HI guys,

Whilst I concur that Relativity is a comprehensive and excellent theory that represents a "universe" . I often wonder if we know and acknowledge it's limitations.

So I wanted to ask the erudite readers what do they percieve as the limitations of relativity.

so?

The main limitation is that general relativity is not a quantum theory. Therefore, it does not describe spacetime accurately at very small scales. It therefore cannot describe the evolution of the universe at the very earliest times; nor can it describe in detail what processes occur at the centre of a black hole.

QQ,

I would only add to James R's list that GR doesn't properly describe gravity based on actual observation at galatic scales and only becomes correct by the AD HOC MOND adjustment of observed matter, nor does it predict the expansion of the universe without the AD HOC inclusion of a hypothetical Dark Energy. :D

Further it does mathematically predict functions which are taken as fact when there is no emperical evidence or observation to support the conclusion.

It fails to provide a cause for the affects.

You really don't understand what MOND is, do you Mac? MOND is an alternative theory
of gravity, like your UniKEF as I stated before, it is incorrect and never was part of
any mainstream theory. A cut and paste of a shorter explaination:
"Using data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the motion of the satellite galaxies indicated the presence of a much larger, invisible mass. In other words, the larger galaxies are located at the center of giant concentrations of dark matter.

"This is a very important test of our understanding of how the universe works," said one of the researchers, Anatoly Klypin of New Mexico State University. "This is one of the most direct probes of the distribution of dark matter and the properties of dark matter."

The study further found that the gravitational pull of dark matter weakened at its periphery, a unique property not exhibited by bodies composed of ordinary matter.

"We detected a specific law -- the decline in dark-matter density toward the periphery," said Klypin. "The goal of our research is now to measure that law."

Dennis Zaritsky, an astronomer at University of Arizona at Tucson, first postulated dark matter in 1994. Zaritsky saw the excessive motion of satellite galaxies, indicating the presence of an invisible mass, but made no attempt to measure it.

"He was the first to see there was something wrong with motion," said Klypin. "Now (that) we've measured the law, we can reject other theories like MOND."

Modified Newtonian dynamics, or MOND, is an alternative theory that suggests the laws of gravity change at the edge of galaxies."
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,58966,00.html

I would only add to James R's list that GR doesn't properly describe gravity based on actual observation at galatic scales and only becomes correct by the AD HOC MOND adjustment of observed matter, nor does it predict the expansion of the universe without the AD HOC inclusion of a hypothetical Dark Energy.

MOND has nothing to do with GR, as 2inquisitive said above.

The state of play in the game of determining how much matter and energy in the universe looks something like this:

1. If we accept the general relativistic description of gravity (and its Newtonian approximation, which is good for many purposes), then the observed rotational curves of galaxies imply that there is more matter present in galaxies than we can see. Therefore, we are forced to postulate some kind of "dark" matter.

2. To match a general relativistic description of the universe to what is currently observed on the largest scales seems to require invoking Einstein's cosmological constant. Then, it follows that we require a physical mechanism to explain how this constant comes into play.

3. As a radical alternative, we might decide to throw away general relativity in favour of a new theory of gravity which can account for galactic rotation curves and the accelerating expansion of the universe without invoking dark matter or energy. A number of such alternative theories have been proposed and examined by physicists. However, all proposed alternatives appear to have problems, and none is as successful as the theory of relativity. Thus, throwing out GR does not seem presently justifiable.

Note that the conclusions about dark matter and energy are not ad hoc, but are forced upon us once we accept general relativity.

Further [relativity] does mathematically predict functions which are taken as fact when there is no emperical evidence or observation to support the conclusion.

No. You misunderstand how real science works. The theory of general relativity is always open to questioning and testing. Nothing is accepted as fact without good evidence. However, in the case of a theory such as relativity, whose fundamentals have such a huge volume of direct experimental and observational support, it is reasonable and sensible to extrapolate the theory to contentious situations, unless and until it is found to be untenable in those situations.

It fails to provide a cause for the affects.

This is false.

2Inquisitive,

You really don't understand what MOND is, do you Mac? MOND is an alternative theory of gravity, like your UniKEF as I stated before, it is incorrect and never was part of any mainstream theory.

Not you too!. I find it incrediable. I post a description from the web and make no pronouncements about it myself and "I don't understand it". That is an outright foolish comment not worth debating.

