False Claims
02-17-03 Claims 'All light is energy packets released from the Chiral Condensate'
02-21-03 Claims 'Time is a measure of events created by the flow of kenetic energy.'
02-21-03 Claims to understand reality better then the rest of the posters ('does time affect motion...?')
02-21-03 Claims that '(his theory) is a success'... but is then unavle to explain how the equations work ('Arguable points?')
02-22-03 Claims to understand the 3-clock problem better then scientists
03-01-03 Argues about particle entaglement, and then gives up ('Clocks and Particle Entanglement')
03-03-03 Says 'Length contraction I agree with Relativity'... but later argues about it ('time dilation and length contraction')
03-06-03 Misrepresents a Scientific America article
03-19-03 Misinterprets NASA's quaser velocity measurements ('Relavistic Mass')
03-21-03 Claims 'There is currently no stipulation in Relativity which addresses self-propelled objects, such as rockets', and then it is pointed out to him that relativity does have such stipulations.
05-06-03 Claims that recession velocities greater than c, then backs down when it is pointed out they are due too cosmological redshift
05-09-03 Claims 'pi is always the same'
05-09-03 Claims information travels instantaneously... then backs down
05-09-03 Claims 'The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c', but then can't provide an example.
05-24-03 Claims Einstien 'reverse engineered' relativity from the orbits of the planets.

Add this.

"Understands" the merry-go-round problem, but does not know calculus let alone differential geometry.

Has an alternative theory for relativity, that predicts less than relativity

Is a retired nuclear engineer(now that's scary), but is unable to accept E=mc^2

Talks of physics and meaning of existance in the same sentence.

Reads only the last line of any refered articles

Spells relativity, "Relavity"

Moderator note: This thread is unlikely to produce any productive discussion. Thread closed.

James R,

I just ran through the following post by Persol and reply by rayns. I appreciate your locking the string but suggest that since I doubt there isn't anyone around here that doesn't attach my name to it. That you at least lock and leave my response.

I only found one claim by him that could be considered legitimate. The rest are distortions and outright fabrications.

If you are of a mind to leave that kind of sleasy crap on site then I feel you should leave my response as well.


Guess the quack (Posted by Persol)
False Claims
02-17-03 Claims 'All light is energy packets released from the Chiral Condensate'

Never made that claim. Say it is possible and have seen research suggesting same.


02-21-03 Claims 'Time is a measure of events created by the flow of kenetic energy.'

Per UniKEF. Not claimed as fact but logical possibility.


02-21-03 Claims to understand reality better then the rest of the posters ('does time affect motion...?')

Also indicated thereafter that I made that statement purposely to piss off ryan. That is not my view and you advance a straw enuendo.


02-21-03 Claims that '(his theory) is a success'... but is then unavle to explain how the equations work 'Arguable points?')

Have made no such claim. What equations, it is basicaly devoid mathematical support.


02-22-03 Claims to understand the 3-clock problem better then scientists

Not so. I provided extensive arguement that has kept many of you busy for months. And as far as I know the issue of multiple rates (the last version) has yet to be answered. It may have an answer but you haven't yet given it. Until then I consider it an open challenge, one that perhaps you are avoiding.


03-01-03 Argues about particle entaglement, and then gives up ('Clocks and Particle Entanglement')

Never happened. Particle entanglement was offered as a theoretical means to meet demands for clock control under the 3 Clock topic. Since communication via PE has not yet been accomplished the issue was dropped and wasn't required in the first place.


03-03-03 Says 'Length contraction I agree with Relativity'... but later argues about it ('time dilation and length contraction')

I have argued about time dilation but never about length contraction.


03-06-03 Misrepresents a Scientific America article

Never represented any article. Have stated what was said in the articles by the writers. You don't like the implications made from it.


03-19-03 Misinterprets NASA's quaser velocity measurements ('Relavistic Mass')

Never misinterpreted anything. That issue is still open, even after mathematics were developed to sweep the heartburn from Relativity. The solution is based in the first instance that Relativity is valid and therefore you attempt to prove Relativity via relativity.


03-21-03 Claims 'There is currently no stipulation in Relativity which addresses self-propelled objects, such as rockets', and then it is pointed out to him that relativity does have such stipulations.

**One for the gipper - WOW.


05-06-03 Claims that recession velocities greater than c, then backs down when it is pointed out they are due too cosmological redshift

Don't recall any such claim. I did present the Quasar data where NASA measured proper velocities of 5,200c but orthogonally, not in terms of red shift.


05-09-03 Claims 'pi is always the same'

Claimed and still claim presentations in Relativity and arguement by members of this MSB are incorrect. You spend all your time trying to tell me all about Relativity and how many times have I said the issue isn't even about Relativity. It is about the fact that any affect by any theory be it SR at the circumference or GR in the radius (ryans view) also affects the ruler and hence no measurable change in Pi. I even stated that SR and GR having different affects would not in reality be explainable except for other geometries wherein Pi would be different physically - But not measured as claimed by you and the books I referenced.


05-09-03 Claims information travels instantaneously... then backs down

Made no such claim. In the discussion the issue of information came up and I made a comment that I thought the particles might disagree that no information was transferred. That in no way implied or meant information in the context of the discussion. All posts on that issue dealt with the "Optimistic" statements being made by the researchers themselves and contained no personal input. Go argue with them.


05-09-03 Claims 'The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c', but then can't provide an example.

Same issue as above and I still say the particles disagree with you and in that light so do I. That does not mean there is or even can be communication in a form that "WE" can use. But those working in the field seem to believe one day it will. I would prefer to believe them but it remains for them to achieve, not me.

05-24-03 Claims Einstien 'reverse engineered' relativity from the orbits of the planets.

Made no such claim. I referenced an article that made that claim. I never expressed an opinion either way.

*********************************************

Posted by Ryans:

Add this.

"Understands" the merry-go-round problem, but does not know calculus let alone differential geometry.

OK. Partially true. I have had some calculus 40 years ago but have never used it. Not exactly the same thing but fair and previously acknowledged point. Now tell us how much you know about "Alternative" research to Relativity. I suspect less than I remember and knew about calculus.

"Has an alternative theory for relativity, that predicts less than relativity"

UniKEF has made a pretty impressive list of predictions over 50 years. And the list is growing rapidly. How many predictions of any signifigance have you ever made? Even one (1)? Got my doubts. People with their head buried in the sand and accepting things at face value without any interest in questioning it are not likely to make any useful predictions.

"Is a retired nuclear engineer(now that's scary), but is unable to accept E=mc^2 "

Where in the hell do you get that I don't accept E=mc^2. That is just plain assinine. I may have questioned the derivation via Relativity. But that is totally different than saying I reject E=mc^2. That is just stupid. But then what should we expect.

"Talks of physics and meaning of existance in the same sentence. "

Not sure what you are going after here but 0------->(+n)+(-n) crossed my mind. If so that damn well is a physical issue.

"Reads only the last line of any refered articles "

Sometimes that is true but far from any majority. If I refer to an authors conclusions I see no problem with that. I neither vouch for such work or offer any analysis. Get a lot more info reading conclusions than spending hours reading details. If I had to fault you on your skills it would be for not looking at any conclusions of alternative physics to Relativity. I believe it was Janus that just this evening admitted in one case he had attacked me for posting a link which he claimed was outright bogus, when he had in fact not even gone to the link and determined the credability for himself before commenting. He did so because it was being offered as "Potentially" damaging to Relativity. I really suspect that 90% of comments made on these subjects have been done in like fashion.

"Spells relativity, "Relavity"

Now do you really want me to go back through your posts and correct all the typo's I have seen you make.? Be glad to if you think that is useful information people should have.

Moderator note: Thread re-opened. It appears MacM wants to go on with this.

James R.,

Thanks. I don't think that is what I said up there but if that is what this board wants to spend its time doing then I guess we will.
:D

Considering that there may be readers unfamilar with actual positions taken in the many strings over these long months, I want them to see my position as stated as clearly as I know how by inserting this extract from the Introduction of my work.

********************* Extract *******************


The UniKEF Theory
By Dan K. McCoin (Mac)
Email: lmccoin@elp.rr.com

INTRODUCTION

The UniKEF Theory is an alternative view of reality which is offered to stimulate a search for a better understanding and physical description of our universe where Relativity and Strings (TOE) theories venture off into complex mathematical projections creating unreconcilable conflicts and are devoid of any physical underpinnings.

Neither the mathematics nor the assumptions in UniKEF are based on any research or discoveries. They are offered as "By-Way-Of-Example" and are not to be taken as final arguments for UniKEF. UniKEF Gravity is supported by a calculus analysis and may be viewed in the PICTURE (PHOTO) or DOCUMENTS sections. While that lends credence to the overall concept it doesn't make it valid in any detailed way. It merely opens up many possibilities which should be explored
************************************************** *

And finally to keep issues in proper context of False Claims of positons and actual positions on issues you may compare my statements directly via:

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

The UniKEF Theory is an alternative view of reality which is offered to stimulate a search for a better understanding and physical description of our universe where Relativity and Strings (TOE) theories venture off into complex mathematical projections creating unreconcilable conflicts and are devoid of any physical underpinnings

You are too old to learn the appropriate maths to be at the forefront of physics, so you delude yourself into creating your own alternative theory that only you understand, and is devoid of a language that you will NEVER understand, mathematics.

