(1) Generalized inertia makes Newtonian mechanics evolve.
Einstein had a unique eye, summed up the equivalence principle from the universal phenomenon and the empirical fact that the free-falling body motion has nothing to do with the mass factor, and clearly and accurately said that the same property of an object is either "inertia" or "gravity" according to different situations ([3] p. 55). This identity is generalized inertia, and this situation is space. The essence of Newton's second law is the mathematical expression of his first law. Therefore, the revolutionary significance of the discovery of generalized inertia lies in shaking the core position of Newton's first law. Generalized inertia includes Newton's inertia, so it is its evolution. At the same time, it also shows that it is necessary to establish a new mechanical theory to replace the core proposition system of the evolutionary nature of Niuer's Law. Generalized inertia leads to two kinds of spaces and their differences. This new problem puzzled Einstein's life. After a long detour, in his later years, he saw the dawn of solving this problem-objects have spatial extensiveness (explained in the fifteenth edition of [3]), and thus "extensiveness" took a step forward, that is, ρ space and its difference in [2] were marked by its gradient value. This shows that we still need a new basic concept of space and a new empirical fact that was not involved in the original equivalence principle: the pressure gradient phenomenon of the mass part of the object (note: in a solid concrete object, this "pressure gradient" is expressed as "stress"), which is the concrete embodiment of Einstein's universality of space. At the same time, it also leads to the non-rigidity of the object and the abstraction of its internal spatial structure (Chapter VI [4]). Therefore, "everything is ready", just need to establish a new core proposition system. It can be said that the three habits are this system. Generalized inertia and Newton inertia belong to the same object property, so its revolutionary significance is mainly reflected in "gravity". "Gravity" is a misunderstanding of the nature of gravity. The concept of generalized inertia and field separates two objects with equal weight in the original gravity: one is a general (non-integral) object that only shows generalized inertia; The other is the central object with the particularity of producing gravity field. There is no "force" relationship between the general object and the central object. However, there is an "energy" relationship through the gravity field (the original meaning of the gravity field synthesized by gravity field and rotating inertial centrifugal force needs to be changed) (see the section "ρ space and energy" in this paper). At this point, generalized inertia has completed its logical task, that is, canceling gravity and deriving the particularity of the central object (of course, it also has the generality of generalized inertia). The central object of this particularity is the whole celestial body. Thus, the generalized inertia and the whole celestial body constitute the internal logic of the theory (that is, "self-proof"). Generalized inertia cancels the difference between inertial mass and gravitational mass. Of course, no mass produces the third property of gravitational field. There is a corresponding empirical fact that the gravitational field is a special ρ space, that is, the celestial bodies in the mass part of the gravitational field generally have the phenomenon that the density and pressure (as well as temperature and magnetic field factors) are approximately inversely proportional to the center distance (convergence). At the same time, its phenomenon also shows the particularity of this celestial body (central celestial body). The phenomenon of convergence is already a sign of honesty.
(2) Look at Newtonian mechanics again.
Why do people avoid the fact that the reaction of "force" (external force) in Newton's second law is the inertial force of an object? It is because when gravity is regarded as an external force (gravity), the object itself has no reaction force-inertial force (the acceleration of gravity has nothing to do with the mass of the object), which is exactly where Newton's mechanical theory can't "justify itself" and where Einstein is concerned. In order to avoid this contradiction (unconsciousness), we have to let its "external force" bear the heavy responsibility of "generalized" force. "Force is the reason why an object accelerates" is an unconditional concept and the most important thinking set of Newtonian mechanics. Whether it is relative acceleration or absolute acceleration, it is immediately reflected in people's minds that the force should be multiplied by the mass of the object to make it the cause of the motion of the object. Therefore, the direct wrong consequence is that the "free" or "non-free" accelerated motion of an object in a non-Newtonian inertial system or gravity field is also regarded as having an external force (excluding resistance) acting on it. The external inertial force in non-Newtonian inertial system is called virtual force, which shows that there is a second concept in Newtonian mechanics: "Force is the direct action of objects on objects"-this is the mode of acting force, but some textbooks attribute almost all the modes of acting force to elasticity except friction, which is wrong. Starting from this second concept, when we look at its external inertial force, there is really no other object to express it. For convenience, we have to call it virtual force. When gravity is regarded as an external force, it is found that there is indeed another object (the central object) corresponding to it, which is a "real" external force. The trouble is coming again. This kind of gravity is a kind of force with the nature of action at a distance, which is difficult to understand from the conceptual point of view of action mode force. In order to make gravity return to an understandable direct function, many people from Newton's time to now have to make up all kinds of "particles" to fly between two distant objects, thus taking on the heavy responsibility of gravity becoming a direct function. Gravitation is also a fictional force, and it would be in big trouble to make up for this fictional "thing". Because all objects with mass have generalized inertia, it can also be said to be "all things" inertia. Inertia mechanics plays a major and important role in the mechanical system, while other properties (such as elasticity and magnetism) mechanics play a secondary role, and taking "inertia force" as the physical unit of force is also due to its "everything". But the space of gravity (gravity field) and field source objects (whole celestial body) representing generalized inertial force are not "everything". These two angles are inseparable, and gravity will be considered as "everything", which will return to the incomprehensible strange circle why it works in the distance. Generalized inertia makes it meaningless and futile to explore the research direction of "the mechanism of gravity", because gravity itself is a fictional force derived from the limitations of Niuer's Law.
