People, people, people, you have qbit all wrong. You trade his wacky
science with science, he and Androcles reply with potty mouths, and the
whole thing escalates into a mindless insult-fest!

First, you must learn to appreciate qbit's poetry! Note the ponderous
manner in which he writes the speed of light to the nearest meter per
second (and pedantically corrects himself when he uses the wrong units).
And how in his thought experiment, when he needs to pose an example of
a large massive body, that he feels the need to cite an actual example
(complete with wikipedia citation!), and then at length compares its
vital statistics with that of our own sun.

I'm sorry, but his writing should be compared with Shakespeare, not
Newton. The scientific content is so obviously flawed that the only way
he can bate anyone into a discussion is by his ponderous, yet eerily
beautiful style. You guys think you are so clever in understanding the
flaws in his science, when in reality he has you guys wrapped around his
little finger, arguing with his inanities, and giving him the attention
he so clearly desires.

Please, people, if or when you respond to his posts, try to come up with
imaginative and well crafted insults. Combat him not with science, but
with poetry. Really, "stoopid" and "troll" just don't cut it any more -
we have heard these phrases too many times. And please try to avoid the
potty mouths - it doesn't impress anyone.

Qbit is clearly seeking attention. Think hard about his psychology.
Try to find his buttons and punch them hard. See if you can make him
squirm so hard that he puts you into his killfile. And above all, when
responding to these trolls, enjoy yourself! If you start to loose sleep
over it, you need to do something else for a while.

Best regards,

Stephen

"qbit" wrote in message
...
"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.

There are many areas where physicist are looking at new ideas. If SR is
wrong, then it will be replaced, just like SR replaced Newtonian ideas ..
but a new theory must successfully explain all the correct predictions of
the old theory .. just like SR correctly predicts experimental results from
Newton's physics. Classical Newtonian physics is an extremely close
approximation to SR at relatively low velocities .. so small a difference
that we just cannot tell them apart. So far we've not come up with anything
better. Going backward to physics of the past that have already been shown
to be wrong is not advancement . .you can't start re-accepting physics that
has already been refuted. That's not science.

"qbit" wrote in message
...
"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.

There are many areas where physicist are looking at new ideas. If SR is
wrong, then it will be replaced, just like SR replaced Newtonian ideas ..
but a new theory must successfully explain all the correct predictions of
the old theory .. just like SR correctly predicts experimental results from
Newton's physics. Classical Newtonian physics is an extremely close
approximation to SR at relatively low velocities .. so small a difference
that we just cannot tell them apart. So far we've not come up with anything
better. Going backward to physics of the past that have already been shown
to be wrong is not advancement . .you can't start re-accepting physics that
has already been refuted. That's not science.

:
: 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 ****.

What does "f***head" actually mean? You probably don;t even know which
head to f*** with.
Maybe you should also look up the meaning of thw rod "c***", as you
are even more confused about female anatomy than you are about
physics. You must not have much experience with such matters. Tsk,
tsk. Must be those all boys schools you attended - the cane and all
that... "Please sir, may I have another?" whimpering

Come on - fire back your usual banter, and I can go for the kill shot
with no remorse.

BTW, how did it feel to shake offf the death rattle? Go gentle into
that good night - do it! Do it!

"Jeckyl" wrote
"qbit" wrote in message
"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.

There are many areas where physicist are looking at new ideas. If SR is
wrong, then it will be replaced, just like SR replaced Newtonian ideas ..
but a new theory must successfully explain all the correct predictions of
the old theory .. just like SR correctly predicts experimental results from
Newton's physics. Classical Newtonian physics is an extremely close
approximation to SR at relatively low velocities .. so small a difference
that we just cannot tell them apart. So far we've not come up with anything
better. Going backward to physics of the past that have already been shown
to be wrong is not advancement . .you can't start re-accepting physics that
has already been refuted. That's not science.

I'm saying to you that it is just politics and religion
what's going on for more than 100 years with RT.

