Conservation of Energy Law Invalidates Einstein (is Copyrighted.)
NoEinstein
of energy never changes. In some atomic processes, mass can be
converted to energy, or energy to mass, but the total energy and mass
sum never changes.”
The crux of the above Energy Conservation Law is that an increase in
one energy form can happen ONLY if there is a decrease in the energy
of the source.
Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has energy, E, increasing solely
as the result of an increase in the velocity of a mass. His complete
SR equation is: E = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^½. The only variable in that
equation is the object’s velocity, v.
The ‘text’ of Einstein’s SR theory purports that as an object’s
velocity increases, its mass, also, increases. That rather spurious
rationale results from observations that some charged particles show a
greater ‘inertia’—and thus a greater implied mass—in resisting
magnetic-induced deviation off of their line of travel at increasingly
high velocities. And because it was well known that mass can be
converted to energy—as in burning fuel, and later in atomic processes—
Einstein over generalized and said: “Mass and energy are equivalent.”
And his ‘theory’ became, by inference: “Matter can be converted to any
form of energy; and any form of energy can be converted back into
matter.” (sic)
The earlier stated Conservation of Energy Law allows that mass may be
converted to energy, or energy into mass, in “some” atomic processes.
But such law doesn’t generalize that ANY energy form can be converted
to mass…
Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has ‘velocity’ as the only
variable. And the sole manifestation of energy due to velocity is an
object’s kinetic energy. Obviously, KE increases as the velocity
increases. But does KE increase exponentially with velocity
increase? The 1830 Coriolis equation, KE = 1/2mv^2—on which Einstein
based his E = mc^2—was “derived” (term used loosely) based on
observations that falling objects “seem” to cause exponentially
greater changes in the deformations of the receiving structures or
materials, with respect to unit increases in the falling objects’
velocities.
My own experiments, with various impact force measuring devices that I
designed and built, show that Coriolis erred, big time! He erred
because he wrote an equation that attributed ALL of the
“observed” (term used loosely) impact effects, solely, to the falling
objects’ velocities.
An early velocity effect that was in evidence well before Coriolis’s
day, was how a plank foot bridge can be broken if a person jumps up
from the middle of the bridge, and then lands on it. Suppose a plank
bridge is strong enough to support three grown men standing in the
middle of it without the bridge breaking. Now, let two of those men
get off of the bridge, and have the remaining man jump up as high as
he can and come back down on the bridge. And as a result, the bridge
breaks. [Note: A harmonic build-up of the force by repeatedly jumping
up and down is assumed to be unnecessary to illustrate this strictly
hypothetical point.]
Shallow-minded persons might suppose that it’s the increased velocity
of the feet of the man impacting the bridge that caused a destructive
effect greater than the weight of three grown men. Like Coriolis,
those shallow-minded persons choose to attribute ALL of the plank-
breaking effects to the velocity of the man’s feet.
I’m an architect, and I majored in structural design. The
deformations and strengths of beams MUST consider the materials and
the geometries of the beams. If a falling object’s velocity “causes”
a beam to fail, such failure is largely determined by the particulars
of the beam itself, and is NOT solely determined by the velocity.
From the above, I have realized that the strength drop-off of, say, a
plank bridge, must be at least partially the result of the plank
having strength characteristics which VARY depending upon the speed of
application of the loads. But to my knowledge, most structural design
texts make allowances for impacts by increasing the “design loads”
only, NOT by decreasing the strengths of the materials being
impacted! The latter is part of my contribution to science, and part
of my complete and total disproof of Einstein’s theories of
relativity!
Falling objects have constituted the most easily observable, and
repeatable, experiments relating to impact effects. Coriolis’s KE =
1/2mv^2 was written solely to “predict” the impact effects due to a
falling object’s velocity. That man had no notion that mankind might
one day be traveling to the Moon, or to other places in or beyond the
Solar System. Sadly, his errant equation is being used for most
velocity related KE approximations.
Though Einstein’s Special Relativity equation seems most apt to space
travel, such equation, and Coriolis’s KE equation on which Einstein’s
was based, must also relate to ANY increasing velocity of objects.
And, more particularly, that must apply to all free-falling objects.
