"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.!

Hey qbit!
Listen up.

Dishwater, Phuckwit Duck, Blind Poe, Uncle Stooopid, Humpty Roberts and
some
other minor morons actually BELIEVE in the Holey Church of Relativity. What
you are
doing is the equivalent of telling the Pope there is no God.



"qbit" wrote in message
...
: "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.!
:

Hi,

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)
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
h = 113E15 m

Right. Let's use this to calculate the speed of the particle dropping
onto that star using classical, newtonian mechanics. We apply the law of
energy conservation:

E_kin = E_pot
At the beginning the kinetic energy is according to you zero and all we
have is potential energy. At the end, when hitting the surface, we have
gained the difference between the potential energy of the star's radius
and the initial distance of the object to the star. For an arbitrary
body with mass m, subject to free fall onto the star we yield:

0.5mv^2 = GMm/Rstar - 2GMm/h
2GM/h 2GM/Rstar
-- v = sqrt(2GM/Rstar).

-- v = 575454m/s = 0.002 * c
and it takes about 6000 years to fall from 10Ly distance to the star's
surface.

I end up with a speed much less than the speed of light and don't need
SRT or GRT.

Want to re-consider your calculation? Or rather refute energy conservation?
BTW: going further away won't help you, it just changes the travel time.
Reducing the star's radius is unphysical as stars like this one have a
well-defined mass-radius relation.

Regards,
Ingo

--
Ingo von Borstel
Public Key: http://www.planetmaker.de/ingo.asc

If you need an urgent reply, replace newsgroups by vgap.

On Aug 9, 11:04 am, "qbit" wrote:
"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_1806-20for 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)

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.

And the acceleration at that height, classically, is GM/(R+h)^2
not GM/R^2.

As the object falls, the acceleration will change.

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 :-)

Assuming constant acceleration? The acceleration isn't
constant.

Now comes the surprise: the final velocity of the object will be
v = sqrt(2*g*h) = 599E6 m/s

The actual change in potential energy, which is equal
to the gain in KE, is given by

GMm/R - GMm/(R+h)

This is only approximately equal to mgh when h is a very
small fraction of R.

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!

KE = GMm*[1/R - 1/(R+h)]

Newtonian KE = 0.5*mv^2 giving v = sqrt(2GM)*sqrt[ 1/R - 1/(R+h) ]

What people are complaining about is that you have used
small-h approximations for a situation in which h is not small.

In fact, you chose h to be much, much larger than R, so this
gives a KE of pretty close to GMm/R, and a velocity of
sqrt(2GM/R) using the Newtonian expression for KE.

The relativistic expression for KE is something else entirely
of course.

Then the Newtonian prediction for v, using your numbers, is
sqrt(2*6.67428E-11*258E30/104E9 ) = 575,450 m/sec

- Randy

"GSS" wrote

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.

Here's an example for a medium sized black hole:
M : 100E39 kg
R : 15000 m

wanting reach 2*c in free fall in =300 yrs:

v : 5.99584916E8 m/s (= 2.0*c)
t : 9.44143027E9 s (= 300*365.25*86400 s = 300 yrs)

distance calculation for the free fall:
g = v / t = 6.35057294E-2 m/s^2 (g at the release distance)
h = g * t^2 / 2 = 2.83046959E18 m (the release distance)

The speed will be 2*c when the free falling body enters the 'surface'
of the black hole, ie. the event horizon of the black hole.

And: another IMPORTANT FACT (which the RT lobbyists apparently
seem not to have observed yet, although it is mainly themselves who play
with black holes, and who ask for endless research funds for this useless stuff):
This is the gravitational acceleration on the 'surface' of this black hole:
g_R = G*M/R^2 = 2.96559776E22 m/s^2
And that is 98921693429451.9 times c !!! :-)
(and, I have spent not a single taxpayer cent to discover this fact! :-)

These numbers prove that RT definitely cannot be correct!

BTW, one really wonders why the RT liars are hiding these facts,
not mentioning them, although it is mainly themself who do
research on black holes for more than 40 years now!
(remember MTW was published in 1972 !)

So, RT can't be correct! And RT lobbyists are liars par excellance!
Q.E.D.!

On Aug 9, 1:22 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"GSS" wrote



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.

Here's an example for a medium sized black hole:
M : 100E39 kg
R : 15000 m

wanting reach 2*c in free fall in =300 yrs:

v : 5.99584916E8 m/s (= 2.0*c)

Calculated how?

t : 9.44143027E9 s (= 300*365.25*86400 s = 300 yrs)

distance calculation for the free fall:
g = v / t = 6.35057294E-2 m/s^2 (g at the release distance)

Calculated how?

h = g * t^2 / 2 = 2.83046959E18 m (the release distance)

I think you are probably using the wrong numbers for
acceleration and velocity again.

Sanity check: this number is 300 light years. How strong
do you think the gravitational pull is 300 light years
from a black hole?

The speed will be 2*c when the free falling body enters the 'surface'
of the black hole, ie. the event horizon of the black hole.