You are a person looking for the meaning of existence, and who is having thoughts about what the whole point of your life is. I will give you the answer here Mac. There is no point. You will die happy because you are ignorant. 1 year after you die, nobody will no your name and you can't live with that. Personally I have no problem not being remembered, but I'd rather die with an incomplete picture of what is correct, than a complete one that is cognitive delusion!

ryans,


You are too old to learn the appropriate maths to be at the forefront of physics, so you delude yourself into creating your own alternative theory that only you understand, and is devoid of a language that you will NEVER understand, mathematics.

You are a person looking for the meaning of existence, and who is having thoughts about what the whole point of your life is. I will give you the answer here Mac.

There is no point. You will die happy because you are ignorant.

1 year after you die, nobody will no your name and you can't live with that.

Personally I have no problem not being remembered, but I'd rather die with an incomplete picture of what is correct, than a complete one that is cognitive delusion!

ANS: To bad you didn't go into psychiatry, you would be rich if people paid you for your babble.

Something I have noticed about your posts. People are supposed to look upon the great ryans as some source of authority and factual responses. Shssssh.

I do believe people die regardless of their IQ (What is yours BTW? Want to play IQ with me? My grandson even has me whipped. Want to play with him? His is 168). I don't put much stock in IQ value.

The likelyhood of my name being remembered I suspect is (at least at this point) better than yours since mine is recorded in the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-4535,
"Personalities of the South", 10th Edition,1979, by the American Biographical Institute.

As I recall that information really pissed you off, so thought I would just throw that in again for good measure.

PS: By Webster - "Ignorant", 1 - Having little knowledge, education or experience........

I have (4) years formal education in the sciences, was 2nd in class of 26 by 0.1 grade average, substantial knowledge and more experience I suspect than some young know it all that still wet behind the ears with a smart mouth, that thinks C = Pi * r^2 and believes that Relativity changes the dimensions of a merry-go-round but doesn't change the dimensions of the ruler and therefore a measured calculation of the m-g-r in motion by an observer in motion with the wheel will result in a change in the value of Pi .

The fact that I disagree with the conclusions drawn from or about Relativity do not qualify me as ignorant. Nor does it make me a genius. Therefore your inappropriate labeling shows your own lack of knowledge and is to be ignored or "Consider the source".

Considering I wrote UniKEF when I was 13 (1954), I don't seem to recall thinking "gee I'm going to die one day and I want to write something so that I will be remembered."

I'm already being remembered and given honors, unlike you. So I think it may well be you that are trying to be remembered.

OBTW: Reference typo's "....

This is clearly not a typo, so it is most obvious by your own statment that you must be happy.


You will die happy because you are ignorant.

1 year after you die, nobody will no your name and you can't live with that.


ANS: It is "know" not "no" you infantile.

I just wanted to post the same thing.

If you want to look smart, you cannot afford yourself such a typo -if it is a typo :p

Really, you formulated UniKEF when you were 13.

How many years later and it still has no basis, AND is still incomplete, hardly the mark of someone inspired.

When I was 13, I believed that travelling backwards in time, simply by going faster than light was possible. How innocent and ignorant I was when I was 13.

And have you noticed Mac that I don't comment on things in hich I think I may be wrong and don't say so. I comment on things I know about and so yes, when I talk people should listen, because I comment from experience, and am an active participant in these fields.

You have never studied differential geometry, so don't make statements on curved space time.

ryans,

Late for work but I will deal with you later.

Have a nice day.

Sigh....

Originally posted by MacM
02-17-03 Claims 'All light is energy packets released from the Chiral Condensate'
Never made that claim. Say it is possible and have seen research suggesting same.
"The best view todate (in my opinion) is the one called the Chiral Condensate... Understanding the Chiral Condensate will (in my opinion) finally get rid of the ludricrus Theory of Relativity... He added it just as he added the Universal Constant to make the Universe steady state - He was wrong there and I state he was wrong with the VAF. " (02-17-03:Fabric of Space)
"The production of light can be a quantum energy function relative to the Chiral Condensate, your velocity (energy) relative to the light source alters the production of light making it appear constant." (2-17-03:Unmeasurable Time Dilation)
"light production may be generated from the vacuum (Chiral Condensate) by an quantum energy function which would cause the production of light to shift in conjunction with the relative velocity of the observer. Hence the source of the "Appearance" of light velocity being constant." (2/23/03:Propagation of Light)

02-21-03 Claims 'Time is a measure of events created by the flow of kenetic energy.'
Per UniKEF. Not claimed as fact but logical possibility.
You claim UniKEF is true, you claim this is true... don't beat around the bush. At the same time, the sentence makes no damn sense.

02-21-03 Claims to understand reality better then the rest of the posters ('does time affect motion...?')
Also indicated thereafter that I made that statement purposely to piss off ryan. That is not my view and you advance a straw enuendo.
Not enuendo, you have made the comment multiple times to multiple memebers. Saying that you are 'baiting' someone is evern worse.

02-21-03 Claims that '(his theory) is a success'... but is then unavle to explain how the equations work 'Arguable points?')
Have made no such claim. What equations, it is basicaly devoid mathematical support.
"UniKEF gravity was the first success, that lead to other speculations." (2/21/03:Arguable Points?)
Then later you are unable to explain the equations derived. (As seen throught your UniKEF thread)

02-22-03 Claims to understand the 3-clock problem better then scientists
Not so.
You claimed so multiple times to chroot in you UniKEF thread.

And as far as I know the issue of multiple rates (the last version) has yet to be answered. It may have an answer but you haven't yet given it.
It answered by multiple people in multiple ways, and you ignored them and misinterpretted them.

03-01-03 Argues about particle entaglement, and then gives up ('Clocks and Particle Entanglement')
Your argument was not limted to this thred... but that is were you surrendered your view:
"I had not been aware that the entanglement was broken. I had thought that it remained and that one could toggle the pair repeatedly."(3/1/03:Clock & Particle Entaglement)
Then you found a research paper which you didn't understand and started arguing about it again. Your error was then pointed out, and you choose to ignore it.

Since communication via PE has not yet been accomplished...
In the thread you claimed it had been.

03-03-03 Says 'Length contraction I agree with Relativity'... but later argues about it ('time dilation and length contraction')
I have argued about time dilation but never about length contraction.
Need I mention measurable pi?

03-06-03 Misrepresents a Scientific America article
Have stated what was said in the articles by the writers. You don't like the implications made from it.
The 'implications' were to explain the big bang.They never said anything about c changing in the present.

03-19-03 Misinterprets NASA's quaser velocity measurements ('Relavistic Mass')
Never misinterpreted anything.
You acted as it NASA was surprised by this large c values.

That issue is still open, even after mathematics were developed to sweep the heartburn from Relativity.
They weren't 'developed', they were just demonstrated to you. The math existed before this observation.

The solution is based in the first instance that Relativity is valid and therefore you attempt to prove Relativity via relativity.
Relativity explains it correctly.... that's all it need to do.

05-09-03 Claims 'pi is always the same'
It is about the fact that any affect by any theory be it SR at the circumference or GR in the radius (ryans view) also affects the ruler and hence no measurable change in Pi.
You still miss the point that the radius and circ change by different ratios.

05-09-03 Claims information travels instantaneously... then backs down
Made no such claim.
You forgot about your particle entaglement thread so soon? As for backing down, you just demonstrated that again.

05-09-03 Claims 'The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c', but then can't provide an example.
Same issue as above and I still say the particles disagree with you and in that light so do I.
You saying so does not make it a fact.

"Understands" the merry-go-round problem, but does not know calculus let alone differential geometry.
OK. Partially true. I have had some calculus 40 years ago but have never used it.
Which is why you still argue about the pi solution. The same basic thing happens in normal mechanics too.

"Has an alternative theory for relativity, that predicts less than relativity"
How many predictions of any signifigance have you ever made? Even one (1)?
Nice try, but that doesn't change the fact that what ryans said is true.

"Talks of physics and meaning of existance in the same sentence. "
Not sure what you are going after here but 0------->(+n)+(-n) crossed my mind. If so that damn well is a physical issue.
That equation is just bull. I could just as easily say 0--->sqrt(666)-sqrt(666)

"Reads only the last line of any refered articles "
Sometimes that is true but far from any majority.
Well you have 2 options. You don't read or you misunderstand. Those two copmbined are the majority.

"Spells relativity, "Relavity"
Now do you really want me to go back through your posts and correct all the typo's I have seen you make.?
Most people make random typos. This is not a random typo as it is in almost all your posts.

ryans,


Really, you formulated UniKEF when you were 13.

ANS: Yes. While I don't put much signifigance in it anymore, it was a rather memorable period in my life. I listened to classical music and liked it. I wrote some damn good poetry and had moments that could be described only as being virtually out of body where I could visulize myself going out into space and looking back into the universe. Sounds really wierd today but back then it was awesome and inspiring. Shame you have missed such an expereience. (PS: Before weed and other stuf that I have never used came into vouge. You ever use?)

What is funny lis that over the years I sometimes have to re-read my writtings several times to remember how I came to some of the concepts.

I am aware that this probably gives you more laugh material but so be it, that is the way it was.

How many years later and it still has no basis, AND is still incomplete, hardly the mark of someone inspired.