James R.,

MOND has nothing to do with GR, as 2inquisitive said above.

Fine, I won't bother to argue but give you a challenge. Excluding MOND or Dark Matter (both AD HOC bandaid solutions) perhaps you will show us how GR predicts the correct rotational velocity of stars around a galaxy.

The state of play in the game of determining how much matter and energy in the universe looks something like this:

1. If we accept the general relativistic description of gravity (and its Newtonian approximation, which is good for many purposes), then the observed rotational curves of galaxies imply that there is more matter present in galaxies than we can see. Therefore, we are forced to postulate some kind of "dark" matter.

Only if you want to put bandaids on a theory that otherwise doesn't provide the correct answer. Perhaps, just perhaps current theory is missing something and we should be looking for it, not making up shit just to make it work. The bare simple truth is based on observation Newtonian and GR fall grossly short of providing the correct answer and what is being done is propping up the current theory with philosophy not science.

Lets see how this goes. There is a new theory of gravity it seems to work fine locally but assume it falls short by a factor of 4 - 5 on the amount of mass that must be jpresent over large distance. Gee then that mass MUST be there. I would love to see sciences response to such a theory.

Now we have another theory, it appears to work fine locally and gee it even predicts stronger gravity over large distances than does current theory making Dark Matter unnecessary. It even suggest it is also the cause of the expansion of the universe without Dark Energy. But it is outright bullshit because it isn't Relativity so we won't even consider it. Unbelievable. Really not only unbelievable but inexcusable

2. To match a general relativistic description of the universe to what is currently observed on the largest scales seems to require invoking Einstein's cosmological constant. Then, it follows that we require a physical mechanism to explain how this constant comes into play.

Again only because you seem to choose to reject without consideration that another mechanisim may be at work other than Relativity. So to make Relativity while lets make up this cosmological constant, we can call it Dark Energy and give it antigravity qualities and suggest that Dark Matter over powered it for a time but now it is becoming the stronger. HeHeHE scientific indeed.

3. As a radical alternative, we might decide to throw away general relativity in favour of a new theory of gravity which can account for galactic rotation curves and the accelerating expansion of the universe without invoking dark matter or energy. A number of such alternative theories have been proposed and examined by physicists. However, all proposed alternatives appear to have problems, and none is as successful as the theory of relativity. Thus, throwing out GR does not seem presently justifiable.

This is the first thing you said that has any merit. But it doesn't excuse the refusal to consider such alternatives.

Note that the conclusions about dark matter and energy are not ad hoc, but are forced upon us once we accept general relativity.

HaHaHa. In the eyes of the beholder.

“ Further [relativity] does mathematically predict functions which are taken as fact when there is no emperical evidence or observation to support the conclusion. ”


No. You misunderstand how real science works. The theory of general relativity is always open to questioning and testing. Nothing is accepted as fact without good evidence. However, in the case of a theory such as relativity, whose fundamentals have such a huge volume of direct experimental and observational support, it is reasonable and sensible to extrapolate the theory to contentious situations, unless and until it is found to be untenable in those situations.

Singularities, among some other issues, are untenable.

This is false.

Great that means you can post here information I have sought most jof my adult life.

1 - Cause of time dilation.

2 - Cause of dimensional contraction.

3 - Cause of gravity other than to claim it is a feaure of curved space. Curved space without a driving force or energy wouldn't move a BB much less a planet.

2Inquisitive,



Not you too!. I find it incrediable. I post a description from the web and make no pronouncements about it myself and "I don't understand it". That is an outright foolish comment not worth debating.

by MacM:

"I would only add to James R's list that GR doesn't properly describe gravity based on actual observation at galatic scales and only becomes correct by the AD HOC MOND adjustment of observed matter"

You also said that you took exception to me putting UniKEF in the same
classification as MOND was "a bandaide to current theory." MOND was an
alternative theory of gravity. UniKEF, if it is completed to form a coherent
theory, will be an alternative theory of gravity. You used to embrace MOND
and even had it on your UniKEF website, now you try to say it is a 'bandaide'
to Newtonian gravity and GR. It is, and was, an alternative theory of gravity.
Your comments are outrightly foolish, Mac.

2Inquisitive,

You also said that you took exception to me putting UniKEF in the same classification as MOND was "a bandaide to current theory."