Classical Mechanics can do it even better than RT and much much easier!
The shortcomings of CM are minimal. For example in CM
one easily can add a "relativistic addition" formula for particles
having a defined maxspeed like Photons (I personally strongly
doubt the correctness of the formula used in RT which for
example for 0.5c+0.5c gives 0.8c; this can't be true).

The goal must of course be the correct mathematical methods,
not any beliefs or religions. But the RT lobbists treat it indeed as religion!
And the RT opponents are of course not dumb, they very well know
what's going on behind the curtains.
I predict that RT really can no longer be "held"!
The party is over! Science must rule again, not religion.

On Aug 8, 7:33 pm, "qbit" wrote:
[...]

What is your highest level of education?

"qbit" wrote in message
...
"Jeckyl" wrote
"qbit" wrote in message
"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.

There are many areas where physicist are looking at new ideas. If SR is
wrong, then it will be replaced, just like SR replaced Newtonian ideas ..
but a new theory must successfully explain all the correct predictions of
the old theory .. just like SR correctly predicts experimental results
from
Newton's physics. Classical Newtonian physics is an extremely close
approximation to SR at relatively low velocities .. so small a difference
that we just cannot tell them apart. So far we've not come up with
anything
better. Going backward to physics of the past that have already been
shown
to be wrong is not advancement . .you can't start re-accepting physics
that
has already been refuted. That's not science.

I'm saying to you that it is just politics and religion
what's going on for more than 100 years with RT.

Obviously that's all it is to you .. to the rest of us its physics

Classical Mechanics can do it even better than RT and much much easier!

Easier .. yes. Better, proven to be no. It gets it wrong.

The shortcomings of CM are minimal. For example in CM
one easily can add a "relativistic addition" formula for particles
having a defined maxspeed like Photons (I personally strongly
doubt the correctness of the formula used in RT which for
example for 0.5c+0.5c gives 0.8c; this can't be true).

Then you don't understand it. That is not a surprise

The goal must of course be the correct mathematical methods,

Of course

not any beliefs or religions.

But that seems to be what your concerned with here .. the politic and
religion of it. Those who understand the physics know better.

But the RT lobbists treat it indeed as religion!

No .. YOU treat it as though it is a religion .. and one of which you are
not a member.

And the RT opponents are of course not dumb,

Some are not .. some are just confused or misguided.

they very well know
what's going on behind the curtains.

That you even think there are curtains for things to be going on behind
indicates your level of delusion

I predict that RT really can no longer be "held"!

Possibly that may happen in the future, when something that makes all the
correct predictionsd of SR (which includes the correct predictions of
Newton) but is able to go beyond SR into areas (whatever they might be, if
any) where SR does not apply. In a way, that's already happened when
Einstein proposed GR .. it went beyond SR, but included SR as a part of it.

The party is over! Science must rule again, not religion.

Yet it is YOU who are bringing politics and religion into it where they
don't belong. This isn't a party .. its physics (almost as much fun, just
less alcohol and dance music involved).

"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

On Aug 9, 5:13 am, "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!!! :-)))

qbit, you have made a simple mistake here by assuming constant g for
the given value of h. You should have integrated the variable
acceleration to compute the impact velocity v.

The maximum impact velocity (same as escape velocity) of a free
falling body under gravitational acceleration is given by
v= sqrt(2*G*M/R)
which in the case of your example comes to about 5.75E+5 m/s.

However to present your point of view, you could take the example of a
Black Hole and show that the impact or approach velocity of a free
falling body under gravitational acceleration of the BH will exceed c.

GSS


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

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

On Aug 8, Uncle Al wrote:
Einstein's Relativity Theory (RT) states that nothing can move
faster than thespeedoflight(ie. c = 299,792,458 m/s^2).

Lorentz invariance demands that massed bodies and
information propagation (i.e., casuality) cannot be viewed
by inertical observers as propagating at speeds exceding
an arbitrary finite limit - lightspeed, defining the null geodesic.

Circular reasoning.


--
Rich