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 = 1/2
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 gain manifested EACH
SECOND THAN WAS MANIFESTED IN THE PREVIOUS SECOND. But doesn't
Coriolis's equation, also, have (semi) parabolically increasing energy
values as the velocities increase? Both the equations of Coriolis and
of Einstein have the energy gain 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
gain 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 your
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
__________
Dirk Van de moortel
23540d17-057a-416f...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
> Often the most profound things are the most simply stated.
[respectfully ignored]
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> NoEinstein
Well said!
Dirk Vdm
hhc...@yahoo.com
If you cannot measure the parameters of anything, nor repeat
experiments with consistent, quantifiable results in laboratory
experiments, it's speculation and not science.
The test of any theory is its track record of producing correct
predictions.
If it cannot do this, it isn't science, it's simply speculation.
Harry C.
Igor
My, aren't you more delusional than usual today.
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.
OK, I've read this statement, thought about it, understood with it --
and find that the experimental evidence is contrary to this statement.
It is therefore wrong. Any statement, no matter how much thought about
and understood, that is in conflict with experimental data, is wrong.
Something that is wrong cannot disprove anything.
Rest ignored until the above error is corrected.
PD
NoEinstein
Dear Harry C.: Flip a coin and you will get a heads or a tails.
Einstein's GR and SR are either right or wrong. Once such is
realized, there are no long trials of experiments needed. I have cut
the foundation out from under Einstein. Mine aren't arguments over
details, because all details are moot without the basic foundation of
the theory being correct. Learn to reason; my conclusions should be
evident to anyone with an open mind. -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
[snip stupidity]
> Respectfully submitted,
Spot the lie.
PD
> On Mar 30, 1:07 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Ok, you posted your simple rule, now I shall post mine.
>
> > If you cannot measure the parameters of anything, nor repeat
> > experiments with consistent, quantifiable results in laboratory
> > experiments, it's speculation and not science.
>
> > The test of any theory is its track record of producing correct
> > predictions.
>
> > If it cannot do this, it isn't science, it's simply speculation.
>
> > Harry C.
>
> Dear Harry C.: Flip a coin and you will get a heads or a tails.
> Einstein's GR and SR are either right or wrong. Once such is
> realized, there are no long trials of experiments needed. I have cut
> the foundation out from under Einstein. Mine aren't arguments over
> details, because all details are moot without the basic foundation of
> the theory being correct.
But the basic foundations are right. They've been validated by
experimental test. The long trials of experiment have shown that the
foundations are right. Your complete lack of understanding of even the
foundations has no impact on that. None.
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cca72878-7bb7-48ab...@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
You should go and lecture in a classroom, Duck. Do you know why?
You talents are wasted on the internet, so why not just fuck off, you cunt?
PD
> "PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Ooh, look. A snarling, rabid, guard-hamster.
Good thing that sign is there, saying "Beware of Guard Hamster".
I might have really gotten in trouble if I hadn't see that.
PD
Androcles
<yawn>
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
PD = PNG -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: PD's motives are to nip at every ankle that comes within
range. He is the one who should be worrying about getting rabid. I
wonder if he wears a tag around his neck? -- NoEinstein --
NoEinstein
Folks: PD has never been "validated" as a scientist. That is why he
follows around those who are valid. -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
Who do you imagine you are talking to? Do you actually think these
mythical "folks" hold you in higher regard than an actual scientist
with his name on a diploma and everythin?
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, Folks. Isn't it interesting that Eric Gisse, a college flunk-out,
questions my diploma? My disproofs of Einstein are credible because
they do the job. Eric thinks his "having attended" college is
everything. He can't get a job flipping burgers, with his non
existent "physics" degree. Sad, very sad... -- NoEinstein --
Eric Gisse
Gotta love cranks who post under pseudonyms who make up lies about
other people. You have no honor so why should I even pretend to be
surprised that you would say things like that?