warping of spacetime.  

Thus, the empirical claims supporting relativistic gravitational lensing are misleading. The phenomenon is more accurately explained by classical gravitational fields, rendering the relativistic interpretation of spacetime curvature not only unnecessary but fundamentally flawed.

The Misinterpretation of Gravitational Lensing in Relativity

While both the relativistic and classical models predict the bending of light, their underlying mechanisms differ significantly. The classical model attributes this effect to the gravitational field's direct influence on light’s trajectory, a concept that remains scientifically consistent and aligns with fundamental physical principles.

Conversely, the relativistic model claims that light bends due to the curvature of spacetime itself. However, this assertion lacks scientific consistency, as spacetime is an abstract mathematical construct rather than a physically measurable entity. If spacetime curvature were responsible for lensing, light passing near a massive body would be obstructed by that body rather than bending around it.

Thus, observational verifications attributed to relativistic gravitational lensing are based on flawed interpretations. The bending of light is best explained by classical gravitational fields, reaffirming that gravitational lensing is a consequence of classical mechanics rather than an effect of an unmeasurable and physically inconsistent spacetime curvature.

The Abstract Nature of Space and Time

March 29, 2025

Trevor White,

You have disregarded the fundamental premise of this discussion, which presents a scientifically and mathematically consistent interpretation of the abstract nature of space and time. Given this foundation, the concept of spacetime curvature cannot logically arise. No valid mathematical formulation supports the idea that space or time possesses inherent physical properties, whether considered separately or fused into a single entity as spacetime. This fundamental question must be addressed before proposing a distortable nature of spacetime.

Moreover, relativity provides no valid definition of space and time beyond the assumptions made for the formulation of spacetime. It merely constructs a mathematical model that fuses space and time without an independent physical basis. As a result, relativity cannot claim the broader and well-established definitions of space and time found in other disciplines of physical science and mathematics. These fields recognize space and time as abstract frameworks used to describe changes in existence rather than as physical entities subject to modification.

General Relativity does not provide empirical evidence for a physically distortable spacetime. However, you have presented a narrative that contradicts this fact. Experimental claims that supposedly confirm the relativistic view of space and time are often biased and scientifically inconsistent. These flawed results have been misrepresented as confirmations of relativistic spacetime, making such experiments unreliable and misleading. Space and time, as abstract constructs, cannot be treated as physically modifiable entities for the reasons outlined in the original discussion.

Furthermore, your assertion that Einstein's understanding of gravity is based on empirical measurements is un-founded. Space and time are not empirically measurable in themselves—unless one first assumes, without justification, that spacetime is a physical entity capable of distortion. In reality, space and time are not physically distortable, as reasoned in this discussion.

Material objects and electromagnetic fields can be influenced and distorted by external factors, but space and time cannot. According to relevant cosmological models, space and time emerge from existential changes in the universe. Rather than being distorted, these dimensions are used to describe and account for changes in existence—not the other way around.

Regards,

Soumendra Nath Thakur