1. The Core Contradiction: GR Claims No Force, Yet Uses Newtonian Equations for Local Gravity

GR treats gravity as a geometric effect—a curvature of spacetime rather than an actual force. This means objects are not "pulled" toward larger masses but instead follow natural paths dictated by the shape of spacetime itself.

However, when describing local gravitational interactions, physicists still default to Newtonian mechanics:

• The force of gravity on Earth is still described as F = G(m1m2)/r² in everyday physics.

• Engineers calculate spacecraft trajectories using Newtonian gravitational equations.

• Newtonian escape velocity is used to determine how much energy is needed to leave a planet’s gravitational influence.

• The force of gravity is given in Newtons (kg·m/s²) when describing weight on Earth.

​

👉 If gravity were purely a curvature of spacetime, as GR insists, why do we still use force equations in local scenarios? If mass is simply following the curvature of spacetime, no force should be necessary. Yet in reality, we can measure the force acting on objects—meaning force must exist.

​

This inconsistency is never fully addressed in physics education or literature. The reliance on Newtonian mechanics is merely taken for granted when convenient while still adhering to the illusion that GR fully replaced Newton.

​

Simply put: You cannot claim gravity is not a force and then continue to use force equations whenever it suits the problem at hand.

​

2. How GR Defenders Try to Excuse the Contradiction

When challenged on this contradiction, GR proponents typically offer one of the following responses:

1. "Newtonian gravity is just an approximation that works for weak fields."

   • If this were true, then Newtonian mechanics should fail completely at all scales. But we still use it to describe gravity effectively in local environments. An “approximation” should not continue to function so precisely if the underlying mechanics are entirely different.

2. "Newtonian equations emerge from GR as a low-energy limit."

   • This argument still admits that Newton’s equations work. If Newtonian gravity is derived from GR, then there must be a force mechanism within GR that causes it to be valid in those scenarios. The fact that Newton’s force law appears in the equations at all is proof that force is a real concept, contradicting GR’s fundamental premise.

3. "Newtonian gravity is just a convenient way to calculate effects locally, but spacetime curvature is the real mechanism."

   • This is a circular argument. It assumes the truth of spacetime curvature while acknowledging that force-based gravity still must be used to get correct answers. In reality, the persistence of force-based equations suggests that spacetime curvature is not an independent explanation—it is a mathematical representation of force effects.

​

All of these defenses fail because they ultimately admit that force is necessary to describe gravity in practical terms, while continuing to claim it does not exist. This is an untenable contradiction.

​

3. The Experimental Reality: Gravity Exhibits Force-Like Behavior at All Scales

Physics should describe reality. If a theory requires that we ignore direct observations in favor of abstract mathematical formalisms, it is not a complete theory.

When we measure gravitational effects in real-world experiments, we find clear force-based behavior:

• Gravitational acceleration is real and measurable.

  • On Earth, an object in freefall is accelerated at 9.8 m/s². If gravity were purely a geodesic effect, no force should be necessary to cause acceleration. However, acceleration requires force by definition.

• Tidal forces physically stretch and compress objects.

  • If gravity were purely a curvature of spacetime, objects should simply follow geodesics. Instead, we observe actual mechanical stresses within planetary bodies and orbital systems—direct evidence of force acting through gradients of interaction, which is exactly what would happen under a force-based gravitational model.

• Gravitational lensing can be described entirely by force interactions.

  • GR proponents use lensing as proof of curvature, but this phenomenon is just as easily explained by force-based models like Graviton Pressure Theory, where light bends due to interaction with a structured gravitational medium.

​

If spacetime curvature were the sole explanation of gravity, none of these force-based effects should exist. The fact that they do proves that GR is incomplete at best and outright misleading at worst.

​

4. Why Graviton Pressure Theory Resolves This Contradiction

Unlike GR, Graviton Pressure Theory (GPT) does not require us to switch explanations depending on scale. It correctly describes gravity as a real force mediated by external pressure, which eliminates the inconsistency between Newtonian mechanics and GR.

• Gravity is always a force, not just locally but universally.

  • Objects fall and accelerate because they are being acted upon by a real force—graviton pressure—not because they are merely following geodesics.

• Newtonian mechanics is not an approximation—it is a direct consequence of force interactions.

  • The reason Newton’s equations work at local scales is because they reflect actual physical interactions, not geometric illusions.

• Force is measurable, acceleration is real, and pressure interactions explain lensing, orbital stability, and cosmic structure.

  • There is no need to hide acceleration behind curvature. We can describe all gravitational effects as real forces, making the physics more intuitive and mathematically consistent.

​

👉 GR’s contradiction arises from its refusal to accept force while still relying on it in local calculations. GPT eliminates this contradiction by acknowledging force at all scales, preserving logical consistency.

​

5. The Final Dismantling of GR’s Contradiction

If General Relativity were truly the correct model of gravity, it would have no need for Newtonian mechanics. Yet, even its defenders cannot escape using Newton’s laws in local scenarios. This is an admission that GR, in its purest form, does not fully describe reality.

The contradiction can be summarized as follows:

• GR claims gravity is not a force but relies on Newtonian force equations for real-world applications.

• GR claims spacetime curvature alone explains gravity, yet we still measure acceleration and force in gravitational fields.

• GR claims Newton’s laws are just an approximation, but the equations work so consistently that they must reflect an underlying force-based reality.

​

The reliance on Newtonian mechanics is not a minor issue—it is a fatal flaw that exposes the incompleteness of GR.

​

Conclusion: The Illusion Has Been Shattered

The moment you recognize this contradiction, you can no longer ignore it. You cannot claim gravity is not a force while continuing to use force-based mathematics.

​

👉 If gravity is a force in local interactions, it must be a force universally.
👉 If force equations describe real-world gravity, then spacetime curvature is not a fundamental explanation—it is a flawed abstraction.

​

Graviton Pressure Theory corrects this inconsistency by reintroducing force as the primary mechanism of gravity, making gravity universally consistent, intuitive, and scientifically valid.

​