Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1

Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1 v1.00b

Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s).
Everything in RT is limited to this upper speed limit, and termed
as "relativistic addition" etc. The Lorentz-Factor (also called gamma)
does that limiting to c. For example when adding velocities together
the sum never can become = c.
RT relies solely on this fact and is highly dependent on this.

Below I will prove that this speed limit of RT cannot hold
for every object. It might be true for light (photons) itself,
and some other atomic particles, but this upper speed limit
cannot be valid for everything in the universe, especially not
for macroscopic objects like spaceships or celestial bodies like comets.

Here is an experiment that proves Einstein's Relavity Theory wrong:

We are performing a Free Fall Experiment above a star
that has a mass of about 130 times the mass of our Sun
and a radius of about 150 times the radius of our Sun
(see for example the data of the star system "LBV 1806-20"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBV_1806-20 for more info).

For comparison here are also the data of our Sun
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ):
Msun = 1.9891E30 kg
Rsun = 6.955E8 m

And here's a hypothetical but a realistic (cf. above) normal star
for our experiment. We define that it has no atmosphere and
that the space around it is the usual normal vacuum space,
and that there is no other gravitational fields nearby:
M = 258E30 kg (about 130 Sun masses)
R = 104E9 m (about 150 Sun radii)

We want to release a test-object to fall on to the surface of this star,
solely by using the gravitational attraction of the star. Ie. the test-object
has neither an own engine nor an initial speed; it will be released from rest.
The test-object is a symmetric and homogenous sphere of steel
or a similar material with some neglectable dimensions:
let's say it has a mass of just 1 kg and a radius of 5 cm.

Some calculations (consult your Classical Mechanics book):
G = 6.67428E-11 (Newton's Gravitational Constant)
c = 299,792,458 m/s (Speed of light)
g = G*M / R^2 = 1.592052737 m/s^2 (gravitational accelleration at the surface)

We will release the test-object at this distance from the surface of the star:
h = 113E15 m

It will free-fall in less than 11.94 years to the surface:
t = sqrt(2*h / g) = 377E6 seconds, ie. in less than 11.94 earth years
(actually it will take even less time if RT's own "time dilation" is correct :-)

Now comes the surprise: the final velocity of the object will be
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = 599E6 m/s
And guess what this is: this is about twice the speed of light!!! :-)))

So, Einstein's Relativity Theory is debunked by this proof. Q.E.D.!

R.I.P. RT, SR, GR, A.E.

"qbit" wrote in message
...
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
v1.00b

Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s).
Everything in RT is limited to this upper speed limit, and termed
as "relativistic addition" etc. The Lorentz-Factor (also called gamma)
does that limiting to c. For example when adding velocities together
the sum never can become = c.
RT relies solely on this fact and is highly dependent on this.

Below I will prove that this speed limit of RT cannot hold
for every object. It might be true for light (photons) itself,
and some other atomic particles, but this upper speed limit
cannot be valid for everything in the universe, especially not
for macroscopic objects like spaceships or celestial bodies like comets.

Here is an experiment that proves Einstein's Relavity Theory wrong:

We are performing a Free Fall Experiment above a star
that has a mass of about 130 times the mass of our Sun
and a radius of about 150 times the radius of our Sun
(see for example the data of the star system "LBV 1806-20"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBV_1806-20 for more info).

For comparison here are also the data of our Sun
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ):
Msun = 1.9891E30 kg
Rsun = 6.955E8 m

And here's a hypothetical but a realistic (cf. above) normal star
for our experiment. We define that it has no atmosphere and
that the space around it is the usual normal vacuum space,
and that there is no other gravitational fields nearby:
M = 258E30 kg (about 130 Sun masses)
R = 104E9 m (about 150 Sun radii)

We want to release a test-object to fall on to the surface of this star,
solely by using the gravitational attraction of the star. Ie. the
test-object
has neither an own engine nor an initial speed; it will be released from
rest.
The test-object is a symmetric and homogenous sphere of steel
or a similar material with some neglectable dimensions:
let's say it has a mass of just 1 kg and a radius of 5 cm.

Some calculations (consult your Classical Mechanics book):
G = 6.67428E-11 (Newton's Gravitational Constant)
c = 299,792,458 m/s (Speed of light)
g = G*M / R^2 = 1.592052737 m/s^2 (gravitational accelleration at the
surface)

We will release the test-object at this distance from the surface of the
star:
h = 113E15 m

It will free-fall in less than 11.94 years to the surface:
t = sqrt(2*h / g) = 377E6 seconds, ie. in less than 11.94 earth years
(actually it will take even less time if RT's own "time dilation" is
correct :-)

Now comes the surprise: the final velocity of the object will be
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = 599E6 m/s
And guess what this is: this is about twice the speed of light!!! :-)))

So, Einstein's Relativity Theory is debunked by this proof. Q.E.D.!

