qbit says...

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)...

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)

So what you are showing is that Newtonian gravity is incompatible
with Einstein's theory of relativity. What you can conclude from
this is that *either* Einstein's relativity is wrong, *or* Newton's
theory of gravity is wrong. But Newton's theory of gravity has been
tested, and it has been shown to be *wrong*.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

"Daryl McCullough" wrote in message
...
: qbit says...
:
: 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)...
:
: 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)
:
: So what you are showing is that Newtonian gravity is incompatible
: with Einstein's theory of relativity. What you can conclude from
: this is that *either* Einstein's relativity is wrong, *or* Newton's
: theory of gravity is wrong. But Newton's theory of gravity has been
: tested, and it has been shown to be *wrong*.

Hahahahaha!
My arse stuck to my chair by a force is *wrong*, according to
the ****head McCullough.

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

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

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.

"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.

Yes, but the accelration at any instant is determined
by the height at that time, as the object approaches
the Sun, the acceleration increases. You need to treat
it as variable and integrate.

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!

You will find it in many places on the net, the
simplest way is to find the "escape velocity"
which is the speed an object gets falling in
as if it started from infinity:

http://tinyurl.com/2yu4p8

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.

http://tinyurl.com/2hgdh5

For the Sun, the radius at which the speed reaches
the speed of light is about 3km. Other than the size
of that value, your point is correct.

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??!

The answer is that the Riemann geometry of spacetime
limits speed in the same way that Euclidean geometry
prevents any object having an elevation above the
horizon of more than 90 degrees.

(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?

The equation is shown at the top of the above
cited page where it says:

"In Schwarzschild coordinates, the Schwarzschild metric
has the form:"

You would need to solve that for your paricular example.

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?

Sure, nobody is disputing your qualitative result.
What I pointed out was that your value for the
radius was wrong because you didn't allow for the
variation of g with height.

Just do it and analyse it and you will come to the same
conclusion: RT can not be correct.
Q.E.D.!

No, the conclusion is that black holes are possible
according to GR, something that is widely accepted
throughout the astronomical community. It is also
believed that supermassive examples exist in almost
all large galaxies including our own, but the
coordinates of a black hole are entirely consistent
with general relativity, after all it is that theory
that predicts them.

You can find out a lot more he

http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schw.shtml

George

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? :-)