ANS: The concept has been far from dormant. The calculus verification was added 11 years later. Many discoveries have appeared over the years that were predicted in those wonderful moments of what I still take to be clarity. You would I'm sure prefer dilusional but based on what I see happening in physics today more and more evidence is stacking up and the tide IS changing. Your side is losing grip on the exclusive TOE. What is being found more and more fits the general concepts of UniKEF.



When I was 13, I believed that travelling backwards in time, simply by going faster than light was possible. How innocent and ignorant I was when I was 13.


ANS: I would have to agree since I have never accepted time travel of any kind. Seems at 13 at least my feet were planted a bit more solid than yours.

And have you noticed Mac that I don't comment on things in hich I think I may be wrong and don't say so. I comment on things I know about and so yes, when I talk people should listen, because I comment from experience, and am an active participant in these fields.


ANS: I happen to agree with your self assessment. Perhaps one day you will learn that the reason people don't listen to you is that you are egotistical, obnoxious, off point on your replies and like to change the subject to something you think you can do better than the person you are debating. Stick to the issue and give clear and directly related answers and stop trying to skirt issues such as was the case in the m-g-r and Pi topic. You still haven't admitted you are wrong and you by definition must be wrong. Instead of admitting you are imperfect yu seek to shift the focus to my "Purported" lack of knowledge or understanding or mathematics limits. Which have nothing to do with either the question at hand or the solution. Indeed the Pi issue reqires no math what-so-ever but just sound logic.

As far as math. I do not do the calculus derivatons by they result in the general algebraic formulas that are in common use. I do that easily and have numereous times gone over Relavistic functions. Your claims somehow of not having done the derivations makes me incompetent to discuss the issues is baseless.


You have never studied differential geometry, so don't make statements on curved space time.


ANS: I damn well will ask questions and feel free to express an opinion. If that opinion is incorrect you can be sure somebody here will tell me so. I do not believe I have made "Statements" about or "Requarding" differential geometry.

As far as curved space goes I have curved space in UniKEF and it is nothing more than contour maps of gravitational field strength, which happens to vary space. Seems familiar somehow.

Likewise should I be able to tell you to not comment about things you don't know about. Such as UniKEF, my education, training, experience and achievements?

BTW some of my work appears in College ME Text books under the heading of "Modern Industrial Developments". My engine design a few weeks ago was cited in an article in the Phoenix Tribune and contained a quote from the top Boeing Engineer as being considered "Breakthrough Technology" should actual performance achieve their preliminary analysis.

Now I know my inventions and designs are not Relativity but you need to also consider that my demonstrated skills at thinking out of the box has been highly sucessful. All I am doing in the case of Relativity is apply the same logical approach that I do for any other free thought process being an inventor.

It really does remain to be seen if I am right. I am content with that but I reject your tendancy to reject anything I say because it doessn't jive with your understanding of Relativity or its proper application. (I'm not

There are indeed sound alternative explanations for most Relavistic principles. Those should be seriously considered but they are not. Instead you seem to want to justify Relativity using Relativity. That frankly is a selfserving circle jerk.

Now I know my inventions and designs are not Relativity but you need to also consider that my demonstrated skills at thinking out of the box has been highly sucessful. All I am doing in the case of Relativity is apply the same logical approach that I do for any other free thought process being an inventor.
Anybody care to go back and count how many times MacM has resorted to this tired agrument. How about how many times I've told him "They are 2 different knowledge bases, and being good at one does not mean you are good at the other. I doubt you would have been able to design an engine if you did not first learn the simple mechanics of how existing ones worked" or "This is the reason people attack your background, because you use this as evidence that you are correct".

Persol,

now my inventions and designs are not Relativity but you need to also consider that my demonstrated skills at thinking out of the box has been highly sucessful. All I am doing in the case of Relativity is apply the same logical approach that I do for any other free thought process being an inventor.


Anybody care to go back and count how many times MacM has resorted to this tired agrument. How about how many times I've told him "They are 2 different knowledge bases, and being good at one does not mean you are good at the other. I doubt you would have been able to design an engine if you did not first learn the simple mechanics of how existing ones worked" or "This is the reason people attack your background, because you use this as evidence that you are correct".

ANS: While you are at it find how many times it has been said in response to BS attacks on my intelligence, training and achievement. Wo the count and I think you will lfind the numbers match. I do not have to set passively by and be called any numbers of insulting names without response.

I acknowledge my career has not been Relativity, nor physics but that it has included considerable physics and my history shows that those enuendo and assertions are simply baseless.

knock of the BS and I'll knock off defending myself. I suspect the BS posts far out number my posts of this character. What do you want to wager?

This isn't a one way street where you guys get to say whatever BS you want and not be challenged back.

The BS totally off point responses are much older than my factual (perhaps not totally on point) defensive responses.

Originally posted by MacM
While you are at it find how many times it has been said in response to BS attacks on my intelligence, training and achievement.
We were only attacking your understanding, you said you knew about relativity. The natural assumption was then that you are stupid, because you do not demonstrate this knowledge. In your defense, you called upon your history of 'training and achievement' which had nothing to do with relativity. We pointed this out and attacking the abilitity of someone with your qualifications to create a better theory.

Wo the count and I think you will lfind the numbers match. I do not have to set passively by and be called any numbers of insulting names without response.
And I do not expect anyone knowledgable in relativity to sit passively by and let you spew your BS theories all over the forum without response. When you take this theory attacks personally thinkgs escalated.

I acknowledge my career has not been Relativity, nor physics but that it has included considerable physics
But these physics have nothing to do with the forumlation of relativity... and only use the results.

and my history shows that those enuendo and assertions are simply baseless
History shows that you have been wrong about relativity type questions in the past. No enuendo needed. It has also shown that you twist facts, probably (hopefully) due to lack a of understand.

You refuse to learn the material. I've said this before and say it again. It has been fed to you in many many forms, and you still don't understand what it says.

Persol,


Re: False Claims
Sigh....

ANS: Getting worn out are we? I'm just getting warmed up.


Originally posted by MacM
02-17-03 Claims 'All light is energy packets released from the Chiral Condensate'
Never made that claim. Say it is possible and have seen research suggesting same.
"The best view todate (in my opinion) is the one called the Chiral Condensate... Understanding the Chiral Condensate will (in my opinion) finally get rid of the ludricrus Theory of Relativity... He added it just as he added the Universal Constant to make the Universe steady state - He was wrong there and I state he was wrong with the VAF. " (02-17-03:Fabric of Space)
"The production of light can be a quantum energy function relative to the Chiral Condensate, your velocity (energy) relative to the light source alters the production of light making it appear constant." (2-17-03:Unmeasurable Time Dilation)
"light production may be generated from the vacuum (Chiral Condensate) by an quantum energy function which would cause the production of light to shift in conjunction with the relative velocity of the observer. Hence the source of the "Appearance" of light velocity being constant." (2/23/03:Propagation of Light)

02-21-03 Claims 'Time is a measure of events created by the flow of kenetic energy.'
Per UniKEF. Not claimed as fact but logical possibility.
You claim UniKEF is true, you claim this is true... don't beat around the bush. At the same time, the sentence makes no damn sense.

ANS: Don't have to beat around the bush. My position has been and still is clearlly stated as an unproven opinion. It only makes sense if you can remove the tinted sun
glasses that you look through and absorb the overall concept before throwing out pieces which in of themselve do not flow and necesssiarily makes sense. I don't expect you will do that.


02-21-03 Claims to understand reality better then the rest of the posters ('does time affect motion...?')
Also indicated thereafter that I made that statement purposely to piss off ryan. That is not my view and you advance a straw enuendo.
Not enuendo, you have made the comment multiple times to multiple memebers. Saying that you are 'baiting' someone is evern worse.

ANS: Worse than what, calling people slanderious names on wholly baseless grounds? Maybe you might notice that I don't do that to persons that carry on logical and useful dialog.

02-21-03 Claims that '(his theory) is a success'... but is then unavle to explain how the equations work 'Arguable points?')
Have made no such claim. What equations, it is basicaly devoid mathematical support.
"UniKEF gravity was the first success, that lead to other speculations." (2/21/03:Arguable Points?)

ANS: I don't see the problem here. The statement about gravity is a valid statement. It was the first UniKEF concept to find mathematical support and at the same time it has been made abundantly clear what that means. It means that it merits further study, just as stated. It doesnot mean it somehow has been proven and there goes Relativity. It means it is still in the running pending further study. That is all.

Then later you are unable to explain the equations derived. (As seen throught your UniKEF thread)

That is wholly untrue. The demand ws to show how to compute a gravitational problem using UniKEF. I explained that the mathematics to do that would be beyond my current capacity since I don't do calculus but that it certainly could be done. I certainly can describe the jprocess of deriving the equation concepts and have made it clear that they are "By-Way-of-Example only and not to be taken as fact or final form for UniKEF. That is to leave room for a more formal process in the future.


02-22-03 Claims to understand the 3-clock problem better then scientists
Not so.
You claimed so multiple times to chroot in you UniKEF thread.

ANS: I would have to go back and reserarch this one since he did piss me of once or twice:D. But such comments would have been made tounge in cheek to piss him off in return for some stupid statement he might have made toward me.

If you think I will sit passively by and let people run over me you don't know me.

And as far as I know the issue of multiple rates (the last version) has yet to be answered. It may have an answer but you haven't yet given it.
It answered by multiple people in multiple ways, and you ignored them and misinterpretted them.