R.I.P. RT, SR, GR, A.E.


Is this a joke?

All you have proved is that Relativity provides different predictions to
those of "Classical Mechanics".

I would rather hope this is true, or else Relativity would be exactly the
same theory as "Classical Mechanics", and there would be no point in having
a different theory.

It is a joke, isn't it?

In sci.physics Peter Webb wrote:


Is this a joke?

All you have proved is that Relativity provides different predictions to
those of "Classical Mechanics".

I would rather hope this is true, or else Relativity would be exactly the
same theory as "Classical Mechanics", and there would be no point in having
a different theory.

It is a joke, isn't it?

Nah, he's an idiot.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
In sci.physics Peter Webb wrote:


Is this a joke?

All you have proved is that Relativity provides
different predictions to those of "Classical
Mechanics".

I would rather hope this is true, or else
Relativity would be exactly the same theory
as "Classical Mechanics", and there would
be no point in having a different theory.

It is a joke, isn't it?

Nah, he's an idiot.

Nah, you are all sci.idiots.

SGR transports enenergy & momentum many
times faster than c: thus, eg, the GFMI shows
the pressure change on Pb simultaneously with
Saturn's opposition, instead of after more than
an hour's delay when observed at c.

As long as you insist on the sci.childish idea
that non-existant qualitative "mass attraction"
is "gravitational force" & refuse to acknowledge
the nature of gravitation as the substance-relevant,
bipolar & variable vortex phenomena observed
with the GFMI (& described not in a UQT but
in the LQS of the EVU), you will remain totally
incompetent of discussing natural physics.

Thats all there is to say, mes enfants.

++++

SGR = Substance-relevant Gravitational Resonance

EVU = Electric Vortex Universe;
cf www.paf.li/perceptions.htm.

GFMI = Gravitational Field Measuring Instrument:
http://www.qualifying-science.com/do...roofofgfmi.pdf
http://www.qualifying-science.com/do...ress2006a4.pdf
(paper Physical Congress 2006 St Petersburg)
cf www.paf.li/gfmi-e.pdf; output of experiment in
http://evu.paf.li, substance-relevant in
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/hg.html - Mercury
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/cu.html - Copper
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/sn.html - Tin
http://evu.paf.li/rrd/pb.html - Lead

LQS = Logical Qualitative System

UQT = Unlogical Quantitative Theories
(cf http://www.paf.li/Quantification.pdf)

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"qbit" wrote in message
...
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
v1.00b

Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s).
Everything in RT is limited to this upper speed limit, and termed
as "relativistic addition" etc. The Lorentz-Factor (also called gamma)
does that limiting to c. For example when adding velocities together
the sum never can become = c.
RT relies solely on this fact and is highly dependent on this.

Below I will prove that this speed limit of RT cannot hold
for every object. It might be true for light (photons) itself,
and some other atomic particles, but this upper speed limit
cannot be valid for everything in the universe, especially not
for macroscopic objects like spaceships or celestial bodies like comets.

Here is an experiment that proves Einstein's Relavity Theory wrong:

We are performing a Free Fall Experiment above a star
that has a mass of about 130 times the mass of our Sun
and a radius of about 150 times the radius of our Sun
(see for example the data of the star system "LBV 1806-20"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBV_1806-20 for more info).

For comparison here are also the data of our Sun
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ):
Msun = 1.9891E30 kg
Rsun = 6.955E8 m

And here's a hypothetical but a realistic (cf. above) normal star
for our experiment. We define that it has no atmosphere and
that the space around it is the usual normal vacuum space,
and that there is no other gravitational fields nearby:
M = 258E30 kg (about 130 Sun masses)
R = 104E9 m (about 150 Sun radii)

We want to release a test-object to fall on to the surface of this star,
solely by using the gravitational attraction of the star. Ie. the
test-object
has neither an own engine nor an initial speed; it will be released from
rest.
The test-object is a symmetric and homogenous sphere of steel
or a similar material with some neglectable dimensions:
let's say it has a mass of just 1 kg and a radius of 5 cm.

