qbit wrote:

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! :-)

(Sorry - can't resist replying again.)

This is funny, since in a previous thread you made a special point of
correcting yourself when you first quoted the speed of light in m/s^2!!!

Also, the 15 digits of precision cited in the multiplicative factor is a
bit over the top, isn't it? Especially when you completely left of the
units of s^-1.

Finally, do you have any data to back up your claims of "endless
research funds?" I have to say that my impression is that these days,
the relativity and QM boys DON'T get the big bucks. Instead the big
money goes into life sciences.

Stephen

"Randy Poe" wrote
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).

And which result do you get if you release the object
from a distance twice that above?

And which result do you get if you release the object
from a distance twice that above?

Exactly the same. The calculation WAS already for an object at even
INFINITY falling onte the BH.

[ ] You know the mathematical meaning of 'limit'?

IvB

--
People willing to trade freedom for security deserve
neither and will lose both. -- Benjamin Franklin

On Aug 9, 3:46 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote



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).

And which result do you get if you release the object
from a distance twice that above?

As Ingo says, the same result. The approximation I am
using, I introduced in my first post in this thread.
As follows:

The correct expression for the KE of the object dropped
from height h is
GMm*[1/R - 1/(R+h)]

Because you are using h very large compared to R, I am
saying that 1/(R+h) is approximately zero, and the KE
is approximately GMm/R. In other words, I'm replacing
your h with an h which is infinite.

If you used the actual value of h, you would subtract
the quantity GMm/(R+h) and get a slightly *smaller*
value of KE than the one I've been working with.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: 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.


"Seems" to hold... HAHAHAHA!
This straw seems to be broken:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...lgol/straw.gif

The Sun seems to orbit the Earth.
You seem to be quasi-intelligent -- but you are an idiotic snipping troll.

And which result do you get if you release the object
from a distance twice that above?

Exactly the same.

IvB

--
People willing to trade freedom for security deserve
neither and will lose both. -- Benjamin Franklin

"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).

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
....
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.!

What I tried to demonstrate in this example is essentially the
following fact from the year 1783 regarding accelleration and
velocity in strong gravitational fields, ie. that velocity can be c :

# From: "qbit"
# Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik
# Subject: Schwarzschild radius was derived by John Michell in 1783
# Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:36:44 +0200
# Message-ID:
#
# In 1916, Karl Schwarzschild obtained an exact solution to Einstein's
# field equations for the gravitational field outside a non-rotating,
# spherically symmetric body.
#
# But this radius had already been derived by John Michell in 1783
# in the context of Newtonian gravity and the corpuscular theory of light.
# Michel derived the critical radius by setting the gravitational
# escape velocity v equal to the speed of light c in the Newtonian formula
# v^2 / 2 = G M / r for the escape velocity v from the surface of a star
# of mass M and radius r.
#
# So, the concept of Black Holes and the Gravitational Radius
# ('Schwarzschild radius') goes back to Michell and the year 1783.
# Michell writes:
# "... if the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the
# Sun were to exceed that of the Sun in the proportion of 500 to 1,
# a body falling from an infinite height toward it, would have
# acquired at its surface greater velocity than that of light, and
# consequently supposing light to be attracted by the same force in
# proportion to its vis inertiae, with other bodies, all light emitted
# from such a body would be made to return towards it by its own
# proper gravity."
# He goes on to argue that less massive bodies would merely produce
# light moving more slowly than usual.
# ( http://www.maths.monash.edu.au/~hmor...Essay_2004.pdf )
#
# RT lobbyists should know these historic facts...

and also this fact is interessting:

