Comparing Frameworks
The Kinetiverse framework uses spatial forces (F=ma) and temporal energy (E=mc), treating space and time as separate but entangled entities, rejecting gravity and spacetime. In contrast, Newtonian gravity relies on F=G(m1m2)/R², and general relativity uses spacetime curvature (E=mc²). This page compares how these frameworks explain phenomena like Mercury’s precession, binary pulsar decay, black hole mergers, tired light, the double-slit experiment, tsunamis, and hurricanes.
Comparison Table
| Aspect | Kinetiverse | Newtonian Gravity | General Relativity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Concepts | Spatial forces (F=ma), temporal energy (E=mc), space-time separation/entanglement, rejects gravity/spacetime. | Gravitational attraction between masses in fixed space and time. | Spacetime curvature, mass-energy equivalence (E=mc²). |
| Key Equations | F = m · a, E = m · c, z ≈ k d / c, yn = n λ L / d. | F = G(m1m2)/R², a = GM/r². | Gμν = 8π G Tμν / c⁴, z = H d / c. |
| Mercury’s Precession | Orbital/axial forces, photon path length changes (~574 arcsec/century). | Underpredicts precession (~531 arcsec/century). | Spacetime curvature fully accounts (~574 arcsec/century). |
| Binary Pulsar Decay | Temporal energy loss via photon path changes (~2.4 × 10^-12 s/s). | Cannot explain decay. | Gravitational wave emission matches observations. |
| Black Hole Merger | Energy waves from orbital/axial forces (~150 Hz, LIGO). | Cannot model mergers or waves. | Gravitational waves from spacetime ripples (~150 Hz). |
| Tired Light | Photon energy loss (z ≈ k d / c), no cosmic expansion. | Not applicable. | Redshift from spacetime expansion (z = H d / c). |
| Double-Slit | Spatial deflections, temporal phase shifts (yn = n λ L / d). | Not applicable. | Requires quantum mechanics, not relativity. |
| Tsunamis/Hurricanes | Spatial forces (pressure, axial), temporal energy (Dexter’s track, tsunami speed ~200 m/s). | Gravity aids fluid dynamics but limited for dynamics. | Relies on fluid dynamics, not spacetime directly. |
| Strengths/Limitations | Simpler force-based model, empirical constants (k, β), less precise for relativistic effects. | Simple, accurate for low-velocity systems, fails for relativistic cases. | Highly precise for relativistic phenomena, complex mathematics. |