Some calculations (consult your Classical Mechanics book):
G = 6.67428E-11 (Newton's Gravitational Constant)
c = 299,792,458 m/s (Speed of light)
g = G*M / R^2 = 1.592052737 m/s^2 (gravitational accelleration at the
surface)

Note this is "at the surface".

We will release the test-object at this distance from the surface of the
star:
h = 113E15 m

Note this is not "at the surface".

It will free-fall in less than 11.94 years to the surface:
t = sqrt(2*h / g) = 377E6 seconds, ie. in less than 11.94 earth years
(actually it will take even less time if RT's own "time dilation" is
correct :-)

Now comes the surprise: the final velocity of the object will be
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = 599E6 m/s
And guess what this is: this is about twice the speed of light!!! :-)))

So, Einstein's Relativity Theory is debunked by this proof. Q.E.D.!

R.I.P. RT, SR, GR, A.E.


Is this a joke?

All you have proved is that Relativity provides different predictions to
those of "Classical Mechanics".

Nope, he has only proved he cannot even calculate
the Newtonian result.

I would rather hope this is true, or else Relativity would be exactly the
same theory as "Classical Mechanics", and there would be no point in
having a different theory.

It is a joke, isn't it?

If he did it properly, he would find the speed
reached c at the Schwarzschild radius, he would
have shown that the Newtonian radius where escape
velocity is equal to the speed of light gives the
same answer as for the radius of a black hole in
GR, at neat coincidence.

To answer his original point, his proof is flawed
because the correct statement of the speed limit
in this case is that no object can move at greater
than c either inwards or outwards when that speed
is measured relative to the infalling test-object.

If you are not interested in astronomical aspects
of black holes, please remove sci.astro from your
replies.

George

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
:
: "qbit" wrote in message
: ...
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
: v1.00b
:
: Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
: faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s).
: Everything in RT is limited to this upper speed limit, and termed
: as "relativistic addition" etc. The Lorentz-Factor (also called gamma)
: does that limiting to c. For example when adding velocities together
: the sum never can become = c.
: RT relies solely on this fact and is highly dependent on this.
:
: Below I will prove that this speed limit of RT cannot hold
: for every object. It might be true for light (photons) itself,
: and some other atomic particles, but this upper speed limit
: cannot be valid for everything in the universe, especially not
: for macroscopic objects like spaceships or celestial bodies like comets.
:
: Here is an experiment that proves Einstein's Relavity Theory wrong:
:
: We are performing a Free Fall Experiment above a star
: that has a mass of about 130 times the mass of our Sun
: and a radius of about 150 times the radius of our Sun
: (see for example the data of the star system "LBV 1806-20"
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBV_1806-20 for more info).
:
: For comparison here are also the data of our Sun
: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ):
: Msun = 1.9891E30 kg
: Rsun = 6.955E8 m
:
: And here's a hypothetical but a realistic (cf. above) normal star
: for our experiment. We define that it has no atmosphere and
: that the space around it is the usual normal vacuum space,
: and that there is no other gravitational fields nearby:
: M = 258E30 kg (about 130 Sun masses)
: R = 104E9 m (about 150 Sun radii)
:
: We want to release a test-object to fall on to the surface of this star,
: solely by using the gravitational attraction of the star. Ie. the
: test-object
: has neither an own engine nor an initial speed; it will be released from
: rest.
: The test-object is a symmetric and homogenous sphere of steel
: or a similar material with some neglectable dimensions:
: let's say it has a mass of just 1 kg and a radius of 5 cm.
:
: Some calculations (consult your Classical Mechanics book):
: G = 6.67428E-11 (Newton's Gravitational Constant)
: c = 299,792,458 m/s (Speed of light)
: g = G*M / R^2 = 1.592052737 m/s^2 (gravitational accelleration at the
: surface)
:
: We will release the test-object at this distance from the surface of the
: star:
: h = 113E15 m
:
: It will free-fall in less than 11.94 years to the surface:
: t = sqrt(2*h / g) = 377E6 seconds, ie. in less than 11.94 earth years
: (actually it will take even less time if RT's own "time dilation" is
: correct :-)
:
: Now comes the surprise: the final velocity of the object will be
: v = sqrt(2*g*h) = 599E6 m/s
: And guess what this is: this is about twice the speed of light!!! :-)))
:
: So, Einstein's Relativity Theory is debunked by this proof. Q.E.D.!
:
: R.I.P. RT, SR, GR, A.E.
:
:
: Is this a joke?
:
: All you have proved is that Relativity provides different predictions to
: those of "Classical Mechanics".
:
: I would rather hope this is true, or else Relativity would be exactly the
: same theory as "Classical Mechanics", and there would be no point in
having
: a different theory.
:
: It is a joke, isn't it?
:

Is this a joke?
What's the point of having a different and very wrong theory?
Einstein's relativity is a joke, isn't it?

