Where Angels Fear to Fall
NoEinstein
arriving at correct simple statements can require months or years of
analysis, experimentation, and thoughtful dissection. On 2/14/07 I
presented for the group a single SENTENCE that if read, thought about,
and understood would-without any other supporting evidence being needed
-disprove Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. What
was that sentence you ask? Such read: Gravity is energy source /
dropped masses, and can only add E at a uniform rate-not at an
increasing rate that always favors faster falling masses.
Those who regularly scan sci.physics for discussions about their
personal areas of physics work or interests may not realize how a
heading like: Kinetic Energy Formula Disproved, concerns a discovery
and proof that will change ALL of science. Such will mean the
difference between mankind being forever bound to life around just the
Sun, or being free to populate our portion of the Milk Way and to live
around any suitable star with a suitable planet or planets. And once
and for all, it will tie together all branches of science with a
single common building block that is more basic than the tiniest hint
of a particle ever found by any high energy particle accelerator.
Such is the energy of CREATION, it is the ETHER!.
But ether got dismissed by the greatest scientific blunder in human
history, the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment (see a simple diagram
shown in most encyclopedias). Such experiment had used an
interferometer to try to detect light velocity changes induced by
ether drag. It had been those men's objective to compare two
orthogonal courses of light. But to get them to shine on a common
target (and so to allow interference) a 45 degree, half-silvered
mirror was inserted at the center. Now, each light course had
components in both the x-x and the y-y directions, and neither one was
on a single axis!
A speedup (or a slowdown) in the first leg of either light course
could be brought about either by Earth's velocity component, or by
"ether flow" with, or against, the direction that the light shined,
and such change usually caused the light beam to strike the 45 degree
mirror off center. [Note: There are only two azimuths of Earth's
velocity whereon the light will strike the designed centerline of the
45 degree mirror.] So, generally, the greater the velocity, the
further off center the light would strike. The effect of being off
center, was to cause a light beam to hit the 45 degree mirror either
sooner, or to hit that mirror later. But if it hit it sooner, i.e.,
traveled a shorter distance to get there, the next leg two of the
light course would be an exactly matching greater distance! If it hit
the 45 degree mirror later, i.e., traveled a longer distance to get
there, then, the next leg two of the light course would be an exactly
matching lesser distance!
The effect of having a 45 degree mirror in BOTH light courses was to
NULLIFY the effects of any velocity change, and to cause both beams to
complete the different length courses in exactly the same amount of
time, regardless of the azimuth relative to Earth's velocity vector!
The Michelson-Morley experiment sought to compare two light beams, but
both of those varied identically with the changing apparatus
orientation!
A correctly designed experiment, such as my Interferometer Type One,
has a 45 degree mirror in only one light course, so that the other can
act as a control, i. e., something that doesn't change. So
interference fringes occur in large numbers! And the velocity of
light is proved to vary!
I have written numbers of articles on the above discoveries and
proofs. But shorter explanations are what people like best. So, HOW
is that lone sentence a disproof of Einstein? Please, read on!
Most of you have heard Einstein's claim: "There isn't enough energy in
all of the Universe to cause even a speck of matter to travel to the
velocity of light." Wow! That's it... we are doomed to reside only
around the Sun. But not to worry, Einstein was wrong!
Many of you have also heard Einstein's claim that an acceleration
equal to g is indistinguishable from gravity. He supposed that since
you can't tell the difference, then, gravity and acceleration must BE
the same thing. So he invented distorted space, and told us that that
was all that gravity was! (HA! HA!).
It turns out that Einstein didn't know what acceleration is, nor do
99.9999% of you who are reading this for the first time. To
accelerate something, you increase its velocity (true). Velocity is
distance divided by time, say, feet per second (true). So, if you
accelerate something you SQUARE the velocity (as in feet/second^2!
WRONG!!!!! To square a velocity is to accelerate the acceleration!
You can feel the latter briefly when a jet takes off, or when driving
in a powerful automobile.
Einstein, and most of you, have believed that the only way to reach
velocity c was to accelerate the acceleration. The increasing push-
you-back-in-your-seat forces would eventually flatten you like a
pancake! But the easiest way to get to velocity c is to simply
accelerate! And acceleration is an ADDITIVE increase in velocity each
second, above the velocity at the end of the previous second. There
are no SQUARES to be found!