ANS: Correction. The post I refer to was after the standard three clocks which "Simultaneity" ultimately defeated my goal of showing a flaw in Relativity - Mind you that doesn't make Relativity reality but only mathematically consistant. It can very well be consistantly in error.

03-01-03 Argues about particle entaglement, and then gives up ('Clocks and Particle Entanglement')
Your argument was not limted to this thred... but that is were you surrendered your view:
"I had not been aware that the entanglement was broken. I had thought that it remained and that one could toggle the pair repeatedly."(3/1/03:Clock & Particle Entaglement)

ANS: I actually do not recall this last statement and find it courious since I did know that breaking the entanglement was a problem. I will go look and see what context this may have been made in.

Then you found a research paper which you didn't understand and started arguing about it again. Your error was then pointed out, and you choose to ignore it.


ANS: I do believe you are making a stretch here. I do recall posting a link which in their conclusions they expressed optimisum about the process in the future. I believe you and others refuted "what they said, or tried to imply that I misinterpreted what they said. But it was a plain english statement, not something easily misinterpreted so I dropped it because the issue was going off track as usual.


Since communication via PE has not yet been accomplished...
In the thread you claimed it had been.

ANS: Again I believe you hve a false memory here or have taken something out of context. You seem to have a habit of doing that.

03-03-03 Says 'Length contraction I agree with Relativity'... but later argues about it ('time dilation and length contraction')
I have argued about time dilation but never about length contraction.
Need I mention measurable pi?

ANS: PLEASE DO: Since that issue still stands without a correct answer from any member. I have never once claimed contraction does not occur. I claimed and still claim that any contraction by any means also affects the ruler and such change is immeasurable and hence no change in PI.


03-06-03 Misrepresents a Scientific America article
Have stated what was said in the articles by the writers. You don't like the implications made from it.
The 'implications' were to explain the big bang.They never said anything about c changing in the present.

ANS: I do believe I recall that issue and I believe that I posted that link because there were those that were making blanket statements that "c" was "c" and never changes. So where is the error?


03-19-03 Misinterprets NASA's quaser velocity measurements ('Relavistic Mass')
Never misinterpreted anything.
You acted as it NASA was surprised by this large c values.

That issue is still open, even after mathematics were developed to sweep the heartburn from Relativity.
They weren't 'developed', they were just demonstrated to you. The math existed before this observation.

ANS: Oh, I missed that point I guess since the artical clearly stated that in light of the "Quasar" discoveries they had made these mathematical contrivences to explain it away.

Sorry but the mathematics were based on the assumption that Relativity must be true and for the sole purpose of explaining away observatons that no longer supported Relativity as it currently stood.

Or are you suggesting that physicists anticipated objects far exceeding the speed of light being observed some day and planned ahead. I think not.


The solution is based in the first instance that Relativity is valid and therefore you attempt to prove Relativity via relativity.
Relativity explains it correctly.... that's all it need to do.

ANS: It is called CYA. Unfortuanately just about anything that may be discovered they will write new relavistic math to explain it away rather than research the potentially true meaning of nature

05-09-03 Claims 'pi is always the same'
It is about the fact that any affect by any theory be it SR at the circumference or GR in the radius (ryans view) also affects the ruler and hence no measurable change in Pi.
You still miss the point that the radius and circ change by different ratios.


NS: And you simply are not this stupid. Persol, if you really mean what you keep saying I am losing respect for your knowledge and logic.

Do they change at a different ratio? YES BUT SO DOES THE RULER. The ratio between the circumference and radius stays the same. There can be no measurable change in Pi - Sorry, this one is a slam dunk. Lets hear from all the silent ones out there. Are they being thick headed or what?

05-09-03 Claims information travels instantaneously... then backs down
Made no such claim.
You forgot about your particle entaglement thread so soon? As for backing down, you just demonstrated that again.


ANS: You either need reading glasses or courses in english.

05-09-03 Claims 'The fact is useful information is being transmitted at least billions times faster than c', but then can't provide an example.
Same issue as above and I still say the particles disagree with you and in that light so do I.
You saying so does not make it a fact.

ANS: And vice-versa. Want to explain what the particles might have to say on the issue of not receiving any information? Seems they must or they wouldn't respond in an entangled fashion. It just happens to possibly be a one bit binary code once only conversation but it damn sure is information.



"Understands" the merry-go-round problem, but does not know calculus let alone differential geometry.
OK. Partially true. I have had some calculus 40 years ago but have never used it.
Which is why you still argue about the pi solution. The same basic thing happens in normal mechanics too.


ANS: Boy talk about the pot calling the kittle black. I guess I just didn't realise that I needed calculus to figure out that if a rod was cut (contracted) in half and you gave me a ruler that was scaled down to half size, that I would still measure the rod as having the same length. Or maybe if I knew calculus I could get your screwed up answer. Glad I never pursued more calculus. If you cut another rod into one fourths and gave me a ruler one quarter scale I would also measure it as being standard length.

Now since one ruler is half as long as normal and another is one fourth as long as normal, yes there are different ratios but never a different ratio of measurements.


"Has an alternative theory for relativity, that predicts less than relativity"
How many predictions of any signifigance have you ever made? Even one (1)?
Nice try, but that doesn't change the fact that what ryans said is true.

ANS: Now just let me ask. How many predictions have you found that UniKEF made? I'll count them if you like. What ryans says about UniKEF doesn't mean a damn thing. He knows far less about UniKEF than I may Relativity. At least I know the basics if not the derivations of Relativity. He nor you have any indepth understanding of the UniKEF concept.


"Talks of physics and meaning of existance in the same sentence. "
Not sure what you are going after here but 0------->(+n)+(-n) crossed my mind. If so that damn well is a physical issue.
That equation is just bull. I could just as easily say 0--->sqrt(666)-sqrt(666)

AND: Actually you could, but since the intention of using +/-n was to establish a broadline of different values having equal counterparts, your version becomes infinitely limited in comparison. Plus, it would be plagerisim since I concieved it first. As I recall there were actually a few people that seemed to like the concept. Guess you weren't one of those having such forsight.

"Reads only the last line of any refered articles "
Sometimes that is true but far from any majority.
Well you have 2 options. You don't read or you misunderstand. Those two copmbined are the majority.


ANS: Wrong again. OBTW, in the sentence above it is "Combined" not "copmbined". Thought I would make this point before going to the next biggy on this list.

"Spells relativity, "Relavity"
Now do you really want me to go back through your posts and correct all the typo's I have seen you make.?
Most people make random typos. This is not a random typo as it is in almost all your posts.


ANS: I don't think I have claimed to be an expert typer and old arithritic fingers very often, I find a "j" just before a "p" even though they are three letters and one row apart. I also know that many times I will hit a key and it doesn't show up. It is just that I USE ALL TEN FINGERS WHEN I TYPE and I type so damn fast.

If you are suggesting I don't even know how to spell you really are scared. I happen to spell pretty damn good. Not much good at puncuation or perhaps diagraming sentences but I "KNOW" how some people here mis use "to, too", etc. I think I will start following you geniuses around and correcting all your flubs.


PS: Please note that in the beginning there are several words in the "Quote" areas that have been changed to red. These are thing like "can", "may", "Could", "In my opinion", you know those things called adjectives that yield meaning to a sentence. You don't see "Does", "Will", "Is", "Must", etc.

Those adjectives alter the tone and meaning of virtually every statement you seem to object to. Learn english!

This thread is a good example of the futility of making <i>ad hominem</i> attacks instead of arguing the issues.

MacM's response to ryans is a very nice and well-justified reply to personal attacks levelled at him.

For those who haven't caught on yet, the facts are these:

* You are never too old to have good ideas.
* Lack of formal qualifications in a field do not make you ineligible to comment on it or learn about it.
* A person's achievements in one field or another are seldom a good basis for saying they are right about something. This is called argument from authority, and is a weak form of argument.
* The reverse is also true. Lack of achievement in a particular field is a very weak basis for claiming a person's idea is wrong. What had Einstein achieved when he published his three ground-breaking papers in 1905?

Now, I'm not saying that people have not also argued the issues with MacM. Clearly they have. In terms of relativity, I believe that MacM has demonstrated a lack of knowledge in that specific field. But, unlike some others, I would never presume to draw conclusions on his general intelligence or his expertise in unrelated areas on this basis.

This personal bullshit is unproductive. So why don't we stick to the real issues? UniKEF looks very shakey as any kind of believable theory, for reasons I've stated before. MacM's purported demonstrations that relativity is wrong similarly do not hold water. But attacks on his character, intelligence or qualification simply lead to circular arguments. They are a waste of time.

MacM, I reopened this thread at your (implied) request. If you have any problems with it, please PM me and I will consider whether it has any useful content. Basically, since it started as an attack on you, I'm fine with it as long as you are fine with it. I think that every poster here should have a right to say "enough!" when it comes to discussions of their personal character (as opposed to discussions of ideas).

James R,

Tell Dave you need a raise.

I am fine with this string, even though I didn't imply I wanted it reopened.

Infact I will do here what I was getting ready to do under topic "Time Dilation" since it seems that my reputations proceeds me even before I post on a topic.

Let me start with just a few facts:

1 - I came here some months ago and on my first night because I misjudged the response I would get, I drew fire from chroot in short order because I opened with the statement "Relativity Sucks". And immediately got the lable "Crackpot".

