THREE FRAUDS THAT KILLED PHYSICS

Androcles wrote:

Third postulate:-
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Albert Einstein,

Please show the version of the wave equation that make the speed
of light dependent on direction. I've asked you this several
times, and you've ignored the request each time. If you don't
give a substantive response (as opposed to insults and foul
language) this time, the world will take your lack of response as
a tacit admission that your claim is utterly without merit.

--
Thomas M. Sommers -- -- AB2SB

"Pentcho Valev" escreveu na mensagem
s.com...
FRAUD 1: The conclusion that reversible machines working between the
same two temperatures have the same efficiency IS A CONSEQUENCE of the
empirical fact that heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold:


I don't know where you get this, but reversible machines working between the
same two temperatures cannot produce any power, nor exchange any energy.
Hence, talking about efficiency off a no-power system looks silly to me.

On Aug 27, 2:54 pm, "JM Albuquerque" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" escreveu na glegroups.com...

FRAUD 1: The conclusion that reversible machines working between the
same two temperatures have the same efficiency IS A CONSEQUENCE of the
empirical fact that heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold:

I don't know where you get this, but reversible machines working between the
same two temperatures cannot produce any power, nor exchange any energy.
Hence, talking about efficiency off a no-power system looks silly to me.

I think he means that if you take two machines, both of which go
between 100 K and 300K, they have identical efficiencies.

As with everything else Pentcho writes, he is wrong as to the reason
why the efficiencies are the same.... it doesn;t have anything to do
with the fact that heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold (aka the
zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics).

HInt to Pentcho - if you want to convince anyone you have EVER passed
pchem 1, or that you COULD ever pass it, at least learn this proof. It
is trivial for a reasonably intelligent college junior

escreveu na mensagem
ups.com...
On Aug 27, 2:54 pm, "JM Albuquerque" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" escreveu na
glegroups.com...

FRAUD 1: The conclusion that reversible machines working between the
same two temperatures have the same efficiency IS A CONSEQUENCE of the
empirical fact that heat always flows spontaneously from hot to cold:

I don't know where you get this, but reversible machines working between
the
same two temperatures cannot produce any power, nor exchange any energy.
Hence, talking about efficiency off a no-power system looks silly to me.

I think he means that if you take two machines, both of which go
between 100 K and 300K, they have identical efficiencies.

Wooooohhhhg!
Mixing efficiency with the theorem about the maximum possible
transferred power.

Well, Pentcho, like all other big loud mouth, talk to much and
cannot say it all right. Actually, the more they talk the more
they show they don't know what they are talking about.

"Maximum power transfer theorem" states that if the source
has internal impedance, only a maximum of 50% efficiency is
possible achieve and that requires that load impedance match the
source impedance. Both system are in resonance then, and they
become complex conjugated. If the source impedance is zero
(an ideal case), then 100% of power can be transferred,
again with a complex conjugate match (the same as resonance).

What Pentcho should have said is:
"Reversible machines working between the same two temperatures
have the same efficiency if they have the same internal impedance."

"q-bit" wrote in message
...
The problem is the SR/GR charlatans of nowadays who don't want
hear that their god Einstein committed errors.

Good physicists know that there were errors .. that is not unusual in the
development of a theory. What makes a difference is whether or not those
errors are discovered and corrected.

Here's a good study of tricks Einstein has used and also his errors,
all explained and proved mathematically; there is also a film for
download:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/faq.htm

Nonsense .. have you actually read that crap? Whoever wrote it simply has
no idea (of the math or the physics involved)

"Jeckyl" wrote
"q-bit" wrote

The problem is the SR/GR charlatans of nowadays who don't want
hear that their god Einstein committed errors.

Good physicists know that there were errors .. that is not unusual in the
development of a theory. What makes a difference is whether or not those
errors are discovered and corrected.

Here's a good study of tricks Einstein has used and also his errors,
all explained and proved mathematically; there is also a film for
download:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/faq.htm

Nonsense .. have you actually read that crap?

I indeed have read the analysis of Steven Bryant; it's far from being crap.
It is IMO the best quality work done in this field.
His analysis proofs and confirms the errors of Einstein.
Everybody can convince him/herself by reading Steven Bryant's
clearly done and written analysis.

Whoever wrote it simply has no idea (of the math or the physics involved)

Why do you say so? You are trying to badmouth Steven Bryant.
Can you disproof his very clearly shown proofs of Einstein's errors?
Steven Bryant did a through and qualitative analysis of Einstein's equations.
Everybody can verify his analysis and results:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...y.08072005.pdf
and his presentation document:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...2.04032007.pdf
See also the other papers at his website.

IMO the best analysis of the work of Einstein, ie. of the logical
and mathematical errors of Einstein.
There is no doubt anymore about Einstein's errors and of
Einstein's use of inappropriate and fake mathematical methods.
It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize or another Grand Prize
for helping rescuing physics from the hands of Einstein charlatans.