That is correct. Valid or not, UniKEF is a stand alone concept of gravity. MOND (by its very name is a bandaid) "MOdified Newtonian Dynamics". It only proposes that Newtons theory be adjusted "arbitrarily" so as to fit observation.

MOND was an alternative theory of gravity. UniKEF, if it is completed to form a coherent theory, will be an alternative theory of gravity.

Perhpas but by what basis to "Modify" existing theory other than to make it mathematically conform. There is no substance to the concept other than mathematics.

You used to embrace MOND

Absolutely false. I have never advocated MOND.

and even had it on your UniKEF website,

Still do and it is even cited in the UniKEF Gravity Paper (Draft) but not as a viable theory in of itself but to show the error in Newton, etc.

now you try to say it is a 'bandaide' to Newtonian gravity and GR.

That is because it is at least for Newton. It does't affect GR. Dark Matter is the bandaid for GR.

It is, and was, an alternative theory of gravity.

It is not an independant theory of gravity. It merely compensates Newtonian gravity.

Your comments are outrightly foolish, Mac.

I think I would have another look at who's comments are foolish here don't you?

*Persol looks again*

Nope, you still look foolish.

Persol,

Nope, you still look foolish.

I know I have given you this recommendation more than once. "Stop looking in the mirror".

I'm glad to see we are back in 3rd grade.

So you're the one who always ate the red crayon.

Persol,

I'm glad to see we are back in 3rd grade.

So you're the one who always ate the red crayon.[/b]

At least "I" passed. Hope you have better luck next year or did you even get that far?.

With due respect to all parties I would like to thank James for at least acknowledging the limitations and specifying them.
The main limitation is that general relativity is not a quantum theory. Therefore, it does not describe spacetime accurately at very small scales. It therefore cannot describe the evolution of the universe at the very earliest times; nor can it describe in detail what processes occur at the centre of a black hole.

And I guess we can add to this that it can not help in the cause towards finding our missing matter.

MacM:

Most of your post demonstrates a clear example of hitting the "reply" button and responding with the first thought which strikes you, before you've read the entire post. I'll therefore ignore the parts which I answered in my previous post (which doesn't leave much).

Now we have another theory, it appears to work fine locally and gee it even predicts stronger gravity over large distances than does current theory making Dark Matter unnecessary. It even suggest it is also the cause of the expansion of the universe without Dark Energy. But it is outright bullshit because it isn't Relativity so we won't even consider it. Unbelievable. Really not only unbelievable but inexcusable

Which theory are your referring to? Not the MOND theory, which has been found to have flaws, surely? And not UniKEF, which has no support in any theoretical or experimental sense. Then what?

Again only because you seem to choose to reject without consideration that another mechanisim may be at work other than Relativity. So to make Relativity while lets make up this cosmological constant, we can call it Dark Energy and give it antigravity qualities and suggest that Dark Matter over powered it for a time but now it is becoming the stronger. HeHeHE scientific indeed.

You have no idea why dark energy and dark matter are postulated as they are. You have only the barest pop-science understanding of the issues. And you wonder why people ridicule you, as you attempt to pay out about theories you clearly have no understanding of.

Me: “ 3. As a radical alternative, we might decide to throw away general relativity in favour of a new theory of gravity which can account for galactic rotation curves and the accelerating expansion of the universe without invoking dark matter or energy. A number of such alternative theories have been proposed and examined by physicists. However, all proposed alternatives appear to have problems, and none is as successful as the theory of relativity. Thus, throwing out GR does not seem presently justifiable. ”

This is the first thing you said that has any merit. But it doesn't excuse the refusal to consider such alternatives.

Read what I wrote again. I've even included my quote to make it easy for you. Physicists HAVE considered many alternatives, and will continue to do so as long as there are interesting alternatives out there. There is no refusal - that's just part of your conspiracy mentality.

“ Note that the conclusions about dark matter and energy are not ad hoc, but are forced upon us once we accept general relativity. ”

HaHaHa. In the eyes of the beholder.

No. That's the beauty of real physics. It makes definite statements about the world, which are checkable. And that's what the real physicists are currently doing - checking.

Singularities, among some other issues, are untenable.

Then it's a good thing that general relativity makes no attempt to explain them, isn't it?

Great that means you can post here information I have sought most jof my adult life.

1 - Cause of time dilation.

2 - Cause of dimensional contraction.

These are both observational effects experienced by observers in different frames of reference.

3 - Cause of gravity other than to claim it is a feaure of curved space.