The latter is because “the science” of kinetic energy was derived from
observations of free-falling objects, NOT from observations of
spaceships.
So, when I keep writing about Coriolis’s dropped objects, that’s
because his errant observations are one of the main reasons that
Einstein has been allowed to screw-up science for over a century…
What are Coriolis’s errors? (1.) He correctly observed that the
distance of fall of objects increases parabolically with respect to
time. But he didn’t realize that those distances include a constantly
varying, huge COASTING component! (2.) He didn’t know that a
uniformly COASTING object will impact a fixed object with an identical
force regardless of how far, or for how long the object COASTED. (3.)
He didn’t realize that an object’s KE can ONLY increase at the rate at
which energy is being applied to the object by the force of gravity.
(4.) He didn’t realize that by making his KE equation exponential, he
was simultaneously requiring that the force of GRAVITY on every unique
object must increase exponentially, too! And… (5.) He didn’t
understand that because the energy input by gravity must always be
greater for faster falling objects, that gravity must have some as yet
unexplained mechanism for sensing the velocity of every single falling
object, and discriminately applying just the right, ever-changing
additional force to the make the myriad falling objects’ KEs agree
with his contrived equation!
If one takes out COASTING, the “distance vs. time” plot becomes a
straight line. The velocity equation (as Randy Poe correctly
cookbooks) says: V = (v sub 0) + a(t). So, you mathematicians out
there know that the velocity of a falling object increases linearly.
And those of you who have ever heard of “momentum” know that its
“classic” equation F = mv has the impact force of a unit mass
increasing linearly with respect to velocity, too.
With all of the above quantities increasing LINEARLY, then why does
Coriolis’s equation have the KE increasing exponentially? Because
Coriolis goofed, that’s why! His equation was WRONG from the day it
was written!
Einstein supposed that a moving object in outer space will not only
have its KE increase exponentially according to Coriolis’s equation,
but that his own SR equation will increase the object’s MASS to
infinity at velocity ‘c’. (sic, sic!)
Einstein describes “flattening” forces that will be placed on every
object accelerating to velocity ‘c’. But in order for any object to
be increasingly flattened, it must have two things: (1.) An increasing
FORCE; and (2.) and increasing RESISTANCE!
Newton’s law states: “For every action, there must be an equal and
opposite reaction.” That law KILLS Einstein’s theories! That’s
because in outer space an object’s INERTIA is only the opposing
reaction that might be available to flatten it. And the force being
experienced by every object that is undergoing a CONSTANT acceleration
DOESN’T change at all—with respect to time, nor with respect to the
distance traveled! So, there can be NO increasing force to cause an
increasing flattening!
In a nutshell: Moronic Einstein didn’t know that acceleration is a
UNIFORM increase in velocity EACH second. Because the “old”
definition of the acceleration due to gravity had been written: g =
32.2 ft. per sec.^2, Einstein saw the “square” and WRONGLY assumed
that the forces—like the distance of fall, and the KE (sic)—would
increase exponentially, too.
The force of gravity is equal to any object’s static weight in all
near Earth distances of fall. In a given second the “work” done by
gravity is that required to increase the object’s velocity, acting
against its own inertia, by 32.174 ft. per second; and associatively,
to increase the distance of fall by 16.087 feet. Those two things are
ALL that an acceleration of ‘g’ will do to an object!
Now, suppose that instead of accelerating vertically ‘down’ due to the
force of gravity, that a spaceship that’s heading out of the Solar
System accelerates at 32.174 ft. per second EACH second. Since that
rate is the base acceleration state we all feel on Earth, those
astronauts will be pushed back in their seats with just their constant
static weight, as if they are still on Earth! If the floor of the
spaceship was designed to be perpendicular to the distance of travel,
those astronauts could walk around on the floor without experiencing
any weightlessness!
Einstein believed it was perfectly OK to suppose that KE increases—
whether exponential or otherwise—could create extra mass. But no
amount of KE, without a receptor mass or resistance of the pending
impact, would create any compressive force whatsoever on the speeding
object. So, if there is no force, then there would be no impetus for
changing the object in any way!
