Gravitational perpetual motion
A key statement in his argument is:
|It states that the object would oscillate back and forth endlessly through the tunnel from one end of the planet to the other (neglecting wind resistance).
It should be no surprise that he concludes perpetual motion because he neglects the very thing that would prevent perpetual motion
! The reason perpetual motion is "impossible" is precisely because of irreversible
effects like friction or wind resistence.
The work function
|Yet, as we all know, it certainly takes energy to push a heavy boulder even if it doesn't move or to hold an object in our hands even though it isn't moving.
He has a very narrow idea of what pushing is. He is imagining we walk up to a boulder, put our hands and/or shoulder against it, and tense our muscles in a way that would apply a force to the boulder and the ground. Those actions do require energy... however none
of that energy does any work whatsoever on the boulder; it only does work in our bodies.
Still not convinced? Imagine if you simply leaned up against the boulder. Again you're pushing it, but it requires you to spend no more energy than leaning against a wall, and probably requires you to expend less energy than simply standing up.
|Every physicist today will claim that there is no energy expended by gravity to constrain the moon in its orbit -- simply because the modified Work Function gives a zero result.
The most clever and concise explanation I've heard of this is:
"Of course the moon is falling towards the earth; it's just moving fast enough so that it misses the earth every time!"
The main question is why
he would think energy would be required. If the moon is moving in a perfectly circular orbit, it's speed remains constant (so that its kinetic energy remains unchanged) and it is maintaining a constant height (so its gravitational potential energy remains unchanged), so the energy of the moon is unchanging. There is no change of energy, so why would he think there should be work done?
|As we all know, it takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet is not glued to the fridge -- it is held there by magnetism, i.e. magnetic energy.
Again, the energy of the system is remaining unchanged, so there is no work being done. (This will be a common theme to answer most of his questions)
The more interesting question to ask is why magnetism and glue should be expected to behave any differently. Or more interestingly, why doesn't the refrigerator simply collapse under its own weight? After all, it must take energy to keep the top of the fridge up there, right?
The physical principle is easy; the force of gravity acting on the magnet is less than the maximum static frictional force possible between the fridge and the magnet.
The magnetic force essentially creates a tiny indentation in the refrigerator in which the magnet holds itself. In order for gravity to drag the magnet down, it would have to further deform the surface of the refrigerator to create a path through which the magnet travels. However, if the magnet is strong enough, the indentation will be deep enough so that gravity cannot deform the surface sufficiently.
The molecular bonds between H2O molecules in ice are peculiar; they like to arrange them in hexagons. This is pecular because hexagons have a lot of empty space between them, so this isn't a particularly efficient space-packing scheme.
When H2O is in liquid form, the molecules are moving around fast enough that they can't settle into the hexagonal pattern. However, at around four degrees celsius, the intermolecular forces between H2O molecules begin to get strong enough to start arranging themselves into hexagons despite the random motion fo the molecules, and as water cools from four degrees celsius to zero degrees celsius, the water will expand as its molecules arrange themselves into these hexagonal shapes.
|But freezing water has no energy input at all. In fact, it has just the opposite of an energy input -- energy is continually drained from the water as it cools toward freezing. So then, how does the water suddenly rise up and expand with such force from within that it can easily burst metal pipes?
It is precisely because
water molecules have energy that they shuffle around resisting their urge to arrange themselves into hexagons. If you drain the energy out of the molecules, they start arranging themselves into that space-inefficient hexagonal packing and thus the water wants to expand in volume.
Water, incidentally, is a highly incompressible substance, which is why hydraulic systems work. Thus, when the water wants to expand, it is extraordinarily difficult
to stop it; in other words, brittle metal piping doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hades; the only way piping could survive is to expand with the water.
Heavy objects on a tabletop
|Atomic bonds are said to result from electromagnetic energy attracting and holding atoms together. Yet, there is no denying that tremendous ongoing energy expenditure is required to hold the structure of a table together under the crushing weight of a heavy object resting on the tabletop.
Again, there is no reason to suppose the energy levels are changing.
However, it does
require energy to break molecular bonds. Since there's no energy being input into the system, the bonds don't get broken.
Einstein's Special Relativity Theory is all a mistake
Seeing how I can't find any reason why his example should be considered a mistake, any appearance in the SR derivation of his example, nor does he point his finger directly at any flaw in the derivation, there isn't really anything to which I can respond in this section.
Mistakes, logical errors, and coincidence explain experimental evidence.
That title should speak for itself. [:D]
The twin paradox
|Since all speed is relative, you could just as well consider the Earth to be speeding away from the stationary spacecraft. This is just as valid a view of the situation, yet doing so brings the opposite result -- the twin in the spaceship would be an old man.
Spoken like someone oblivious to the fact that the formulae of SR hold only in inertial reference frames! The asymmetry is clear; one twin has to accelerate and the other does not. The time dilation equations work in one frame (the earthbound frame), and not in the other (the spacebound frame).
If you analyzed the picture in any
inertial reference frame, it is clear that the earthbound twin would be older than the spacebound twin when they meet again. This paradox only occurs when you insist on fallaciously applying special relativistic formulae in a non-inertial frame (that of the spacebound twin).
light speed limit
|If the electric or magnetic fields used to accelerate the particles can only push the passing particles at the speed of light, then more energy will only fortify the pushes so that they are more firm (more efficient), but cannot alter their inherent speed-of-light pushing speed.
His "explanation" brings up more questions than the question he's trying to answer. Why should a method of acceleration have a limit as to what maximum speed they can impart?
Flying atomic clocks
His argument is based on the same flaw as that of the twin paradox.
Other evidence for Special Relativity
|Yes there are, and each of them either have clear logical flaws or simple commonsense explanations other than "time dilation", "relativistic mass increase", or "space-time contraction".
It would be amusing to see his explanations, but I'm certainly not gonna pay $30 to do so. [;)]