Nobody knows why gravity exists, if that is what you are asking. The most we can say is that it is one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe. Our universe is simply like that - we have gravity. That's the way it goes. Live with it.

On the other hand, if you want to know HOW gravity works, I could write several books on that subject.

Curved space without a driving force or energy wouldn't move a BB much less a planet.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In any case, this sentence is so vague it isn't worth wasting time trying to delve into what you might mean by it. I'll leave you to explain yourself, or not, as you see fit.

Janes R.,

Most of your post demonstrates a clear example of hitting the "reply" button and responding with the first thought which strikes you, before you've read the entire post. I'll therefore ignore the parts which I answered in my previous post (which doesn't leave much).

“ Now we have another theory, it appears to work fine locally and gee it even predicts stronger gravity over large distances than does current theory making Dark Matter unnecessary. It even suggest it is also the cause of the expansion of the universe without Dark Energy. But it is outright bullshit because it isn't Relativity so we won't even consider it. Unbelievable. Really not only unbelievable but inexcusable ”

Which theory are your referring to? Not the MOND theory, which has been found to have flaws, surely? And not UniKEF, which has no support in any theoretical or experimental sense. Then what?

You have missed the point. Not that UniKEF theory is formalized but that you and others refuse to even consider it. Tell me just how much time you have spent actually calculating the UniKEF integration. None. So you have no idea if it is valid or invalid but choose to comment as though it is invalid. That is the problem I am referring to.

“ Again only because you seem to choose to reject without consideration that another mechanisim may be at work other than Relativity. So to make Relativity while lets make up this cosmological constant, we can call it Dark Energy and give it antigravity qualities and suggest that Dark Matter over powered it for a time but now it is becoming the stronger. HeHeHE scientific indeed. ”

You have no idea why dark energy and dark matter are postulated as they are. You have only the barest pop-science understanding of the issues. And you wonder why people ridicule you, as you attempt to pay out about theories you clearly have no understanding of.

Says JR, must be true. Shssssh :bugeye:

“ Me: “ 3. As a radical alternative, we might decide to throw away general relativity in favour of a new theory of gravity which can account for galactic rotation curves and the accelerating expansion of the universe without invoking dark matter or energy. A number of such alternative theories have been proposed and examined by physicists. However, all proposed alternatives appear to have problems, and none is as successful as the theory of relativity. Thus, throwing out GR does not seem presently justifiable. ”

This is the first thing you said that has any merit. But it doesn't excuse the refusal to consider such alternatives. ”

Read what I wrote again. I've even included my quote to make it easy for you. Physicists HAVE considered many alternatives, and will continue to do so as long as there are interesting alternatives out there. There is no refusal - that's just part of your conspiracy mentality.

LIkewise I will duplicate my prior statement:

"You have missed the point. Not that UniKEF theory is formalized but that you and others refuse to even consider it. Tell me just how much time you hve spent actually calculating the UniKEF integration. None. So you have no idea if it is valid or invalid but choose to comment as though it is invalid. That is the problem I am referring to."

The only notation worth making here is that assuming the university is successful at getting UniKEF published THEN you will try and invalidate it but until it is spoon fed to you you have no interest in alternative physics or answers. You are a content bug in a rug and stuck in a rut.

“ Note that the conclusions about dark matter and energy are not ad hoc, but are forced upon us once we accept general relativity. ”

"HaHaHa. In the eyes of the beholder. ”


No. That's the beauty of real physics. It makes definite statements about the world, which are checkable. And that's what the real physicists are currently doing - checking.

Lets see. If I had a theory that predicted that heat was a cube function of pressure and it seemed to work under every day pressures but then one day I found extraordinary cases of pressure and the heat was off by a factor of 4 - 5, then I can solve my problem and be scientific by simply saying gee, that means there must be a hidden source of heat that only functions under high pressure and I shouldn't consider that perhaps, just perhaps, heat is not a cube function of pressure. Makes perfect sense to me. Seems like very sound science.

“ Singularities, among some other issues, are untenable. ”

Then it's a good thing that general relativity makes no attempt to explain them, isn't it?

Are you trying to claim that "Singularities" are not predicted by Relativity? You can do better than that. Why should we expect Relativity to explain them, it doesn't explain anythingelse, it simply makes mathematical claims.

“ Great that means you can post here information I have sought most of my adult life.