2 - I do think Relativity sucks but I certainly haven't been able to prove it, nor as far as I can tell has Relativity been proven. It does have strong support and evidence which tends to make it appear correct but then there is the matter of alternative explanations for such observations and data that lead to different conclusions.

The fact that there seems to be no interest in pursueing such alternatives I think is what I find most disappointing. Any evidence that does arise that contradicts Relativities current view immedately sets into motion efforts to patch Relativity with some new mathematics to keep it whole (Quasar issue).

And I damn well expect that even if the newest challenge, the findings of a (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 function in the geometry of sound waves, which "COULD" explain away the MM experiment if simular wave geometry of a moving source is found to apply to light, hence invariance of velocity of light, that they will find some new way of patching it again.

3 - I whole heartedly agree with James R as to the potential of UniKEF having validity on the whole. I do think there is some merit particularily in the gravity area, the rest is pure thought.

But if even one is found correct it makes my lifes work worth while, even though I would not expect that I would receive the ultimate credit. Somebodyelse will carry this concept forward.

4 - I am not an expert in Relativity (you could never guess) but nor am I lacking in its general understanding. (hold you pad and pencil until I'm done please). No I do not have an education of the higher mathematics but I was once damn good in algebra and now I would have to say at least fair. I most certainly can and hve performed all the algebra calculations from Relativity many times. So even though I cannot detail the derivations I do know the principles. (You can read better if you aren't laughing)

5 - I set out to teach some "Crackpot Busters' they aren't invulnerable. I have drug out many topics here and rejected your answers, not because I didn't understand or that what you said wasn't according to Relativity but because you were many times "Off Point" in your answers.

Case in point is the recent string "Relavistic Mass Test". You see "Energy" was never the issue, yet you let me lead you around on that one forever. James came the closest but ultimately I had to answer my own question.

The correct answer was the fact that according to Relativity each view sees a different acceleration and that is why the rocket energy stays constant. It only takes infinite energy if the acceleration continues to increase velocity.

And ryans, the Merry-Go-Round was a trick question but since you were dealing with me you assumed somehow that I didn't know Relativity and therefore you could prove I didn't. You got hung up (and so did some others) on the issues of Relativity and not the issues at hand which was the equal treatment of Relativity for the ruler as well as the m-g-r.

Once I got you locked in that loop you all were to proud to back down from a "Crackpot" heaven forbid a crackpot could ever corner an educated physicist. So you entered this circle jerk of not answering the question. I did everything but come out and tell you "Hey this is a trick question". I even told you it had nothing to do with Relativity. But you let that personality view cloud your vision to the point that you couldn't see the simple truth. You had been had. Like I have said once or twice before. "Not bad for a crackpot huh?":D

Chroot came close recently. I forget which topic it was under but he made a statement (paraphrased). "MacM can't be this stupid, he is jacking us around". And I'm not sure but I think James R., had some suspicions as well that I was leading you geniouses around.

At least I thought I saw that in his post above where he indicated I was giving you guys some good mental exercise and you should have been doing a better job addressing the questions.

The simple truth is that I know enough about Relativity to ask the dumb questions and provide lengthy and etensive arguements.

I have many books on Relativity.(and yes ch I have read them) Do you really think I had never heard of or understood the function of "Simultaneity"?

But how long did it take to push 3 Clocks into a corner. I have left 3 Clocks open on my site for two reasons. One it is a bogus UniKEF arguement in the first place because UniKEF denies the existance of time as a tangiable enity or 4th dimension. Secondly if those members that went snooping around over there saw something different then my cover would have been blown.

And third I put as much faith in "Simultaniety" as the rest of relativity.

Now Janus58, I asked your permission by PM to post your graphics. You have not responded. That is OK but I think it is the fair thing for me to do since I have had it (3 Clocks) posted for some time now. By the way you will find that I give the many experiments and data that support Relativity in the Abstract already. So if you had looked, I am not ignorant of the facts, nor have I kept them from being compared with my own view. They are stated up front before I give my assessment of what is wrong.

UniKEF is balanced in that regard. If you choose to call me ignorant for rejecting relativity then I would say you have a right to your opinion. But when you claim I am ignorant about Relativity then I am telling you you are wrong.

And finally, I actually think (most) of you are highly intelligent. OK, OK, all of you. But some certainly need to learn how to properly address the issues.

I have a lot more to say but for now I just hope this has been a short course that you all don't forget soon.

6 - From now on as long as I see mutual respect I will be confining my posts to legitimate questions and seeking your legimate input but that does not mean I may not interject information I see by other researchers or that I may not slip in some of my other concepts such as the 0-------->(+n)+(-n) from time to time.

But when I do. This time try to keep in mind these are concepts for consideration not statements of fact by me. That it is not something that I can prove or even have evidence of.

And lastly my partners brother-in-law is probably not going to make it and he has not been able to do much testing in a couple months. But soon and the data will be made available for review.

It will stand or it will fall. I do like what I have seen so far but peer review is not a problem for me. There is no merit to pursuit of something that doesn't hold up.

I thought I'd say something here while everyone is having a good 'ole rant.

I have noticed that the attitudes of some of the forum users (not pointing any fingers) seem to think that they are on a level above all the rest. Particularly noticeable when new users post an honest question they wished to be answered and it gets answered with a very condescending attitude, which if it were to happen to me, I would instantly leave and never come back (quite embarrassing and humiliating in my mind!)

A lot of people seem to be doing this to MacM (and others) and I think that if anyone posts a dumb question or an poorly thought-out theory or whatever, that others do not instantly ATTACK them and try to make themselves look smarter while kicking dirt on that poor guys face. Instead, give a well structured response that addresses the problems in an objective way which neither humiliates or makes the matter into a bitch-fight. Also, this makes the thread a lot easier to read and keeps it going (anyone who has done any sort of debating will understand what it means to rebut a proposal in a well mannered way).

So for example; the case with MacM. If he makes a suggestion which he is totally entitled to do so, and if anyone thinks he has just made an error, by all means tell us, but do it scientifically (ie, without the use of harsh, condescending language). I'm sure he and others will appreciate it.

PS. I am sick and tired of all the fighting going on and wish everyone would act their age (or at least their IQ :rolleyes: ) and respond with eloquence.

Cheers. Ben.

Originally posted by MacM
1 - I came here some months ago... And immediately got the lable "Crackpot".
The label from chroot, while a bit hasty, seems to be accurate. You immediately starting talking about a 'light paradox', tunneling, and entaglement. To top off the crackpot alarm, you said "For another view of gravity I invite you to view my home page. It is not only supported by calculus but common sense and yes testing; which I hope to publish in the very near future which over turns Newton, Einstein and Quantum gravity."

2 - I do think Relativity sucks but I certainly haven't been able to prove it, nor as far as I can tell has Relativity been proven.
If you can not demonstrate any problem with the theory, we have no reason to discard it.

The fact that there seems to be no interest in pursueing such alternatives I think is what I find most disappointing.
There are alternatives within science. The resistance is to people pushing theories which have no solid basis.

And I damn well expect that even if the newest challenge, the findings of a (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 function in the geometry of sound waves, which "COULD" explain away the MM experiment if simular wave geometry of a moving source is found to apply to light
This is a huge could, with no reason to think it is true.

that they will find some new way of patching it again
patching is fine... as long as the theory still predicts observation

But if even one is found correct it makes my lifes work worth while, even though I would not expect that I would receive the ultimate credit. Somebodyelse will carry this concept forward.
Have have read through your documents before, and I saw nothing with enough reason to accept. If you make enough guess you will eventually be right... this doesn't mean that making these guesses is productive.

4 - I am not an expert in Relativity (you could never guess) but nor am I lacking in its general understanding. (hold you pad and pencil until I'm done please). No I do not have an education of the higher mathematics but I was once damn good in algebra and now I would have to say at least fair.
Algebra is still a step below what relativity requires. The extra step is not a huge one that you would be unable to overcome. In the time you have been here you could have learned most of calc.

I most certainly can and hve performed all the algebra calculations from Relativity many times. So even though I cannot detail the derivations I do know the principles.
Simple situations have simple plug-and-chug answers. Being able to do them does not mean you understand the physics behind it.

5 - I set out to teach some "Crackpot Busters' they aren't invulnerable.
As evidence by your first post, you set out to disprove physics up to this point.

Case in point is the recent string "Relavistic Mass Test". You see "Energy" was never the issue, yet you let me lead you around on that one forever. James came the closest but ultimately I had to answer my own question.
There are different ways of explaining a situation to someone. There are 2 situations here:
1) You didn't know the answer and were unwilling to accept what was given
2) You knew and just wanted to prove someone wrong when they give you a dumbed down version
#1 is somewhat acceptable, while #2 is pointless.

The correct answer was the fact that according to Relativity each view sees a different acceleration and that is why the rocket energy stays constant. It only takes infinite energy if the acceleration continues to increase velocity.
This is still not a complete answer... but is good for a 'dumbed down' version.

And ryans, the Merry-Go-Round was a trick question
The point of which was? Hmm... not to attack the issue, because you already knew the answer. Most of your threads have gone this route.

but since you were dealing with me you assumed somehow that I didn't know Relativity and therefore you could prove I didn't.
Once again... 2 options. You either don't understand relativity (hence all your mistakes in the past), or you were pretending not too. #1 is understandable, #2 is pointless.