Obviously, Einstein’s laughable theories CREATE energy that hasn’t
been imparted from anywhere. And THAT violates the Law of the
Conservation of Energy! Unless one of you Einsteiniacs out there can
find mechanisms in physics that will increase force, without there
being an increasing resistance; and increase energy, exponentially,
with only a uniform input of force, then Einstein’s theories, and all
of its off-shoots, are summarily invalidated.
Respectfully submitted,
— NoEinstein —
I invite those who are interested to read:
Dropping Coriolis Like a Feather
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/11e51bc884cab887/2ead974b3511ddf7?hl=en&
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
__________
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Looks like this guy is here to stay.
Randy Poe
> Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has energy, E, increasing solely
> as the result of an increase in the velocity of a mass. His complete
> SR equation is: E = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^½. The only variable in that
> equation is the object’s velocity, v.
Newton's physics has energy E, increasing solely as the result
of an increase in the velocity of a mass. His complete equation
is: E = mv^2/2. The only variable in that equation is the object's
velocity.
> The ‘text’ of Einstein’s SR theory purports that as an object’s
> velocity increases, its mass, also, increases.
So in the paragraph above you state that the only variable
is v, and that m and c are constants. This is correct.
In this paragraph you state that m is not constant.
At any rate, no. m in the above equation is constant.
The fact that KE increases with velocity is not new to SR,
nor does it violate energy conservation. If you want to increase
KE, you have to take energy from somewhere else. Particle
accelerators have big electrical bills.
- Randy
Androcles
news:9e8bfb72-d05b-4109...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The fact that KE increases with velocity is not new to SR,
nor does it violate energy conservation. If you want to increase
KE, you have to take energy from somewhere else. Particle
accelerators have big electrical bills.
- Randy
I posted a letter to the USA from England the other day.
Aircraft have big fuel bills. Fuckhead.
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
hhc...@yahoo.com
Eric, at least his crackpot posts are easily avoided by his
"Copyright" notice on the thread header. I question if this poster is
serious, or simply that is his sense of humor expressing itself! :-)
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Indeed Randy, particle accelerators do have really large electric
bills. Also mass is a dependent variable.
Take it from me, a particle being accelerated does increase in mass,
because the energy required to accelerate them is converted into mass,
which is why particle accelerators have large electric bills.
Back as a young college graduate I had a job performing the
computations for a proton synchrotron, and I can assure everyone that
the proton that was injected at an energy of 3-MEV and came out of the
machine at 3-GEV experienced a significant increase in mass, thanks to
the electric company.
For those very curious and asking how do you know that the mass of the
proton increased, here is a very simple explanation...
Proton accelerators are somewhat roundish matchines that tend to look
like a horse track. During their acceleration, the protons circle this
track perhaps 20,000 times in about 1/10 of a second. Each time they
travel around the track they are sort of kicked in the rear by devices
that impart energy and increased velocity to them. The reasong that
they don't quite and slam into the outside wall of the accelerator is
that a magnetic field curves their path....now here is the key part,
that magnetic field increases with intensity on each passage of the
protons, which keeps them in orbit around the machine. This is easily
computed:
MV^2/R = Q(Dot) V X B
Here is the kicker. Measurements of the particles orbital frequency
were only slightly increasing, while the intensity of the B field (the
magnetic intensity) needs to be increased dramatically to maintain
orbit and not have the particle slam into the outer walls of the
accelerator.
Now here is the ultimate kicker. When we made changes in the dynamic
magnetic field based on special relativity, everything calmed down and
the accelertor ran just as predicted. That is why I don't simply
believe, but know from first hand knowledge, that mass can vary, and
does vary with the energy that it carries.
I believe it to be a rather simple idea, and wonder why others don't
seem to grasp it.
In simple terms, you pick up a baseball and throw it. How is all the
energy that you imparted to the baseball carried. What happens if it
goes into outer space...What happens to the energy.
Simple thing to think about.
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Wow, I wonder if you had spent too much time in the pub when you
posted this.
Androcles, I've found it wise to put 6-hours between drinking and
posting, When posting, if phrases like "Fu**head" come to mind,
perhaps an additional 2-hours quiet time.
Anyone who has been on the newsgroups for 10 years or more has done
the same, so don't feel bad.