A man named Coriolis wrote an equation for kinetic energy, KE = ½
mv^2. Such seemed to match the penetrations, strains, deflections, or
general destruction caused by dropping masses from various heights.
Since those effects resulted from the falling mass, unfortunately, he
chose to attribute those to the KE alone. No one ever considered that
the strength characteristics of materials VARY with the suddenness of
the application of the load! Bullets don't have all that much KE. It
is just that the objects being hit don't "like" being hit quickly!
Special Relativity talks about... "As the velocity of a mass increases,
the mass itself increases, the space decreases, and the time slows".
So, E = mc^2 is really about E = mV^2 in trying to get to velocity c.
And the latter is a parabolically increasing rate of energy gain. In
other words, there would be a greater energy manifested EACH SECOND
THAN WAS MANIFESTED IN THE PREVIOUS SECOND. But wasn't Coriolis's
equation, also, a (semi) parabolically increasing energy content due
to velocity? Both the equations of Coriolis and of Einstein have the
energy content being greater each and every second.
But simple acceleration has an additive, linear increase in velocity,
not a parabolic increase! The easiest proof of such fact is that one
sentence that I mentioned at the start of this article. If an object
gains velocity due to gravity, or by a rocket engine, both the
equation of Coriolis and of Einstein should hold true. In order for
those equations to hold true, for an object falling by gravity, its KE
would have to be greater each and every second. Or, said another way,
the faster an object falls, the more energy it must get... (from
somewhere) to keep those equations true.
Imagine that an object falls 100 feet and builds KE as it does. When
that object passes a ledge, an identical object begins falling behind
it. But gravity is the source of the accruing KE in any falling
object. In order for Coriolis and Einstein to be correct, the force
of gravity must say, "I see a fast object, and I'm going to keep
pumping more and more energy into the objects that are going the
fastest, because that is what Coriolis and Einstein require!"
I ask each of you: By what mechanism can the force of gravity
discriminate between fast and slow falling objects? None of you can
describe such a mechanism-not even warped time and space! So gravity
cannot differentiate any objects' velocities. Gravity simply applies
forces to all near Earth falling objects equal to their static weight!
Oh, but some are thinking, isn't gravity stronger near the Earth?
Take a good bathroom scale, go to the top of a 100 story building and
weigh yourself. Then, continue taking your weight on each floor all
the way to the ground. Assuming that you don't stop for lunch on the
way down, that scale will not register a detectable increase in you
weight. But Einstein's equation would require that gravity increase
its force markedly in that fall range, IF that is where the extra KE
would have to come from.
All of the KE experiments that were done in Coriolis's day were with
objects dropped from heights much less than 100 story buildings. He
goofed. Einstein copied his goof. And a long line of very gullible
scientists have gotten us to the sad place that we are-standing up for
Einstein, who had very little going for him beyond his white hair and
a smoker's pipe.
If you are one of those who believe that anything that has ever been
written about in a science textbook is... sacred, I apologize for
bursting your bubbles. But where there be truth, let there be
progress!
Respectfully submitted,
NoEinstein
__________
Martin Hogbin
"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:1171595222.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Often the most profound things are the most simply stated. But
arriving at correct simple statements can require months or years of
analysis, experimentation, and thoughtful dissection. On 2/14/07 I
presented for the group a single SENTENCE that if read, thought about,
and understood would-without any other supporting evidence being needed
-disprove Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. What
was that sentence you ask? Such read: Gravity is energy source /
dropped masses, and can only add E at a uniform rate-not at an
increasing rate that always favors faster falling masses.
You are absolutely right - you are No Einstein.
Martin Hogbin
PD
> Often the most profound things are the most simply stated. But
> arriving at correct simple statements can require months or years of
> analysis, experimentation, and thoughtful dissection. On 2/14/07 I
> presented for the group a single SENTENCE that if read, thought about,
> and understood would-without any other supporting evidence being needed
> -disprove Einstein's special and general theories of relativity. What
> was that sentence you ask? Such read: Gravity is energy source /
> dropped masses, and can only add E at a uniform rate-not at an
> increasing rate that always favors faster falling masses.