"q-bit" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote
"q-bit" wrote

The problem is the SR/GR charlatans of nowadays who don't want
hear that their god Einstein committed errors.

Good physicists know that there were errors .. that is not unusual in the
development of a theory. What makes a difference is whether or not those
errors are discovered and corrected.

Here's a good study of tricks Einstein has used and also his errors,
all explained and proved mathematically; there is also a film for
download:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/mistakes.htm
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/faq.htm

Nonsense .. have you actually read that crap?

I indeed have read the analysis of Steven Bryant; it's far from being
crap.

Then you read it and didn't undestand it

It is IMO the best quality work done in this field.

Then you've not read much else

His analysis proofs and confirms the errors of Einstein.

There are none

Everybody can convince him/herself by reading Steven Bryant's
clearly done and written analysis.

Clear .. but wrong

Whoever wrote it simply has no idea (of the math or the physics involved)

Why do you say so? You are trying to badmouth Steven Bryant.

I've no idea who heis .. but that site is nonsense

Can you disproof his very clearly shown proofs of Einstein's errors?

Yes

Steven Bryant did a through and qualitative analysis of Einstein's
equations.

Not on the site you showed

Everybody can verify his analysis and results:
http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...y.08072005.pdf
and his presentation document:

http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...2.04032007.pdf
See also the other papers at his website.

IMO the best analysis of the work of Einstein, ie. of the logical
and mathematical errors of Einstein.

There aren't any .. he doesn't understand what he's saying

There is no doubt anymore about Einstein's errors and of
Einstein's use of inappropriate and fake mathematical methods.

There is plenty of doubt, because the site you referenced does not show any
errors

It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.

Its crap written by Steven Bryant

IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize or another Grand Prize
for helping rescuing physics from the hands of Einstein charlatans.

He should be criticised for his stupidity.

"q-bit" wrote in message
...
Can you disproof his very clearly shown proofs of Einstein's errors?

Les look at the 1950 paper error he claims.

Einstein's paper says the light in our frame S satisfies:
x = ct.

According to SR, the speed of light in some other frame S' should also be:
x' = ct'
(ie the speed of light is the same in all frames)

It is at this point the Mr Bryant steps in.

He sees and notes that midway thru section 3 Einstein has x' = ct' (note I
am using primed variables here instead of the tau's etc in the original)

He then jumps to the end and sees the usual general Lorentz transforms

t' = gamma (t - v/c^2 x)
x' = gamma (x - vt)
etc

He then incorrectly take the specific equation for light (x' = ct') and
equates that with the general Lorentz transform and (surprisingly) says that
"generally" it is not correct.

And that is exactly right, because the x' = ct' is only correct for things
travelling at speed c (eg light).

Now .. if you instead do the analysis correctly you get this

Lorentz transforms a

t' = gamma . (t - v/c^2 . x)
x' = gamma . (x - vt)

We know that in frame S, x = ct, so we can substitute ct for x in the above
to find out where light would be at a given time in frame S' ie

t' = gamma . (t - v/c^2 . ct)
= gamma . t . (1 - v/c)

x' = gamma (ct - vt)
= gamma . t . (c - v)
= c . gamma . t . (1 - v/c)
= ct'

So we see that the x' = ct' is indeed correct and consistent with the
Lorentz transforms.

There is no error there.

Obviously Mr Bryant is ignorant of the math and physics involved. Who is
this charlatan anyway? It appears he is a failed physics student who ended
up in computer science.

"Jeckyl" wrote in message
...
"q-bit" wrote in message
...
Can you disproof his very clearly shown proofs of Einstein's errors?

Les look at the 1950 paper error he claims.

sorry: typo .. "Let's look at the 1905 paper he claim is in error"

"q-bit" wrote in message
...

: It's all clearly and verifyably proven by Steven Bryant.
: IMO Steven Bryant should be awarded the Nobel Prize or another Grand Prize
: for helping rescuing physics from the hands of Einstein charlatans.
:

Oh, do come on... Bryant missed the most obvious flaw there is,
you don't any equations to see it. He'd have to share the prize
with hundreds of others if that idea had any merit. The guy that
actually proved Einstein wrong was Georges Sagnac in 1913.
http://www.einstein-relativity.de/im...rferometer.jpg

"Sagnac had the prescience to suggest that this could be used to measure the
motion of a vehicle, in his case a ship.

This has already blossomed beyond belief. In the 1970s immense development
went into optical gyro technology, in particular into improving mirrors. It
was at the centre of military guidance systems, and used on missiles of all
sorts. It spawned aircraft gyros, now used routinely.

Even today, a curtain of military and commercial secrecy still dogs the
topic. Billions of dollars are at stake in recent lawsuits."

http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/res...ing_open.shtml

--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein


http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).