Uncle Al
[snip crap]
> Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has
[snip rest of crap]
The are no global conservation laws in Relativity.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
PD
> “Energy can be converted to other energy forms, but the total quantity
> of energy never changes. In some atomic processes, mass can be
> converted to energy, or energy to mass, but the total energy and mass
> sum never changes.”
>
> The crux of the above Energy Conservation Law is that an increase in
> one energy form can happen ONLY if there is a decrease in the energy
> of the source.
>
> Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has energy, E, increasing solely
> as the result of an increase in the velocity of a mass. His complete
> SR equation is: E = mc^2/(1-v^2/c^2)^½. The only variable in that
> equation is the object’s velocity, v.
>
> The ‘text’ of Einstein’s SR theory purports that as an object’s
> velocity increases, its mass, also, increases.
You were doing so well up to this point. Note that m is not a variable
in the above equation, since the only variable is the velocity, as you
said. This means that m is a constant, not a variable, and constants
don't increase or decrease.
OK, you probably have figured out that this is the first mistake of
dozens in your post. Do you want to fix this one first before we move
on to the other ones?
PD
NoEinstein
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: "Yes... No... yes..." Do you agree with me or not? —
NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
Dear Harry C.: The only thing funny is that you don't recognize the
value of Copyrights. Care to comment about my science? — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
energy... wasted... is because the omnipresent ether banks up in front
of charged particles like an inverted cone (big end first). This is
analogous to trying to push a rubber peg into a hole—the harder you
push (wasting electricity) the more the hole won't let the peg in. —
NoEinstein —
>
> - Show quoted text -
NoEinstein
> NoEinstein wrote:
>
> [snip crap]
>
> > Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> The are no global conservation laws in Relativity.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Dear Unc.: Einstein's theories of relativity violate ALL natural
laws! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
:-} -
PD
Yes, I find it amusing, too, especially when you contradict yourself
in paragraph 4 of many. Now, are you content to leave this obvious
mistake out there for the world to see and give people the impression
that you still believe it, or do you want to try to correct it and
move on?
PD
PD
Since NoEinstein wants comments on the physics (or at least that's
what he says he wants), let's move down to the next major error.
>
> Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has ‘velocity’ as the only
> variable. And the sole manifestation of energy due to velocity is an
> object’s kinetic energy. Obviously, KE increases as the velocity
> increases. But does KE increase exponentially with velocity
> increase?
No, it doesn't. Moreover, neither Coriolis nor Einstein ever claimed
that KE increases exponentially with velocity increase. Perhaps you
are confused about the term "increase exponentially." Perhaps you
think that anything that increases faster than a linear increase is an
exponential increase.
> The 1830 Coriolis equation, KE = 1/2mv^2—on which Einstein
> based his E = mc^2
Actually, no. One has nothing to do with the other. E=mc^2 has
*nothing* to do with energy associated with motion. In fact, just the
opposite. It is the energy of a body completely at rest.
Moreover, Einstein explicitly showed that kinetic energy does NOT grow
as the square of the velocity. And in fact, in complete accordance
with relativity, real objects are accelerated in real machines with a
1% increase in velocity that doubles their kinetic energy. Such an
increases in KE is neither the square of the velocity nor an
exponential increase. On the other hand, such a measured increase is
inconsistent with NoEinstein's formula as well.
> —was “derived” (term used loosely) based on
> observations that falling objects “seem” to cause exponentially
> greater changes in the deformations of the receiving structures or
> materials,
Sorry, no. That is not where the derivation comes from. Moreover, the
KE formula has been tested in thousands of applications that have
absolutely nothing to do with the deformations of receiving structures
or materials. Though the initial measurement may have been suggestive
of the rule, it was those thousands of later applications with much
higher precision and much broader diversity that led to the acceptance
of the validity of the KE formula.
none
KE formula are off the point historically, they are also wrong in
practice for the very instance he mentions. In part of my career I
designed impact testing equipment. All of the traditional formulas
were well tested every day using different measuring methods, and
different heights and masses. Of course, it all worked out just
fine and would not have if noeinstein was correct but he will as
usual ignore all the facts and just continue to bluster and
try to misdirect.
If he is indeed some sort of architect, then the values he uses
for designs were determined on equipment which he claims uses
the wrong formulas and the structures would not survive.