Chroot came close recently. I forget which topic it was under but he made a statement (paraphrased). "MacM can't be this stupid, he is jacking us around".
I tend to think is is different. You actually are this stupid... but it's easier for you to act like you were pretending.

I have many books on Relativity.(and yes ch I have read them) Do you really think I had never heard of or understood the function of "Simultaneity"?
Yes, by your continued lack of understanding.

From now on as long as I see mutual respect I will be confining my posts to legitimate questions and seeking your legimate input but that does not mean I may not interject information I see by other researchers or that I may not slip in some of my other concepts such as the 0-------->(+n)+(-n) from time to time.
You first post was not even in mutual respect, so do not claim that 'they started it'. Mentioning research is fine, but you have a track record of misrepresenting/interpreting this research. As for 0->n-n, it really has no redeeming quality as it is more common sense then anything else. Attaching a mystical view to it is somewhat pointless.

But soon and the data will be made available for review.
Yes yes... nood nood... wink wink.

Persol,

I actually think your response shows substantial progress here.

Thanks

[quote]Re: Fantastic
Originally posted by MacM
1 - I came here some months ago... And immediately got the lable "Crackpot".
The label from chroot, while a bit hasty, seems to be accurate. You immediately starting talking about a 'light paradox', tunneling, and entaglement. To top off the crackpot alarm, you said "For another view of gravity I invite you to view my home page. It is not only supported by calculus but common sense and yes testing; which I hope to publish in the very near future which over turns Newton, Einstein and Quantum gravity."

ANS: I would still say lthat this statement is true. But it has a very big "IF" and that seems to be the jpoint that got lost from the outset.

2 - I do think Relativity sucks but I certainly haven't been able to prove it, nor as far as I can tell has Relativity been proven.
If you can not demonstrate any problem with the theory, we have no reason to discard it.

ANS: I haven't discarded it. It will continue to be used until, if and when, it is overturned. I do still lthink it is mathematical crap but it is the best crap around unfortunately. My real complaint is that nobody seems to be working on an alternative hypothesis to bring all these new findsings to a better overall view.

The fact that there seems to be no interest in pursueing such alternatives I think is what I find most disappointing.
There are alternatives within science. The resistance is to people pushing theories which have no solid basis.


ANS:I think this statment shows an appropriate amount of "maybe" as opposed to "No way".


And I damn well expect that even if the newest challenge, the findings of a (1-(v/c)^2)^.5 function in the geometry of sound waves, which "COULD" explain away the MM experiment if simular wave geometry of a moving source is found to apply to light
This is a huge could, with no reason to think it is true.


ANS: I agree with that but at least here you again show an appropriate open mindedness to the possibility.

that they will find some new way of patching it again
patching is fine... as long as the theory still predicts observation

ANS: Yes, it must be patched or abandoned but at the same time it is (in my opinion) long past time that people start to look beyond Relativity for new answers and that requires a new set of mathematics and physical explanations; which nobody seems willing to do because the quickest way to early retirement is to oppose Relativity.

But if even one is found correct it makes my lifes work worth while, even though I would not expect that I would receive the ultimate credit. Somebodyelse will carry this concept forward.
Have have read through your documents before, and I saw nothing with enough reason to accept. If you make enough guess you will eventually be right... this doesn't mean that making these guesses is productive.



ANS: Fair enough assessment. The old give enough monkeys typewriters and one will write th constitution. But that isn't really the case here. There have been multiple bizzare predictions generated by the view that have been found to be reality. That is of the predictions made almost 3/4 have been correct and none to my knowledge have yet been shown untrue. That isn't multiple monkeys with a keyboard odds. While UniKEF is poorely written and presented and virtually un supported my confidence is bolstered by the % of correct predictions. So while I can't properly layout my concept formally I find that there simply must be some truth somewheere because of the odds. That doesn't make it so. It is simply a statistical issue with me.



4 - I am not an expert in Relativity (you could never guess) but nor am I lacking in its general understanding. (hold your pad and pencil until I'm done please). No I do not have an education of the higher mathematics but I was once damn good in algebra and now I would have to say at least fair.
Algebra is still a step below what relativity requires. The extra step is not a huge one that you would be unable to overcome. In the time you have been here you could have learned most of calc.

ANS: I would agree with this and I appreciate your saying I could indeed do it. I have even though of going back to college and enhance my math but for my own purposes.


I most certainly can and have performed all the algebra calculations from Relativity many times. So even though I cannot detail the derivations I do know the principles.
Simple situations have simple plug-and-chug answers. Being able to do them does not mean you understand the physics behind it.


ANS: We have a different view here. I see no physics behind it. I see only mathematics. There is no physical underpinning and no effort to provide one. It is a faith based system. that is my primary complaint.


5 - I set out to teach some "Crackpot Busters' they aren't invulnerable.
As evidence by your first post, you set out to disprove physics up to this point.

ANS: Actually that is true but only to a degree. I actually thought there would ensue some logical discussion of the alternatives, not that I expected that it would actually result in some breakthrough that overturned Relativity. I know my approach prompted the rash of attacks and has resulted in no round table discussions of alternatives but I have to accept part of that responsibility, even though I don't believe from what I have seen that it could or would happen however I had started. There is simply no interest in hat area and that to me is discouraging.



Case in point is the recent string "Relavistic Mass Test". You see "Energy" was never the issue, yet you let me lead you around on that one forever. James came the closest but ultimately I had to answer my own question.
There are different ways of explaining a situation to someone. There are 2 situations here:
1) You didn't know the answer and were unwilling to accept what was given
2) You knew and just wanted to prove someone wrong when they give you a dumbed down version
#1 is somewhat acceptable, while #2 is pointless.


ANS: #2 is the answer but we disagree that it was or is pointless. As I have said I do see some relaxing of your tone even in this post. As time passes from now on I think you will find more and more benefit from this exercise. At least I hope so



The correct answer was the fact that according to Relativity each view sees a different acceleration and that is why the rocket energy stays constant. It only takes infinite energy if the acceleration continues to increase velocity.
This is still not a complete answer... but is good for a 'dumbed down' version.


I accept that answer.


And ryans, the Merry-Go-Round was a trick question
The point of which was? Hmm... not to attack the issue, because you already knew the answer. Most of your threads have gone this route.


ANS: Yes indeed and while you and the others are going to be pissed for awhile thinking you have wasted a lot of time, I think James has it right. I also think time could have been better spent but that wasn't possible under the holier than thou attitude found on this MSB.

but since you were dealing with me you assumed somehow that I didn't know Relativity and therefore you could prove I didn't.
Once again... 2 options. You either don't understand relativity (hence all your mistakes in the past), or you were pretending not too. #1 is understandable, #2 is pointless.


ANS: We may continue to disagree on this issue but I do disagree. It wasn't wasted time. I don't know if you have noticed it or not but this pissing contest attracted a lot of attention and your answers were exposed to a lot of readers that otherwise would not have seen them. Check out your rating system guys. Arguements with Old Crackpot MacM tops the chart. Where most threads run 30 -150 views most of mine become several hundred and a couple have been several thousand. While it may nothave been fun for us, there was a lot of people watching out there laughing their ass off while getting an education.

Chroot came close recently. I forget which topic it was under but he made a statement (paraphrased). "MacM can't be this stupid, he is jacking us around".
I tend to think is is different. You actually are this stupid... but it's easier for you to act like you were pretending.

ANS:Trying to hut my feelings again?:D No i realize it is going to take some time before this all blows over but it will. Mean time I have gotten a lot of laughs pumping you guys up.

I have many books on Relativity.(and yes ch I have read them) Do you really think I had never heard of or understood the function of "Simultaneity"?
Yes, by your continued lack of understanding.


ANS: Answered by the general text so far.

From now on as long as I see mutual respect I will be confining my posts to legitimate questions and seeking your legimate input but that does not mean I may not interject information I see by other researchers or that I may not slip in some of my other concepts such as the 0-------->(+n)+(-n) from time to time.
You first post was not even in mutual respect, so do not claim that 'they started it'.

ANS: I accept that. I did start it but I didn't intend to. At that point I had a choice look defeated and forever stupid or run the gamut. I ran the gamut. While there are many here (as you) that still aren't sure and/or still believe that I am stupid there are I do believe may think otherwise and in anycase it (as far as I am concerned) is over and we can move on and in time I am sure your opinion of me will shift (for the better I should hope)


Mentioning research is fine, but you have a track record of misrepresenting/interpreting this research. As for 0->n-n, it really has no redeeming quality as it is more common sense then anything else. Attaching a mystical view to it is somewhat pointless.


ANS: I'm not sure what mystical view you are referring to but what I see here is what I see all the time being an inventor and that is the statement "If it was that simple somebody would have done it" The simple fact is nobody (to my knowledge} had done it. It doesn't make it correct but I still think it is a powerful concept.

But soon and the data will be made available for review.
Yes yes... nood nood... wink wink.


ANS:Fair enough response. The burden is on me to put up or shut up and I accept that.

