qbit says...

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!

"Criminal cult"? Okay, I was under the mistaken impression that you
were just someone unfamiliar with science. I didn't realize you were
a kook. To the killfile with you...

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
: qbit says...
:
: "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.
:
: 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're not. You're proving that *either* Newtonian
: gravity is wrong, or Einstein's gravity is wrong, since
: they make different predictions. To decide which is right,
: you perform an experiment and see which one makes the
: correct predictions.

Like sitting in a chair and not floating away on some spacetime curvature.


: Such tests have been performed,


Yeah, I'm doing it right now.

: and
: the predictions made by Einstein's theory have been born
: out, and the predictions made by Newton's theory have not.

In your ****ing dreams.

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
: qbit says...
:
: 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!
:
: "Criminal cult"?


Yes. Arsehole trolls like you are ****in' criminal.


: Okay, I was under the mistaken impression that you
: were just someone unfamiliar with science. I didn't realize you were
: a kook. To the killfile with you...

Go on, hide your head up your arse, imbecile.

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.


Long before reaching c, any "test object" would long since have been
destroyed by tidal forces. Even if Newtonian mechanics WERE corrrect
(which it isn't), no such test could ever be conducted as you
describe.

"Randy Poe" wrote
On Aug 10, 3:09 am, "qbit" wrote:

# To see the steps how Einstein theorized that the speed of light in a
# gravitational field is actually not a constant, but rather a variable
# depending upon the reference frame of the observer:
# 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light',
# Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German
# (http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...11_35_898-...).
# It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years.
# You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book
# 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in
# section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light
# in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is:
# c' = c * (1 + phi / c^2)

Yes, Einstein theorized this in 1911. And decided by 1915 that
it was wrong, so it doesn't appear in the general theory of relativity.

Yes, the above formula of Einstein from the year 1911 is indeed wrong.
What is the correct formula used in GR ?

wrote
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
...
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.

Long before reaching c, any "test object" would long since have been
destroyed by tidal forces. Even if Newtonian mechanics WERE corrrect
(which it isn't), no such test could ever be conducted as you describe.

And what speed will the "destroyed" object (or its remnants) have finally
achieved when it (they?) finally hits the surface?
Or are you saying it won't reach the surface? :-)
But, where else can it go? :-)

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:17:35 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
: qbit says...
:
: 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!
:
: "Criminal cult"?


Yes. Arsehole trolls like you are ****in' criminal.


: Okay, I was under the mistaken impression that you
: were just someone unfamiliar with science. I didn't realize you were
: a kook. To the killfile with you...

Go on, hide your head up your arse, imbecile.

Projecting again?

--
Al in St. Lou

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
: qbit says...
:
: 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!
:
: "Criminal cult"?


Yes. Arsehole trolls like you are ****in' criminal.

You're a nasty piece of work

"Androcles" wrote in message
k...

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
: qbit says...
:
: 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!
:
: "Criminal cult"?


Yes. Arsehole trolls like you are ****in' criminal.

You're a nasty piece of work

Poe, did you not tell Androcles yet that Sagnac is about acceleration?