A refutation of general relativity (hereafter "GR"): At A, let a test particle be in free fall near a star. (All drawings are from the particle’s perspective.) At B, let the star be hurled into the particle at an arbitrary velocityv. Special relativity (hereafter "SR") applies to a direct measurement, so the star is length-contracted in the particle’s frame. At C, let the particle instead free-fall to hit the star atv. According to GR, a superset of SR, the star is not length-contracted in the particle’s frame. But B and C are identical situations at impact—GR cannot have it both ways. Then GR is refuted as inconsistent.

Drawing B is validated by the muon experiment, a confirmation of SR, in which the whole Earth is length-contracted in the frame of a muon free-falling toward it.

Drawing C is validated by the bookExploring Black Holes, pg. 3-22: The general relativistic equation that returns the proper time elapsed of an object free-falling from rest at infinity (or a great distance) toward a Schwarzschild mass (i.e., a spherically symmetric, uncharged, nonrotating mass), is an integration, from a higher-altituder-coordinate to a lower-altituder-coordinate, of the equation -sqrt(r/ 2M) *dr, whereris ther-coordinate (Euclidian radius) of the object from the center of the mass,Mis the mass in geometric units (same units asr), anddris the increment ofr-coordinate. The proper time elapsed is just the sum of the proper time for the object to traverse each increment of ther-coordinate at the escape velocity at thatr-coordinate. The same integration applies to Newtonian mechanics (GR shares Newton’s escape velocity equation; only the interpretations differ). Then in GR a Schwarzschild mass is not length-contracted in the frame of an object free-falling toward it. When the integration is fromr= 2M(horizon) tor= 0 (singularity), the resulting equation is equivalent to 6.57 * 10<sup>-6</sup> (M/M<sub>Sun</sub>) seconds, whereMis the mass of the black hole andM<sub>Sun</sub> is the mass of the Sun.

Let a particle free-fall from rest at infinity (or a great distance) to a star whose escape velocity at its surface is almostc. The particle reaches the surface at almostc. Drawing B shows that the star will be length-contracted in the particle’s frame to almost zero length. Were the particle able to pass unimpeded through the star, it would do so almost instantly in its frame (by its clock). (The particle’s minimum velocity while traversing the star is at the star’s surface).

GR, however, says that the proper time for the particle to pass through this star is dependent on the star’s mass. The more mass, the more time required, with no upper time limit. This dependency is not because of some black hole strangeness—the derivation is not dependent on any feature of a black hole. The reason is because, in GR, the star is not length-contracted in the particle’s frame. The more massive the star, the greater ther-coordinate at which the escape velocity is almostc. Then the more massive the star, the greater the (uncontracted) distance the particle must traverse to pass through the star.

GR is a superset of SR. Then every SR prediction must be equivalently predicted by GR. Because GR disagrees with SR for the same scenario, as shown above, GR is refuted as inconsistent.