1 - Cause of time dilation.

2 - Cause of dimensional contraction. ”


These are both observational effects experienced by observers in different frames of reference.

And you think that is a viable cause? Give me a break. They are nothing more than statements (postulates) without any physical explanation.

WEBSTER: (Postulate)

1 - To claim; demand; require.
2 - To assume without proof, to be real, true or necesary.

“ 3 - Cause of gravity other than to claim it is a feaure of curved space. ”


Nobody knows why gravity exists, if that is what you are asking. The most we can say is that it is one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe. Our universe is simply like that - we have gravity. That's the way it goes. Live with it.

On the other hand, if you want to know HOW gravity works, I could write several books on that subject.

Unless I miss my guess they would not include anything new but would be your explanation of those things that have been claimed by the great minds before you and the books you have read. Is that an unfair assumption?

“ Curved space without a driving force or energy wouldn't move a BB much less a planet. ”

I don't think you know what you're talking about. In any case, this sentence is so vague it isn't worth wasting time trying to delve into what you might mean by it. I'll leave you to explain yourself, or not, as you see fit.

First, it is not merely my opinion but the opinion of numerous (not a majority obviously) qualified physicists and other well educated scientist that GR and curved space provides no motive force to actually result in the phenomena of gravity. Don't bother telling me gravity isn't a force. I have heard that guff before. Better yet tell us that weight is not a force or that a free falling body doesn't move by F = ma.

MacM,


James R said:
On the other hand, if you want to know HOW gravity works, I could write several books on that subject.

MacM said:
Unless I miss my guess they would not include anything new but would be your explanation of those things that have been claimed by the great minds before you and the books you have read. Is that an unfair assumption?


MacM, you are so naive. You think, since you invented UniKEF all by yourself while others like James R appear to study from others, then you are a wonder boy, the guy that will be recorded in history as another great mind? Honestly, judging from the level of your physics understanding and your lacking of logical appoach, I am sure James R could come out with much more useful ideas in his books than you with your UniKEF.

What's the use of tonnes of original thought all by yourself if they are mostly wrong? Physics is not science fiction. I think you should consider writing science fiction rather than physics. People don't care your science fiction correct or incorrect.

MacM:

You're really starting to sound like just another conspiracy crackpot.

You claimed to have a viable alternative theory of gravity available. I asked:

Which theory are your referring to? Not the MOND theory, which has been found to have flaws, surely? And not UniKEF, which has no support in any theoretical or experimental sense. Then what?

And your reply was:

You have missed the point. Not that UniKEF theory is formalized but that you and others refuse to even consider it. Tell me just how much time you have spent actually calculating the UniKEF integration. None. So you have no idea if it is valid or invalid but choose to comment as though it is invalid. That is the problem I am referring to.

UniKEF is your theory. It is up to the person proposing a new theory to convince others of its validity, or at least point them in the right direction. It is not up to other people to prove that every crazy idea you have is wrong - real scientists have better things to do with their time.

How much time have I spent calculating the UniKEF integration? What integration? There is no general integration formula for your UniKEF theory. All you have ever provided has been a particular half-baked integration idea for one specific case (of two spheres). This is not a general gravitational theory. You even admit that the integration you suggested is not correct, but only an approximation to whatever your "real" theory is.

You are also disingenous in claiming that I have spent no time on this. On the contrary, one of the longest threads in this forum is one I started specifically to consider your idea. I attempted to get enough information from you merely to take the first step by doing the approximate, special-case calculation that you yourself suggested. But I never could get enough details from you to even set up the problem properly.

And don't tell me that Dr Allard's error-ridden work on the back of a paper napkin is a valid calculation, particularly since you yourself once again have admitted that you have no idea what he actually did, since your maths is not one of your strong points.

Also, your appeal to authority - that maybe, one day in the distant future, somebody smart at a university might pull your theory up into some kind of useful form - does little to impress me. I will believe that when I see it. And please spare me the standard response that I will be shamefaced when your theory conquers the world. I've heard it all before. With all due respect, you ought to put up or shut up.

Says JR, must be true. Shssssh :bugeye:

I accept that things need not be true just because I said them. Now turn your mirror on yourself and take a good hard look.

The only notation worth making here is that assuming the university is successful at getting UniKEF published THEN you will try and invalidate it but until it is spoon fed to you you have no interest in alternative physics or answers.