Originally posted by MacM
While UniKEF is poorely written and presented and virtually un supported my confidence is bolstered by the % of correct predictions.
The problem is that without any logical basis, these "predictions" are simply pulled from a hat. You can't show WHY UniKEF predicted those things -- you just assert that it did. That is not scientific.
I see no physics behind it. I see only mathematics. There is no physical underpinning and no effort to provide one.
It sounds to me like you expect physicists to also be philosophers. Most of us really don't care about the philosophy, as you no doubt have realized. Most of us are too busy trying to design rigorous models to predict experimental results.
It is a faith based system. that is my primary complaint.
It is, in absolutely no way, a faith-based system -- it is an empirical system. If the experiments show a theory is wrong, the theory is wrong, and it is thrown on the scrap heap. There have yet to be any experiments which disagree with relativity.
#2 is the answer... you will find more and more benefit from this exercise.
That's right, keep acting. And for the love of God, you've been on this forum for MONTHS, and you still can't figure out how to quote people so your posts are readable?
Answered by the general text so far.
How is it "answered by the general text so far?" You didn't even know how to spell it.

- Warren

chroot,

Re: Progress

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MacM
While UniKEF is poorely written and presented and virtually un supported my confidence is bolstered by the % of correct predictions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The problem is that without any logical basis, these "predictions" are simply pulled from a hat. You can't show WHY UniKEF predicted those things -- you just assert that it did. That is not scientific.


ANS: I understand that view. By virtue that they lack the formal scientific approach you are accustom to, they may seem arbitraty. Had we been able to have a discussion and not a peer review, I think you would understand why the predictions were made.

As far as the later part of your comment, it is a fair comment and I can only point to historical documents and news articles, etc that make reference to my work or rely on the fact that if somebody really cred about that issue, I can supply numerous witnesses that have seen the mancuscript and know the sequence of events. further as the documents show these predictions were not merely a couple years ahead they have been 15 to 40 years ahead. From a purely pragmagtic view your assumption that they have just been arbitrarily claimed doesn't hold up. Not the best of proof I know but I didn't start this 50 years ago with the idea that one day I would have to prove sequences of events. And I certainly didn't believe that such predictions would infact be found true in my lifetime.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see no physics behind it. I see only mathematics. There is no physical underpinning and no effort to provide one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It sounds to me like you expect physicists to also be philosophers. Most of us really don't care about the philosophy, as you no doubt have realized. Most of us are too busy trying to design rigorous models to predict experimental results.


ANS: I definately see that now but I still think it is a shortfall in the longer term and physics actually suffers because of it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a faith based system. that is my primary complaint.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It is, in absolutely no way, a faith-based system -- it is an empirical system. If the experiments show a theory is wrong, the theory is wrong, and it is thrown on the scrap heap. There have yet to be any experiments which disagree with relativity.


ANS: I agree in part but still say that there has been plenty of new evidence that deserved a fresh look rather they, as you say, work your ass off to make it fit existing theory. We just might find that there is something better, easier and more correct.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 is the answer... you will find more and more benefit from this exercise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's right, keep acting. And for the love of God, you've been on this forum for MONTHS, and you still can't figure out how to quote people so your posts are readable?

ANS: sorry you have trouble following my jposts. I will take a serious look at that. PS: I'm not pretending.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answered by the general text so far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


How is it "answered by the general text so far?" You didn't even know how to spell it.


ANS: I really hope this is just a parting shot of a guy that always wnat the last word. You can have it. I know how to spell. I don't always type that well and it is a non-issue as James has pointed out.

chroot
It sounds to me like you expect physicists to also be philosophers. Most of us really don't care about the philosophy, as you no doubt have realized. Most of us are too busy trying to design rigorous models to predict experimental results

Mac
ANS: I definately see that now but I still think it is a shortfall in the longer term and physics actually suffers because of it.

I think this is where the problem lies. We are not philosophers. We care less if a theory conforms to logic or not, and we are not concerned about how it is to be interpreted on a philosophical becasue nature is neither logical nor philosophical. As chroot said, we build models, models which model nature, not human reality. As I have said before, physics is not a religion, it will never give us the meaning of existence or a sneak peek at our creator (if there is one). I truely think that you may have a big implication in philosophical interpretation of physics Mac, but you will never be a physicist because you are too subjective, and this is what physicists are taught not to be, subjective. Nature is the way it is. It needs to be neither logical nor have some beautifully symmetrical underlying structure. I am not saying that you are stupid or dumb or anything, but your calling is not in formulating physical ideas, it is in its interpretation, philosophy.

There is no faith nor appeal to any authority in physics. Proving someone's theory is incorrect does not make that person a lesser man, but new evidence or mathematical formilism may enable to allow us to proceed further into a deeper understanding of HOW nature works, not WHY it works. Certainly if Riemannian geometry had have been around at the time of Newton along with Maxwell's formulation of electrodynamics, he may have postulates both special relativity and graviation in terms of curved space-time long ago. Many would agree that even though most of Newton's physical theories have been superceeded, he is probably still the greatest physicist of all time.:)

ryans,

Congratulations. I do agree in general. The only difference is that I believe you don't fully understand my view.

I am fine with Relativity, if it is indeed fact. Who am I to tell nature how to operate and I don't demand that it be logical or even sensible.

What I see missing is the good old days where concepts resulted in physical understanding. Hwere is the physical understanding of length contraction, time dilation, relavistic mass, etc., etc.

These are mere mathematical descriptions (which we need and are valuable) but we shouldn't stop there. There is still a need to supply the underlying physics mechanically.

I just don't see anybody interested. We have a mathematical model that works and then we just quit. If we don't challenge it using these new issues coming forth then it will forever remain humanities view of nature, even if it were wrong.

This possibility to me means we could miss some very valuable and important things to our evolution if not survival as a species.

That is how importatnt I see the need to challenge the status quo. If only 10% of the effort were made to peek around Relativity at something new as is spent defending Relativy at all cost, I truly believe we might be further advanced.

We virtually know it isn't absolutely correct as has been said due to current views of QM. So take a more macroscopic view and try to start over don't narrow in on the patches. that is not to say don't patch it if you can but do more than that.

It may very well be that this patching is becoming far more complicated because we are on the wrong trail.

Originally posted by MacM
We virtually know it isn't absolutely correct as has been said due to current views of QM. Congrats chroot, you did teach him something:)

Macm,
We all know that relativity isn't absolutely correct. There is no need for anybody to convince us of this. Especially since you, I, and most members of this forum are not really in a place to suggest any new theory which actually holds water. This is the job of people who understand the current theory and problems better than any of us, and they ARE doing this. The rest of us just look at the derivations, reasonings, and experiments to decide how much worth it actually has. Relativity has it's limits, but so does simple mechanics. Trying to point out problems with the current theory, which aren't really problems, doesn't really help anything,

As I said Mac, you are not a physicist. No one can visualise 4 dimensions so does this mean we should disregard any theories that involve more than 3 dimensions.

Take for example evanescent waves when light is reflected from a surface. If it wasn't for the mathematics and solutions of Maxwell's equations with appropriate boundary conditions, this phenomena would never be understandable. Maths is our language Mac. If your Ideas are not formulated in this language then you are a philosopher.

What I see missing is the good old days where concepts resulted in physical understanding. Hwere is the physical understanding of length contraction, time dilation, relavistic mass, etc., etc.
What you're saying is that you're missing the "good old days" before we realized that low-speed macroscopic human life is not the way the world works at all speeds and scales -- before we realized that there's more to the world than our naive intuition would suggest.

You can lament all you want, but it's not going to make you feel any better. The high-velocity, microscopic world is very different. Trust me, all of us physicists honest-to-God wish it WEREN'T so odd -- but we are powerless to make this Universe meet our subjective human wants.

- Warren

MacM:

<i>2 - I do think Relativity sucks but I certainly haven't been able to prove it, nor as far as I can tell has Relativity been proven.</i>

No theory in science is ever proven. The really good theories (like relativity) simply have a heap of evidence which suggests they are correct. On the other hand, many many theories can be disproven by single pieces of evidence. Relativity, in principle, could be too, but in the 100 years of its existence it never has been.

<i>The fact that there seems to be no interest in pursueing such alternatives I think is what I find most disappointing. Any evidence that does arise that contradicts Relativities current view immedately sets into motion efforts to patch Relativity with some new mathematics to keep it whole (Quasar issue).</i>

You obviously don't understand. The quasar explanation is not a patch to relativity. It is an explanation using relativity. The theory of relativity is unchanged following the quasar observations and explanation.

<i>3 - I whole heartedly agree with James R as to the potential of UniKEF having validity on the whole. I do think there is some merit particularily in the gravity area, the rest is pure thought.</i>

That's not what I said. I do not believe that UniKEF has any validity, or even potential, from what I've seen of it.

<i>4 - I am not an expert in Relativity (you could never guess) but nor am I lacking in its general understanding.</i>

You have a very tenuous grasp of some basic buzz-words of relativity, and perhaps a few general concepts. Your knowledge of relativity is, at best, superficial.

<i>And ryans, the Merry-Go-Round was a trick question but since you were dealing with me you assumed somehow that I didn't know Relativity and therefore you could prove I didn't. You got hung up (and so did some others) on the issues of Relativity and not the issues at hand which was the equal treatment of Relativity for the ruler as well as the m-g-r.</i>

The m-g-r question is not a "trick question". It has a clear answer according to relativity, which you lack the learning to understand. You can gloat all you want at ryans but, in the end, he has the right end of the stick and you have the wrong end.

<i>And I'm not sure but I think James R., had some suspicions as well that I was leading you geniouses around.</i>

I don't recall anybody claiming to be a genius, MacM. We have been replying to your questions and challenges, so in that sense, yes, you have been leading us around. But you haven't come up with any argument against relativity which stands up to scutiny yet. "The vibe" doesn't cut it.

