On the parity of general mechanics and general relativity, and misconceptions of Einstein’s theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent publications have proposed a new theory of gravity that is based on the Minkowski metric and a modified Newtonian force law. The new theory is called general mechanics. While general mechanics correctly predicts the precession of Mercury’s orbit and the bending of light by the Sun, it will be shown that it cannot correctly predict other strong and weak field tests that confirm general relativity. As such, general mechanics is not a valid theory of gravity. In this article, it will be proven that the radial coordinate used by general mechanics is not the same as the Schwarzschild radial coordinate. This fact, which is well documented in textbooks, prevents the claimed parity between general mechanics and general relativity. Also, this article shows that general mechanics cannot predict black hole behavior and gravitational waves. The paper concludes with a proof that the curved spacetime of general relativity cannot be replicated by a globally flat metric as is the case with general mechanics. This article also provides pedagogical value by dispelling three common misconceptions about general relativity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".