wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Aug 8, 8:13 pm, "qbit" wrote:
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
:
: Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
: faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s^2).
: 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_1806-20for 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.
:
: Yes, you have conclusively proven that you are a troll, and an
: ignorant one at that.

Yes, you have conclusively proven that you are a ****head, and a
particularly stooopid one at that, you nym-shifting ****.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
: qbit wrote:
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
[...]
:
: You assumed that Newtonian gravitation (NG) holds


You assume you can read, you illiterate ****ing troll.

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
: qbit wrote:
:
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
:
: Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
: faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s^2).
:
: Lorentz invariance

1) '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'. - -Einstein.
2) Illiterate ****head.

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
: qbit wrote:
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
[...]
:
: You assumed that Newtonian gravitation (NG) holds


You assume you can read, you illiterate ****ing troll.

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
: qbit wrote:
:
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
:
: Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
: faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s^2).
:
: Lorentz invariance

1) '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'. - -Einstein.
2) Illiterate ****head.

"qbit" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote
"qbit" wrote
"Tom Roberts" wrote
qbit wrote:

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

You assumed that Newtonian gravitation (NG) holds EXACTLY in a
situation
for which it has never been tested. Not even close.

Hey, the whole universe is working after the same Newton principle.
For more than 13 billion years now! This is proof enough.

Funny .. I thought we realised many many years ago that it does NOT work
after Newton principles. They just didn't properly explain what we began
to
find experimentally.

RT people said so. Lying is their marketing trick.
What else can one expect from this criminal cult!

Ok then .. you're just a disturbed crank with conpsiracy theory delusions.
I thought you might acutally be interested in physics for a moment there.

Moreover, our best theory of gravity, General Relativity,
predicts that NG does not come close to being valid
in the situation you describe.

LOL! I'm saying and proving that RT is buggy!!!

No .. you've done no such thing .. you've simply shown that if you try to
use old classical Newtonian physics you get different results to what
modern
physics predicts.

Just show us what your wrongly called "modern physics" calculates!

I thought you already knew?

Come on! Can it solve this simple problem or can it not?
According to RT how long will it take until the test-body hits
the surface of the star? Can you calculate this using RT or can you not?

Can you .. you'rethe one describing the experiment and making claims about
the results.

FYI: modern physics is QM, Newtonian Machanics is called Classical
Mechanics.
And RT is called Lie Theory, at least by me :-)

Well .. noone really care what you say .. you're an obvious loony.

That is not a proof that one is wrong and the other right, only that they
are different.

Both cannot be true, one is lying.

That's right

And it is definitely RT that is wrong!

RT gets experimental results correct that old classical physics gets wrong.
Classical physics is dead as a result . Science moves on

The situation is glass-clear.

Yes .. it is. Classical theory is dead bewcause it jsut doesn't do its job.

Fact is: here you cannot artifically limit
the speed of the free-falling test-body,

Its not articficial .. its nature. Science doesn't tell nature what to do
... we observe it and model it and sometimes even try to understand it.

because otherwise
everything else would not function!

Really .. what would not function? Everything seems to function just fine
currently in the universe and RT describes that functioning much better than
classical theories. Perhaps you missed that bit.

Ergo: RT is definitely wrong!

Ergo: Classical theories are wrong.

Ie. here you don't have any possibility for manipulating the experiment,
as was done in many other RT experiments,

Poor little deluded fool.

for example in the famous Hafele-Keating experiment! :-)))

Even IF that were true, if one experiment was 'fudged' that does not mean
that every one of the thousands of other experiments are also fudged. or
are all the scientist conspiring together to keep relativity going for some
perverted reason, they go out there and put specially treated muons into
space that have longer lifetimes to other muons just to make time dilation
work .. very sneaky this world-wide conpsiracy of scientists. HAHAHAHAHA.

BTW, do you know the accuracy rate of the atomic clocks
used in the HK-Experiment in 1971?... :-)))
I will tell you soon!

Hmm .. just looking at what wikpedia says about HK ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

Well.. it appears the results were well within the epxected accuracy. And
it says that the epxeriment was repeated mor erecently with even more
accurate clock and got the same results consistent with SR.

Of course, everyone who contributes to wikipedia is part of this worldwide
conspiracy to discredit newton and fudge every experiment to make it
consistent with SR. Why was it they were all doing that again .. I think I
missed that bit?

RT is nothing but Cheating&Lying!

No .. your posts are cheating and lying .. but you already know that, don't
you. You must realise you're either mentally disturbed or nothing but a
troll.

"qbit" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote
"qbit" wrote
"Tom Roberts" wrote
qbit wrote:

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

You assumed that Newtonian gravitation (NG) holds EXACTLY in a
situation
for which it has never been tested. Not even close.

Hey, the whole universe is working after the same Newton principle.
For more than 13 billion years now! This is proof enough.

Funny .. I thought we realised many many years ago that it does NOT work
after Newton principles. They just didn't properly explain what we began
to
find experimentally.