>
Well, that was certainly longer than the first time you said it,
though not a whole lot better.
In the other thread where you posted it, I asked you a simple
question: What experimental evidence you have that gravity is energy
source / dropped masses, and can add energy only at a uniform rate?
You have failed to provide any evidence that supports this claim.
Near the surface of the Earth, the gravitational potential energy of
an object of mass m is presently given by the expression U=mgh. This
simple expression is supported by experimental success in both the
explanation and the design of a number of a wide variety of phenomena
and applications, including the following:
- block-and-tackle pulley systems
- hydraulic lifts in auto garages
- hydroelectric dam construction
- roller coaster design
- supermarket produce scales
- skyscraper potable water pumps that feed drinking fountains on the
50th floor
- playground teeter-totters
If you call this expression into doubt, then you will have to explain
individually why all of these things work when you say they should
not.
Now, you'll note that this says that the rate of energy delivered by
gravity is uniform with height. If an object falling under the
influence of gravity fell at constant speed (constant change of height
with time), then this expression would be be consistent with your
claim that gravity can only deliver energy at a uniform rate. However,
through simple observation, we clearly see that objects do not fall at
constant speed. Thus the rate of churning through height increases as
an object falls, and so the rate at which gravity delivers energy U
increases as an object falls.
It may help you to work your way through a first year course in
physics, especially the first few chapters on mechanics. In so doing,
it would be enormously useful to work through all the problems --
every one -- so that you can see the breadth of application of a
simple law in everyday applications, and what you would have to
explain by suggesting that law should not work.
PD
Igor
Frankly, I've combed through your post and I can't find a single
quantitative argument. Math is the language of physics. WIthout it,
you're really just spinning your wheels and impotently spouting
philosphy. Physics is not philosophy and all the qualitative
arguments in the world will never add one iota to physical content.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> It may help you to work your way through a first year course in
> physics, especially the first few chapters on mechanics.
Nah. No-ee needs to go back to grade school. His notions
are easily shown to be silly from considerations that I had
learned by age 16. There is no possible way he would have
any chance of understanding a first year text.
Socks
PD
In particular, many amateurs believe that if they can provide a
better, more intuitive qualitative explanation for what is observed in
nature, compared to a model that does the same thing but is less
intuitive (to them), then they have accomplished something. The hard
fact is that they've accomplished nothing. For a physical theory to
supplant another, it has to do some specific things:
- it has to accurately (quantitatively) predict a measurable behavior
that the previous theory did NOT accurately predict.
- it has to accurately predict a wider range of behaviors and
applications than the previous theory, either by consolidating what
was previously explained by two separate theories (and it has to
demonstrate that it reproduces the quantitative results of *both*
theories), or by explaining phenomena that simply were not previously
addressed.
Many amateurs find those requirements to be onerous and prohibitive.
Well, perhaps. That's what makes good science hard to do from an
armchair.
PD
NoEinstein
> > > would have to come from.
>
> > > All of the KE experiments that were done in Coriolis's day were with
> > > objects dropped from heights much less than 100 story buildings. He
> > > goofed. Einstein copied his goof. And a long line of very gullible
> > > scientists have gotten us to the sad place that we are-standing up for
> > > Einstein, who had very little going for him beyond his white hair and
> > > a smoker's pipe.
>
> > > If you are one of those who believe that anything that has ever been
> > > written about in a science textbook is... sacred, I apologize for
> > > bursting your bubbles. But where there be truth, let there be
> > > progress!
>
> > > Respectfully submitted,
>
> > > NoEinstein
>
> > Frankly, I've combed through your post and I can't find a single
> > quantitative argument. Math is the language of physics. WIthout it,
> > you're really just spinning your wheels and impotently spouting
> > philosphy. Physics is not
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ATTENTION sci.physics group: PD is in need of a Friend... Can anyone
help him find one?? Pass it on! NoEinstein
PD
>
> ATTENTION sci.physics group: PD is in need of a Friend... Can anyone
> help him find one?? Pass it on! NoEinstein
:>)
Whatever happened to "Respectfully submitted," there, NoEinstein?
Right out the window with that one, eh?
PD