(3) Look at general relativity again.
Einstein's unique knowledge structure (Mach philosophy, special relativity, four-dimensional space-time, light, field and Riemann geometry) decided that he embarked on a theoretical road full of thorns. Mach's merit is to see that there is a defect in Newton's mechanical system, that is, the motion state of objects changes according to different reference systems, so the premise of judging Newton's inertial motion becomes uncertain (relativity). As a last resort, Mach took distant stars in the phenomenal world as his absolute frame of reference. Mach's mistake is to confuse the nature (holding force) of an object with its motion state in Newton's law of inertia. Inspired by Mach's philosophy, Einstein discovered the principle of equivalence, but at the same time he inherited Mach's mistakes. The four-dimensional space-time that is exaggerated to change people's concept of space-time is just a way to define space from the perspective of "movement" (or light movement). There are many ways to define structured space, and all methods are equal. How to define space depends on the needs of theory and practice. If there is no "light speed", the curved space-time still has mechanical significance, which is complementary to Newton's law of gravity: one is to describe the ontology field from the perspective of generalized inertia "motion"; One is described from the perspective of generalized inertial "force". The spatial significance of Newton's gravitational potential is an empirical description of the central structure ρ inhomogeneous space (gravity field). After all, it is a "description" and cannot replace the "expression" of the nature of the core proposition. Without a clear proposition statement, there is no clear understanding premise for its description. Both the law of inertia and general relativity are based on the principle of equivalence. It's just that Einstein has embarked on the road of equivalent principle of light speed again. The equivalent principle of the speed of light comes from the "thinking" experiment, and the only phenomenon that can verify its theory is that the starlight deflects near the sun. Einstein actually "used Huygens' principle very carefully" when calculating its deflection angle ([5] p. 23). However, according to the equivalence principle of "low speed", even kindergarten children can feel the difference between the acceleration of sitting on the slide and that of sitting in the car, because there is a difference in the existence or magnitude of pressure in their bodies. Fighter pilots have experienced all the connotations of the low-speed equivalence principle. Therefore, any mechanical theory that deviates from and evades the equivalent principle of "low speed" will definitely not succeed, because its phenomenon exists in the objective world and is closely related to mechanics. Einstein's love for "light" may be unconsciously avoiding an internal contradiction in his theory: the central mass (central object) that "produces" the gravitational field must be large, while the object that reflects the action of curved space-time (gravitational field) must be small and it doesn't matter whether the gravitational field is produced or not, which contradicts the meaning of two objects of equal weight in gravity. And "photon" happens to be the smallest object, which avoids this contradiction. Only the conclusion that "the whole celestial body produces gravity field" can solve this contradiction.
The unity of gravitational waves, black holes and four kinds of interaction forces comes from Einstein. Gravity no longer exists, and of course, "gravity" waves do not exist; If the gravitational field has a boundary, it is different from the electromagnetic field, and of course the gravitational "wave" does not exist. If "black hole" is derived from the angle of light bending in gravitational field, then black hole does not exist, because the principle of light bending in gravitational field is not due to "gravity"; If a "black hole" is deduced from the principle of "curved spacetime", then a black hole does not exist, because curved spacetime is originally defined by the bending of light (generalized inertial motion of photons), and conversely, people think that the bending of light is caused by curved spacetime. What logic is this? If light has a red-shift effect in the gravitational field, then a black hole derived from this principle may exist. Gravity does not exist, so there is no unification of the four kinds of interaction forces. At present, only "gravity" is left in the "great unification theory", which also illustrates this problem.
It is a process that people are most unaccustomed to, and it is always difficult to get rid of "figuration". One of the reasons why people are not used to it is that people have the abstraction of the original theory and the habitual way of thinking. Even if there is "concreteness", they can't see its abstract meaning. The process from abstract to concrete is much easier, but it often "concretizes" things that do not exist in the objective world.
Logically, the basic concept is a concept that cannot be defined by other concepts, and its connotation has certain fuzziness. The same is true of ρ space, which can only be explained by the pressure gradient phenomenon in the mass part of the object, but not the pressure gradient itself. "Vacuum" is a concrete space, and the existence of ρ gradient value of "gravity field" in vacuum can be tested by specific pressure gradient. But vacuum can't be considered as ρ uniform space. The relationship between ρ space and pressure gradient can be compared with the relationship between iron powder and magnetic field structure. It is also one of the reasons why Einstein's "nothing" space can distinguish two kinds of space, while the curved space-time defined by "motion" can't distinguish whether it expresses the generalized inertia of an object or the nature of a field. In particular, it is emphasized that the internal space of an object can only refer to the space occupied by the mass part of the object, which is also the meaning of "the object has spatial extensibility" awakened by Einstein in his later years. The space of gravity field includes not only the space of mass part (the whole celestial body), but also the space without mass part. In this way, the problem of "relative ambiguity" caused by becoming an abstract frame of reference with no boundaries and nothing is avoided. Generally speaking, ρ space is only a scalar field in mathematical form (its gradient is a vector field), but in physical sense, it contains the meaning of ontology field, potential, energy, entropy and pressure gradient of mass part, which can express generalized inertia and become the internal space and gravity field of an object.