And: another IMPORTANT FACT (which the RT lobbyists apparently
seem not to have observed yet, although it is mainly themselves who play
with black holes, and who ask for endless research funds for this useless stuff):
This is the gravitational acceleration on the 'surface' of this black hole:
g_R = G*M/R^2 = 2.96559776E22 m/s^2
And that is 98921693429451.9 times c !!! :-)
(and, I have spent not a single taxpayer cent to discover this fact! :-)

Er... this is an acceleration, not a speed. What limit
do you think SR places on dv/dt?

- Randy

"Ingo von Borstel" wrote

Want to re-consider your calculation? Or rather refute energy conservation?
BTW: going further away won't help you, it just changes the travel time.
Reducing the star's radius is unphysical as stars like this one have a
well-defined mass-radius relation.

Do the same calculations for this medium sized black hole:
M = 100E39 kg
R = 15000 m
h = 2.83046959E18 m

What 'v' do you get? Is it 2*c ?

On Aug 9, 2:29 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"Ingo von Borstel" wrote



Want to re-consider your calculation? Or rather refute energy conservation?
BTW: going further away won't help you, it just changes the travel time.
Reducing the star's radius is unphysical as stars like this one have a
well-defined mass-radius relation.

Do the same calculations for this medium sized black hole:
M = 100E39 kg
R = 15000 m
h = 2.83046959E18 m

Where are you getting this value for R? The Schwarzchild
radius for a mass of 10^41 kg is 1.48E14 meters. You are
a factor of 10 billion too small.



What 'v' do you get? Is it 2*c ?

Using the correct value of R=1.48E14:

v = sqrt(2GM/R) = sqrt(2*6.67428E-11*100E39/1.48E14)

= c

Not surprisingly, since R = GM/c^2, so sqrt(2GM/R) = sqrt(c^2).

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote
On Aug 9, 1:22 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"GSS" wrote

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.

Here's an example for a medium sized black hole:
M : 100E39 kg
R : 15000 m

wanting reach 2*c in free fall in =300 yrs:
v : 5.99584916E8 m/s (= 2.0*c)

Calculated how?

simply by multiplying c by 2, what else! :-)

t : 9.44143027E9 s (= 300*365.25*86400 s = 300 yrs)

distance calculation for the free fall:
g = v / t = 6.35057294E-2 m/s^2 (g at the release distance)

Calculated how?

The formula was given, see above: g=v/t

h = g * t^2 / 2 = 2.83046959E18 m (the release distance)

I think you are probably using the wrong numbers for
acceleration and velocity again.

Do Mr. Poe happen to know the 'right' formula, Sir, maybe Sir? :-)

Sanity check: this number is 300 light years. How strong
do you think the gravitational pull is 300 light years
from a black hole?

Just calculate it. Supermassive black holes have the strongest gravitational attraction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

Another fact about the origin of Black Holes:

"Newton's law of gravitation (1687) layed the groundwork for the
astronomical ideas for centuries to come [1]. First Michell (1783),
then Laplace (1796) predicted the possibility of existence of stars
with a strong enough gravitational field that could retard light and
that is why such stars become invisible [2]. Later, they were called the black holes.
Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts the existence of black holes as well [3].
In 1916, Karl Schwarzschild, the German Astronomer and physicist,
offered a formula (1) for the calculation of the gravitational radius of a black hole,
which originates from classical mechanics [3]. Since then this formula
has been used in the astronomic calculations, and the gravitational radius
is called Schwarzschild's radius [...]"
(M. Kanarev, "The Gravitational Radius of a Black Hole", Journal of Theoretics Vol.4-1)

The speed will be 2*c when the free falling body enters the 'surface'
of the black hole, ie. the event horizon of the black hole.

And: another IMPORTANT FACT (which the RT lobbyists apparently
seem not to have observed yet, although it is mainly themselves who play
with black holes, and who ask for endless research funds for this useless stuff):
This is the gravitational acceleration on the 'surface' of this black hole:
g_R = G*M/R^2 = 2.96559776E22 m/s^2
And that is 98921693429451.9 times c !!! :-)
(and, I have spent not a single taxpayer cent to discover this fact! :-)

Er... this is an acceleration, not a speed.

Read again.
If g is that much, what do you think will v then be? Certainly not slower!

What limit do you think SR places on dv/dt?

RT is not the nature. The limit in RT can not hold for everything in the universe.
It might work for light and some similar particles, but not for many other things.
Especially not for massive objects. Nature, ie. the universe, places other limits
than what RT says. In one of my postings I had given my calculation of the
maximum possible speed in our universe (see the thread "Axioms of Time, Space,
Gravity, Velocity, Accelleration").

On Aug 9, 3:06 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote
Er... this is an acceleration, not a speed.

Read again.
If g is that much, what do you think will v then be? Certainly not slower!

What are you talking about?

If I tell you a car has a maximum speed of 10 m/sec,
and I accelerate at 100 m/sec^2, do you think my
acceleration is "greater than" my velocity?

If so, please address this question: What is the
acceleration of a car which accelerations from 0 m/sec
to 10 m/sec in 0.001 sec?

What limit do you think SR places on dv/dt?

RT is not the nature. The limit in RT can not hold for everything in the universe.
It might work for light and some similar particles, but not for many other things.
Especially not for massive objects.

Yet from all experiments with massive objects it does
indeed seem to hold. Or didn't you know that accelerators
operate on particles that have mass?

At any rate, the value of g you are using seems to be
based on a value of R which is too small by a factor
of 10^10.

- Randy