RT people said so. Lying is their marketing trick.
What else can one expect from this criminal cult!

Ok then .. you're just a disturbed crank with conpsiracy theory delusions.
I thought you might acutally be interested in physics for a moment there.

Moreover, our best theory of gravity, General Relativity,
predicts that NG does not come close to being valid
in the situation you describe.

LOL! I'm saying and proving that RT is buggy!!!

No .. you've done no such thing .. you've simply shown that if you try to
use old classical Newtonian physics you get different results to what
modern
physics predicts.

Just show us what your wrongly called "modern physics" calculates!

I thought you already knew?

Come on! Can it solve this simple problem or can it not?
According to RT how long will it take until the test-body hits
the surface of the star? Can you calculate this using RT or can you not?

Can you .. you'rethe one describing the experiment and making claims about
the results.

FYI: modern physics is QM, Newtonian Machanics is called Classical
Mechanics.
And RT is called Lie Theory, at least by me :-)

Well .. noone really care what you say .. you're an obvious loony.

That is not a proof that one is wrong and the other right, only that they
are different.

Both cannot be true, one is lying.

That's right

And it is definitely RT that is wrong!

RT gets experimental results correct that old classical physics gets wrong.
Classical physics is dead as a result . Science moves on

The situation is glass-clear.

Yes .. it is. Classical theory is dead bewcause it jsut doesn't do its job.

Fact is: here you cannot artifically limit
the speed of the free-falling test-body,

Its not articficial .. its nature. Science doesn't tell nature what to do
... we observe it and model it and sometimes even try to understand it.

because otherwise
everything else would not function!

Really .. what would not function? Everything seems to function just fine
currently in the universe and RT describes that functioning much better than
classical theories. Perhaps you missed that bit.

Ergo: RT is definitely wrong!

Ergo: Classical theories are wrong.

Ie. here you don't have any possibility for manipulating the experiment,
as was done in many other RT experiments,

Poor little deluded fool.

for example in the famous Hafele-Keating experiment! :-)))

Even IF that were true, if one experiment was 'fudged' that does not mean
that every one of the thousands of other experiments are also fudged. or
are all the scientist conspiring together to keep relativity going for some
perverted reason, they go out there and put specially treated muons into
space that have longer lifetimes to other muons just to make time dilation
work .. very sneaky this world-wide conpsiracy of scientists. HAHAHAHAHA.

BTW, do you know the accuracy rate of the atomic clocks
used in the HK-Experiment in 1971?... :-)))
I will tell you soon!

Hmm .. just looking at what wikpedia says about HK ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment

Well.. it appears the results were well within the epxected accuracy. And
it says that the epxeriment was repeated mor erecently with even more
accurate clock and got the same results consistent with SR.

Of course, everyone who contributes to wikipedia is part of this worldwide
conspiracy to discredit newton and fudge every experiment to make it
consistent with SR. Why was it they were all doing that again .. I think I
missed that bit?

RT is nothing but Cheating&Lying!

No .. your posts are cheating and lying .. but you already know that, don't
you. You must realise you're either mentally disturbed or nothing but a
troll.

"Jeckyl" wrote
"qbit" wrote

Dwelling in the past and worshipping former heros of science (not matter
how great) at the expense of moving forward is not the way of science.

No, the situation is exactly the other way around.
We must abandon RT to be able to make the next giant step
in science. RT lobbyists are controlling the science world.
They must be expelled from these places.

"Jeckyl" wrote
"qbit" wrote

Dwelling in the past and worshipping former heros of science (not matter
how great) at the expense of moving forward is not the way of science.

No, the situation is exactly the other way around.
We must abandon RT to be able to make the next giant step
in science. RT lobbyists are controlling the science world.
They must be expelled from these places.

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"qbit" wrote in message
...
: Debunked by Proof: Einstein's Relativity Theory Is Wrong! - PROOF #1
:
: Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
: faster than the speed of light (ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s^2).


No, no, no... c = 2AB/(t'A-tA)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...gures/img7.gif


How far is from A to A and how long does it take to get there?

It doesn't say the distance from A to A .. it says twice the distance from A
to B

Before you can get from A to A, first you must get halfway, which is B.
See Xeno's paradox.

Its unrelated to xeno's paradox.

"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."
That means it is because Einstein says so, not that it IS.

Why would it be different? If the speed of light is constant, then it must
be. Or are you saying the speed of light is not constant?

Now the time it takes to get from A to B (say 2 seconds) is half the time
it
takes to get from A to A (3 seconds),

Why do you think the speed of light would be different depending on the
direction of travel?

and half of (1+2) is 1, the other half is 2.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

But we MUST forget the other half and only use the first half so that we
can
derive
the cuckoo malformations aka the "Lorentz Transformations".

No .. what the formula says is you use the combined time (there and back) ..
so if it takes 2 seconds there and 3 seconds back (for whatever reason you
think), then in the formula you quote t'A - tA = 5

[snip irrelevancy]