I would love to see a coherent presentation of your theory, if such a thing is possible. Mind you, by the time the guys at the university finish with it, if it turns out to be at all useful, I'll bet it won't look anything like YOUR theory any more. And I don't really expect anything will ever come of this anyway.

You are a content bug in a rug and stuck in a rut.

I don't need your character analysis, MacM. You don't know me, and you've never seen my original work, so you are not in any position to make this kind of comment.

Lets see. If I had a theory that predicted that heat was a cube function of pressure and it seemed to work under every day pressures but then one day I found extraordinary cases of pressure and the heat was off by a factor of 4 - 5, then I can solve my problem and be scientific by simply saying gee, that means there must be a hidden source of heat that only functions under high pressure and I shouldn't consider that perhaps, just perhaps, heat is not a cube function of pressure. Makes perfect sense to me. Seems like very sound science.

The first part of your statement is correct, then you get lost here. A good scientist always runs with multiple alternative hypotheses, where possible. Then they keep doing tests until all but one explanation is excluded. Just as astrophysicists have done to reach their current conclusions regarding dark matter (to take one example). Do you think astrophysicists like having a universe in which 90% of the matter is something they don't yet understand. Of course not. If they could explain things another way which was viable, they would. (MOND has serious problems, by the way, despite your fondness for it.) In your scenario, your examine the implications for both possible solutions your have mentioned, and maybe others as well, and work out which fits in best with everything else we know.

Are you trying to claim that "Singularities" are not predicted by Relativity? You can do better than that.

I meant what I wrote, not what you wrote. I remind you that what I said was that relativity has nothing to say about the physical nature of (irremovable) singularities. The theory of relativity does not apply to them.

Why should we expect Relativity to explain them, it doesn't explain anythingelse, it simply makes mathematical claims.

I won't even start on this. You are sadly mistaken.

[Time dilation and length contraction] are nothing more than statements (postulates) without any physical explanation.

Wrong again. How many times do you need to be told that relativity has only two postulates, and time dilation and length contraction are not postulates?

When will the next time be that you will pretend you haven't been told this many times before?

Either you are being wilfully dishonest in ignoring all past explanations, or you have a faulty memory. Which is it?

Me: On the other hand, if you want to know HOW gravity works, I could write several books on that subject.

You: Unless I miss my guess they would not include anything new but would be your explanation of those things that have been claimed by the great minds before you and the books you have read. Is that an unfair assumption?

My speciality is not theories of gravity, so I am unlikely to come up with a new gravity theory. However, if I ever bothered to write a book on the subject, much of its content and layout would be original. There is no point in simply reproducing work which has been done before. If you can't bring a new approach to a topic, or new insights into how best to approach it, there is little point in writing a book on it, is there?

I would rather write an informative, interesting and entertaining book explaining how an existing, useful physical theory works rather than wasting my time writing an unintelligible book promoting a pie-in-the-sky idea of my own which has no useful scientific content. And I would never publish an idea I had unless I had at least some indication that it might be useful.

First, it is not merely my opinion but the opinion of numerous (not a majority obviously) qualified physicists and other well educated scientist that GR and curved space provides no motive force to actually result in the phenomena of gravity.

Quote one or two, please, with references.

Don't bother telling me gravity isn't a force. I have heard that guff before.

In a sense, that is the entire basis of general relativity. I guess you missed it.

Better yet tell us that weight is not a force or that a free falling body doesn't move by F = ma.

But both of those things are true. Weight is a force. And a freely falling body moves according to F=ma. F and a are both zero in free fall according to general relativity, so 0 = m × 0. A fairly uninteresting equation.

Paul T.,

MacM, you are so naive. You think, since you invented UniKEF all by yourself while others like James R appear to study from others, then you are a wonder boy, the guy that will be recorded in history as another great mind? Honestly, judging from the level of your physics understanding and your lacking of logical appoach, I am sure James R could come out with much more useful ideas in his books than you with your UniKEF.

What's the use of tonnes of original thought all by yourself if they are mostly wrong? Physics is not science fiction. I think you should consider writing science fiction rather than physics. People don't care your science fiction correct or incorrect.

All this from the guy that thinks one should use the velocity addition formula when you have two different speeds at two different times by the same object and that thinks acceleration requirements between two velocities are increased at relavistic velocities.

Sob, sob, then it must be true.

Try answering the damn question and get off your high horse [deleted].