# From: "qbit"
# Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,de.sci.physik
# Subject: Speed of light is variable says Einstein
# Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 08:40:55 +0200
# Message-ID:
#
# Einstein himself says that speed of light is variable:
# it depends on the intensity of the gravity field.
#
# http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of...speed_of_light
# CITE
# Recalling the very famous second postulate of Special Relativity declared
# by Einstein (1905): "The velocity c of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial
# frames of reference in all directions and depend neither on the velocity
# of the source nor on the velocity of the observer".
#
# Einstein's theory of special relativity says that the speed of light in
# vacuum is always the same (at 299,792.458 km/s) but this is true only
# for systems that are inertial, which means not accelerating.
#
# From Newton's second law: if forces exist implies acceleration exists;
# this means that special relativity is valid only when no forces are acting;
# thus it cannot be used when there is a gravitational force present.
# Albert Einstein himself emphasized this in his paper written in 1917:
# "The results of the special relativity hold only so long as we are able
# to disregard the influence of gravitational fields on the phenomena".
# Therefore for the results of special relativity to hold the systems should
# not be accelerating (no gravitational forces).
#
# In 1915 (10 years after special relativity) Einstein developed another
# theory called General Relativity that deals with gravitational fields and
# according to this latest theory the velocity of light appears to vary with
# the intensity of the gravitational field. For example, an observer outside
# gravitational fields measures the speed of light locally (in his location)
# at 299792.458 km/s but when he looks towards a black hole he sees
# the speed of light there to be as slow as a few meters/sec.
#
# At the same time an observer freefalling into that black hole (zero-g)
# measures the speed of light locally (in his location) at 299792.458 km/s;
# when he looks towards the black hole he sees the speed of light there
# much slower; when he looks away from the black hole he sees the
# speed of light there much faster. If he tries to resist his freefall into
# that black hole (by firing his rockets for example) he will not measure
# the speed of light locally anymore at 299792.458 km/s; instead
# the stronger the g-force that he feels the faster light appears to him.
# Again when he looks towards the black hole he sees the speed of light
# there much slower; when he looks away from the black hole he sees
# the speed of light there much faster. In any case, freefalling or not,
# he will never see the speed of light outside gravitational fields at 299792.458 km/s.
# Finally, there is no difference between the effects of g-forces
# experienced from these rockets and the effects of g-forces experienced
# when standing on planets, stars... hence an observer standing
# on a black hole measures the speed of light locally (in his location)
# much faster than 299792.458 km/s; when he looks towards
# outside gravitational fields he sees the speed of light there a zillion km/s.
#
# 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...35_898-908.pdf ).
# 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)
# Where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where
# the speed of light c is measured. Simply put:
# Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).
# [...]
# In conclusion, the velocity of light in a gravitational field is not a constant,
# but rather a variable depending upon the reference frame of the observer;
# what one observer sees as true another observer sees as false.
# The only observers that can actually agree that the speed of light
# outside gravitational fields is 299792.458 km/s are those who are
# themselves outside gravitational fields.
# /CITE
#
# For me this interpretation of the speed of the light makes very much sense.
# In gravity fields, ie. in accellerated frames, light and time slows down,
# oscillators oscillate slower, organisms age slower, much like the experienced
# time dilation on earth compared to outer space. The stronger the intensity
# of the gravity field the more these effects are. The original state, ie. the highest value,
# is where g=0, ie. in free space.
# For us on earth time goes slower, so is also the speed of ligh; it is slower
# than in free space. Also the bending (shifting) of rays of star lights by the sun
# is explained by this simple fact, ie. gravity causes everything to slow down.
#
# BTW, this is the first time I agree with Einstein! :-)))

On Aug 9, 11:09 pm, "qbit" wrote:
"qbit" wrote in ...

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).

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
...
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.!

What I tried to demonstrate in this example is essentially the
following fact from the year 1783 regarding accelleration and
velocity in strong gravitational fields, ie. that velocity can be c :


In NEWTONIAN GRAVITATION ONLY.

[snip crap]

On Aug 10, 3:09 am, "qbit" wrote:
"qbit" wrote in ...

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).

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
...
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.!

What I tried to demonstrate in this example is essentially the
following fact from the year 1783 regarding accelleration and
velocity in strong gravitational fields, ie. that velocity can be c :

Yes, this is well known.

But why should it be a surprise that if you abandon the postulates
of relativity, you get results different from what relativity
predicts?
That's what makes two theories different, that they predict different
results.

So you have a theory which predicts that velocities can be c,
and you have another theory which says they can't. Now the
thing to do is to test the two theories against observation. And
a century of observation has shown us that when Newton and
Einstein disagree on the predictions, Einstein gets it right.

# 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.

It is the 1915 theory which agrees with experiment.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
ups.com...
: On Aug 10, 3:09 am, "qbit" wrote:
: "qbit" wrote in
...
:
: 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).
:
: 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
: ...
: 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.!
:
: What I tried to demonstrate in this example is essentially the
: following fact from the year 1783 regarding accelleration and
: velocity in strong gravitational fields, ie. that velocity can be c :
:
: Yes, this is well known.
:
: But why should it be a surprise that if you abandon the postulates
: of relativity, you get results different from what relativity
: predicts?
: That's what makes two theories different, that they predict different
: results.
:
: So you have a theory which predicts that velocities can be c,
: and you have another theory which says they can't. Now the
: thing to do is to test the two theories against observation. And
: a century of observation has shown us that when Newton and
: Einstein disagree on the predictions, Einstein gets it right.

Poor silly Blind Poe.
Sagnac proves Einstein was an idiot, like you.

:
: # 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.
:
: It is the 1915 theory which agrees with experiment.

Poor silly Blind Poe.
Sagnac proves Einstein was an idiot, just like you.
You've lost qbit too, loser.
Time to start snipping what he's telling you, imbecile.