Certainly "GPS fits Special Relativity..But Why Not Gravity?"

As I say I believe gravity is a blue shift at a much different level of energy than something like centrifugal force or inertia because e.g. the equations for centrifugal force and gravity are much different and gravity moves masses together and the closer together they move the more gravity they have.

 You might ask what about the Mossbaur effect or GPS. GPS seems to be a relativist's dream superficially. It seems to fit both special and general relativity in an amazing sort of way. While I can say certainly that special relativity is well founded, mass and energy seem to be inequivalent because it's much easier to convert mass to energy than vice versa, and thus a way to claim that gravity and inertia are not necessarily the same thing, as in gravity is more like mass and inertia is more like energy, as I say no experiment by Einstein's method will show any distinction inside the inertial elevator or the gravitational elevator  by the Earth. 

 But if you drop the masses in the inertial elevator or the gravitational elevator and you count the distance between them with time and you also note that at least one frame of reference in the inertial elevator will have the two masses moving in uniform motion, no frame of reference in the gravitational elevator has this ability.

 Just as no inertial frame of reference can transform away the surface of a bucket of rotation of water so it's level, Einstein's idea seems incomplete.

 If we add atomic clocks to the masses as they fall in both the inertial and gravitational elevator we see a related effect, the inertial clocks are unchanging with time at any rate  in this frame of reference but the gravitational clocks are continually changing the speed of the clocks by all inertal frames of reference according to any observer. This is because by the different accelerations of the gravitational field the force acting on each mass by the tide is actually more internal. This is because gravity brings things together so that they're more inside than outside the field like the field of the Earth.

 This about the transformation away of the inertial force in the inertial elevator but at least one frame of motion can be seen easily with an inertial frame reference in uniform motion both for the inertial and the gravitational elevator. 

You might ask since relativity is about all observers why we couldn't use accelerated frames of reference for both elevators and thus transform away any of the motion of masses moving apart in the accelerated inertial or gravitational elevator?

Suppose we have a setup where we have lights lighting up inside of the inertial elevator to tell the outside observer in accelerated motion where those falling masses are. 

 These two masses are moving apart then you have the accelerated frame (if it's going in a positive direction with the motion of the falling masses to give the equivalent measure of the gravitational elevator.)

 But if we try to do the same thing with the gravitational elevator it takes no propulsion or a different amount of force to go with that motion.

 One problem is about how the motion of the accelerated frame near a large mass itself will change its measurement of the other two clocks. 

The accelerated observer to create the equivalent change has to use more force to go against the field differently than with the field in the gravitational field but for the inertial accelerated observer this is not so.

Certainly a different change in the force to achieve this will be needed in the gravitational frame as they labor against the field.

  This corresponds to the changing speed of light by the acceleration of the gravitational field, something relativity denies because the speed of light is no longer absolute and is changing as it's accelerating.

 One idea of the relativists about gravity is that as the light goes upward from the surface of the Earth it's not with force on the light, and there is no work done on the light by the gravity. 

 You can see why Einstein's idea will only work at short distance because with more  distance the speed of light changes and a force is present contrary to what Einstein believed about gravity.

Or consider the spinning bucket of water. The accelerated wave in the bucket can be transformed away but only by a highly artificial method of speeding up and slowing down the observer as they pass over the bucket. 

Gravity actually causes the water in the bucket to have an acceleration like the surface of the oceans of the Earth, but the inertial influence of this thing the bucket is much huger, and this is because of the inequivalence of gravity and inertia. There's a loose equivalence but it can't be made exact like Einstein believed. The world's ocean has a round acceleration but the water of the bucket is a parabola and is the centrifugal force is more huge and they have these distinctions because they aren't the same.

 Yet why does GPS work and seem to fit relatively so well? This would be because Einstein made the correct prediction about the speed of the acceleration of gravity or the GPS or satellites but his prediction was not based on the validity of relativity..

 As I say all masses don't necessarily fall at the same rate, and this was Einstein's relativistic basis he hoped to make predictions with like about GPS.

 This is where general relativity fails, because Einstein used equivalent motion to describe the downward motion of masses by the comical idea that we're accelerating upward at 32 ft per second in equivalent motion. And his prediction as with GPS was where the change in the orbit of Mercury is by the opposite event and one or the other would give way, acceleration changing for Mercury or not changing for masses falling near the Earth and it's not that the masses fall at the same rate as the moon falls at a different rate around the Earth then the Earth around the moon.

 GPS may seem to be a miracle for relativity, but not if the speed of light changes in a gravitational field and the atomic clocks give us a different result in the gravitational or inertial elevators. The special relativistic component of GPS is viable but not to predict the general relativistic events if we predict them based on the relativity of gravity.

 Einstein might have said, What about the equivalent gravitational contraction of the Earth itself as if by the Lorentz contraction of Special Relativity? While GPS may not match relativity, certainly we can say that there's no problem with gravity blueshifting because there's actually a sort of blue shift of the mass with the equivalent Lorentz contraction in Special Relativity, so it may seem they're unified once more and the Earth is not with more room inside than out by the red shift of light. 

But there's still the problem that the clocks will go at different rates than they should and that gravity changes the speed of light.

While Einstein's predictions about gravity are good and he advanced GPS events well, I would hold they're not based on general relativity. Because gravity is not mostly about relativity.

 Even if we say the mass accelerated to near the speed of light in special relativity has the Lorentz contraction, this itself would seem to be like an attraction inside that mass like gravity. If relativity by Einstein's belief can't describe what causes the Lorentz contraction, in truth it wouldn't cause gravity either. But if there's a faster than light field as I say like air for the sound of the train connecting up the light and the Lorentz contraction in SR, this could be used to unify with gravity because if the connection was only at the speed of light, the light couldn't be slowed down in the gravitational field.

Einstein got lots of publicity about both special and general relativity, and his other science contributions are beyond doubt. Anyone who comes up with any kind of criticism for general relativity may be in for a sort of dogma of science. But this may be more from the publishing industry and not from science by what's left of big publishing after the internet. This seems to have been because Einstein began relativity at a time when due to the invention of the Edison audio technology anyone could make a few records and earn lots and lots of money real fast.

 The publishing industry may have been so wild about Einstein so they forgot to look for deeper truths like this about the elevators and atomic clocks in general relativity.

 

I hold that what LIGO has found is the speed of inertia because inertia radiates out and gravity radiates in as I say on pages like this..

Click here for what I consider to be my most up-to-date general page about Gravity relativity and the speed of light..