|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
"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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
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) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
"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? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
"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.! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how technical is Einstein's book on relativity? | oriel36 | UK Astronomy | 5 | December 14th 06 11:09 PM |
how technical is Einstein's book on relativity? | Alan Dillard | CCD Imaging | 2 | December 9th 06 02:15 PM |
Einstein's relativity theory proven with the 'lead' of a pencil (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | November 10th 05 05:38 AM |
Einstein's relativity theory proven with the 'lead' of a pencil(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | November 10th 05 05:14 AM |
A Question For Those Who Truly Understand The Theory of Relativity (Was: Einstein's GR as a Gauge Theory and Shipov's Torsion Field) | Larry Hammick | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 26th 05 02:22 AM |