Randy Poe
> NoEinstein —
I agree with your first equation for total (not kinetic) energy.
I agree with your statement that mass is constant.
I disagree with your statement that mass is variable (see
sentence above).
I agree that KE depends on velocity.
I disagree that this somehow implies conservation of
energy is violated.
Is that clearer?
- Randy
NoEinstein
Dear Randy: All of my statements relate to a UNIT mass of one
(whatever). With a unit mass, the equations aren't having the mass be
a "variable". Einstein's GR requires that as v increases the physical
mass also increases (sic). He said that; I didn't!
>
> I agree that KE depends on velocity.
Fine! So, KE "should" be like momentum. That's what my equation
says, but with the ADDITION of the falling object's static weight.
All objects just waiting top fall have a 'g' value of 1!
>
> I disagree that this somehow implies conservation of
> energy is violated.
FANTASTIC! So, you are almost to the point of agreeing that
Coriolis's errors invalidate Einstein! Don't let me "put words" into
your mouth. By one reply you could become one of my anti-Einsteiniac
supporters! No ‘dues’ will be collected. It's just a personal honor,
really! Thanks for replying! — NoEinstein — :-)
>
> Is that clearer?
>
> - Randy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted
PD
Why? Two physical quantities that depend on velocity should be the
same quantity? What on earth for?
Is this because you want force and impact and momentum and energy and
power and drive to all mean the same thing?
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Randy: This is an "add" to my reply to you, yesterday. Your
"yes, no, yes" reply, earlier, had seemed like an agreement until I re
read that you are still believing that "conservation of energy law"
hasn't been violated. Would you please make a simple sentence stating
what each of your yes, no, yes's relates to? When you say you agree
with "my" equation, which one? The first equation I wrote was a copy
of Einstein's SR equation which I have disproved. And where did I say
that mass doesn't vary, and then contradict that. Einstein increases
mass with velocity for ALL objects; I only agree that "some" high
speed particles increase in mass (due to ether impacts). But those
cases don't relate to anything Coriolis did, nor to his errant KE
equation.
You "may" be on the cusp of a Eureka (!) moment... But I can't
talk you through my reasoning, unless you are more clear on your
reply. Hope you will clarify those points! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Folks: "Kinetic" means MOTION. Velocity means MOTION. Since
"momentum" is an "impact effect" due to VELOCITY; and impact forces
are measured in POUNDS. And since KE means energy due to MOTION, and
thus VELOCITY. And since the KE that Coriolis was describing was the
destructive effect of falling objects (measured in pounds), then
momentum and KE are one and the same things! Since the equations are
different, one of those equations must be wrong…
Coriolis's equation on which Einstein based his theories of relativity
is WRONG, up, down and sideways! And my equation, KE = a/g (m) + v/
32.174 (m) correctly predicts the height of fall necessary for the KE
of a small clevis pin to match the inertia of a larger clevis pin.
Coriolis's equation missed the height prediction by close to FIFTY
feet! — NoEinstein —
Richard Henry
A copyright has no inherent value. It merely protects the value of
the copyrighted work, which in your case, has value only as a work of
humorous fiction.
doug
, then
> momentum and KE are one and the same things!
same equations.
Since the equations are
> different, one of those equations must be wrong…
>
> Coriolis's equation on which Einstein based his theories of relativity
> is WRONG, up, down and sideways!
wrong though.
And my equation, KE = a/g (m) + v/
> 32.174 (m) correctly predicts the height of fall necessary for the KE
> of a small clevis pin to match the inertia of a larger clevis pin.
> Coriolis's equation missed the height prediction by close to FIFTY
> feet! — NoEinstein —
You do not understand your experiment so you just assume that
hundreds of years of physics are wrong. The simple explanation
is that you are wrong (and clueless).
NoEinstein
>
> [snip crap]
>
> > Einstein’s Special Relativity theory has
>
> [snip rest of crap]
>
> The are no global conservation laws in Relativity.
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
And THAT'S (another reason) why relativity is wrong! — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richard: You are visiting the wrong group. "Science" demands the
ability to reason—which you haven't exhibited. — NoEinstein —
NoEinstein
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Doug: Before you pass judgment on my science, please give me
"your best post" so I can see where you are coming from. — NoEinstein
—