"George Dishman" wrote
"Peter Webb" wrote
"qbit" wrote

Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
v1.00b

Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s).
Everything in RT is limited to this upper speed limit, and termed
as "relativistic addition" etc. The Lorentz-Factor (also called gamma)
does that limiting to c. For example when adding velocities together
the sum never can become = c.
RT relies solely on this fact and is highly dependent on this.

Below I will prove that this speed limit of RT cannot hold
for every object. It might be true for light (photons) itself,
and some other atomic particles, but this upper speed limit
cannot be valid for everything in the universe, especially not
for macroscopic objects like spaceships or celestial bodies like comets.

Here is an experiment that proves Einstein's Relavity Theory wrong:

We are performing a Free Fall Experiment above a star
that has a mass of about 130 times the mass of our Sun
and a radius of about 150 times the radius of our Sun
(see for example the data of the star system "LBV 1806-20"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LBV_1806-20 for more info).

For comparison here are also the data of our Sun
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun ):
Msun = 1.9891E30 kg
Rsun = 6.955E8 m

And here's a hypothetical but a realistic (cf. above) normal star
for our experiment. We define that it has no atmosphere and
that the space around it is the usual normal vacuum space,
and that there is no other gravitational fields nearby:
M = 258E30 kg (about 130 Sun masses)
R = 104E9 m (about 150 Sun radii)

We want to release a test-object to fall on to the surface of this star,
solely by using the gravitational attraction of the star. Ie. the
test-object
has neither an own engine nor an initial speed; it will be released from
rest.
The test-object is a symmetric and homogenous sphere of steel
or a similar material with some neglectable dimensions:
let's say it has a mass of just 1 kg and a radius of 5 cm.

Some calculations (consult your Classical Mechanics book):
G = 6.67428E-11 (Newton's Gravitational Constant)
c = 299,792,458 m/s (Speed of light)
g = G*M / R^2 = 1.592052737 m/s^2 (gravitational accelleration at the
surface)

Note this is "at the surface".

We will release the test-object at this distance from the surface of the
star:
h = 113E15 m

Note this is not "at the surface".

You are comparing apples with oranges.
This is just the "height" (hence "h") from where we release the test body to fall.

It will free-fall in less than 11.94 years to the surface:
t = sqrt(2*h / g) = 377E6 seconds, ie. in less than 11.94 earth years
(actually it will take even less time if RT's own "time dilation" is
correct :-)

Now comes the surprise: the final velocity of the object will be
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = 599E6 m/s
And guess what this is: this is about twice the speed of light!!! :-)))

So, Einstein's Relativity Theory is debunked by this proof. Q.E.D.!

R.I.P. RT, SR, GR, A.E.

Is this a joke?

All you have proved is that Relativity provides different predictions to
those of "Classical Mechanics".

Nope, he has only proved he cannot even calculate
the Newtonian result.

So, then please show us just *your* calculation!
Can you calculate this or can you not? Give us your result!

If he did it properly, he would find the speed
reached c at the Schwarzschild radius, he would
have shown that the Newtonian radius where escape
velocity is equal to the speed of light gives the
same answer as for the radius of a black hole in
GR, at neat coincidence.

And, according to you and what was taught to you:
what does this practically mean for our test body in free fall?
Give some concrete answers.

To answer his original point, his proof is flawed
because the correct statement of the speed limit
in this case is that no object can move at greater
than c either inwards or outwards when that speed
is measured relative to the infalling test-object.

BS.
You have to answer this cardinal question:
HOW AND WHO IS GOING TO LIMIT THE SPEED
OF A FREE-FALLING BODY IN FREE SPACE??!
(remember there is no atmosphere etc).

Just tell us how long will it take the body to fall and hit the surface?
Can you calculate this using your RT method or can you not?

If you are not interested in astronomical aspects
of black holes, please remove sci.astro from your
replies.

The above star has "just" 130 Sun masses, but BlackHoles have
even billions (!!!) of times the mass of our Sun!
Have you ever wondered and calculated such a free-fall experiment
over a BH? Just do it and analyse it and you will come to the same
conclusion: RT can not be correct.
Q.E.D.!