<i>At least I thought I saw that in his post above where he indicated I was giving you guys some good mental exercise and you should have been doing a better job addressing the questions.</i>

On the whole, I think your questions have been answered pretty well. The m-g-r problem is the hardest to explain in non-technical language, so that one hasn't had a full explanation. I, for one, have specifically said that I don't want to try to explain that one to you.

<i>The simple truth is that I know enough about Relativity to ask the dumb questions and provide lengthy and etensive arguements.</i>

...Most of which are simply repeats of your initial misconceptions.

<i>I have many books on Relativity.(and yes ch I have read them) Do you really think I had never heard of or understood the function of "Simultaneity"?</i>

No doubt you've heard of it, but I still don't believe you have a good grasp of the concept.

<i>But how long did it take to push 3 Clocks into a corner.</i>

Not very long. I nailed it with my first reply to the relevant thread. The rest was an effort to make you understand.

<i>And lastly my partners brother-in-law is probably not going to make it and he has not been able to do much testing in a couple months. But soon and the data will be made available for review.</i>

I'll believe that when I see it.
-------

I'd like to summarise my view, MacM, by trying to give you an idea of where I think you're at. You have read a few popular science books on relativity, and you have some vague ideas about what the theory says. You don't know much of the maths, so you concentrate on the concepts. Your knowledge of the concepts of relativity is based on English-language descriptions, not on the mathematical foundations of the theory.

This is a superficial understanding, whichever way you want to look at it. But here, on sciforums, you are attempting to argue with people who have undertaken post-graduate studies in physics. Several of us have taken courses, read books, done assignments and sat for exams in special and general relativity. And not just on the word-description analogies you get in popular books, but working directly with the maths of the theories to solve real problems. Like it or not, some of us have a deep understanding of relativity. We don't just reel off the odd equation from memory - we understand where the equation comes from, which situations it applies to, how to derive it and how to use it.

To me, MacM, and I suspect to a few other people here, your total understanding of relativity presents a very narrow view of the world. You may think that you have a good-enough grasp of concepts to be able to challenge the real physicists, but all I see is a world-view bounded on all sides by the limitations of the knowledge base on which it rests.

Let me give you an analogy. I own a car. I have a general understanding of the way an internal combustion engine works, and I can point to some of the components of the engine and tell you roughly what they do. But if my car breaks down, I take it to a qualified repair person who has actually learnt in detail about car engines. I don't try to find and fix the problem myself (unless it is something very simple and within the scope of my knowledge). I recognise my limitations. In short, I know how much I don't know. I would never claim to understand a car engine in intricate detail. My understanding is superficial.

Your understanding of relativity, when compared to that of a qualified physicist (as some of the people here are), is like my understanding of a car engine when compared to the understanding of a motor mechanic. I would not presume to tell a motor mechanic how his repair methods are wrong and based on faulty assumptions. Yet you have no problem telling me, a physicist, that my use of the theory of relativity is wrong and based on faulty assumptions.

When a motor mechanic looks at my car engine, he has an intricate mental picture of the internal workings of the engine, how the different parts link with each other, as well as the overall integration of the whole. When I look at the theory of relativity, I have an intricate picture of the nuts and bolts of the theory (in terms of the equations), as well as how different concepts link together to form an overall coherent picture of space, time, matter and energy. But even here, I know my limits. I am aware that I have much still to learn about relativity. No doubt, there are things I will never know about it which are well-understood by other people. So, I am careful to limit my comments to things I know, and generally recognise when somebody else has a better grasp of things than I do.

I wonder what gives you so much confidence in your own ability and knowledge when it comes to relativity, especially seeing as you have been pulled up on so many points by those more knowledgable than yourself.

Persol,

[quote]Especially since you, I, and most members of this forum are not really in a place to suggest any new theory which actually holds water[inquote]


No comment. I started to write "But I did" and then I saw your closing qualifier.:D

But then again I ask that you keep my "Introduction" in mind. I do not see my contribution as being a finished task but By-Way-of-Example of how I think we should be proceeding.

I do think everyone here has missed that important feature of the theory and that is thinking that I think I have accomplished more than I really have.

Persol,

Especially since you, I, and most members of this forum are not really in a place to suggest any new theory which actually holds water.

I have a theory, and it does "hold water". :D

ryans,


As I said Mac, you are not a physicist. No one can visualise 4 dimensions so does this mean we should disregard any theories that involve more than 3 dimensions.

Take for example evanescent waves when light is reflected from a surface. If it wasn't for the mathematics and solutions of Maxwell's equations with appropriate boundary conditions, this phenomena would never be understandable. Maths is our language Mac. If your Ideas are not formulated in this language then you are a philosopher.


ANS:Believe it or not, I actually agree BUT there is I think a difference in what I am saying and what you are saying. What I have done is what you say and No in that sense it isn't science.

But what I am suggesting is once you have a mathematical model, then you should attempt to route out a physical interpretation. Something we can see, feel or touch as reality.

chroot,

What you're saying is that you're missing the "good old days" before we realized that low-speed macroscopic human life is not the way the world works at all speeds and scales -- before we realized that there's more to the world than our naive intuition would suggest.

You can lament all you want, but it's not going to make you feel any better. The high-velocity, microscopic world is very different. Trust me, all of us physicists honest-to-God wish it WEREN'T so odd -- but we are powerless to make this Universe meet our subjective human wants.


ANS: Actually, I think the perplexities and oddness are rather neat, I just think when that happened all our brain power threw up their hands and said "OK God, if that is the way you want it who are we to question you".

Try touching vacuum fluctuations. Try touching Gibbs free energy. Try touching a creation or annihilation operator. Try feeling 4 dimensions. You've lost touch (if you ever had touch) of what physics is about. WE CONSTRUCT MODELS.

Originally posted by MacM
chroot,




ANS: Actually, I think the perplexities and oddness are rather neat, I just think when that happened all our brain power threw up their hands and said "OK God, if that is the way you want it who are we to question you".
thats a wish, if it turned out to be otherwise throwing up hands had never been in the history of science but probing further was.. that is the fine line between scientists and others..

James,

Like it or not, some of us have a deep understanding of relativity. We don't just reel off the odd equation from memory - we understand where the equation comes from, which situations it applies to, how to derive it and how to use it.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but SR is not difficult to understand mathematically. What makes SR unacceptable to MacM and me is that we try to attach physical meaning to the math of SR, while you do not.

What really scares me is that it seems that you, and some other school-taught physicists, seem to be accepting mathematical theories that are physically impossible.

For example, quantum uncertainty is not hard to accept mathematically, but Erwin Schrodinger demonstrated with his Shrodinger cat thought experiment that quantum uncertainty is physically not possible (the cat can't be alive and dead at the same time).

In another example, Crisp pointed out a few months ago that the sinewave of a photon is looked upon by some in the scientific community as a static rotating electric and magnetic field in a complex plane. His comment surprised me because there is no physical representation of a complex number. How can you have models that uses properties that don't physically exist?

This is the same problem I have with length contraction and time dilation. It appears that these properties are somewhere between real and imaginary, and that in itself is a contradiction.

If MacM and I accepted the math of relativity, and ignored its physicality, and if we didn't believe that the question "why?" deserves an answer, then we wouldn't have these, sometimes frustrating, debates. But I honestly believe that the philosophy that MacM and I accepted is right, and that any scientists that accepts a mathematically correct, but physically impossible, model or theory is wrong.

Tom

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......:D

I laugh my FHO

Tom

don't want to burst your bubble, but SR is not difficult to understand mathematically. What makes SR unacceptable to MacM and me is that we try to attach physical meaning to the math of SR, while you do not.

Tell me what you know about Minkowski space, covariant and contravariant tensors, Lorentz 4-vectors.

You know diddly squat buddy.

hahahahahaha....

I am still laughing

hahahahahahaha...... :D

ryans,

Notice I said SR. I intentionally avoided mentioning GR.

Tom

In another example, Crisp pointed out a few months ago that the sinewave of a photon is looked upon by some in the scientific community as a static rotating electric and magnetic field in a complex plane. His comment surprised me because there is no physical representation of a complex number. How can you have models that uses properties that don't physically exist?

Then I suppose the fact that a lorentz boost can be represented by a tensor containing elements which represent a rotation through imaginary angles is not going to help us convince you is it


hahahahahha.....

I still laughing at your last post.

Notice I said SR. I intentionally avoided mentioning GR.

This is SR TOM


hahahahahaha...

I am still laughing:D

ryans,

Then I suppose the fact that a lorentz boost can be represented by a tensor containing elements which represent a rotation through imaginary angles is not going to help us convince you is it

How did you guess? :D

By the way, I'm happy that you find my post funny. :p

Tom

James R,

2 - I do think Relativity sucks but I certainly haven't been able to prove it, nor as far as I can tell has Relativity been proven.

No theory in science is ever proven. The really good theories (like relativity) simply have a heap of evidence which suggests they are correct. On the other hand, many many theories can be disproven by single pieces of evidence. Relativity, in principle, could be too, but in the 100 years of its existence it never has been.

Agree.

The fact that there seems to be no interest in pursueing such alternatives I think is what I find most disappointing. Any evidence that does arise that contradicts Relativities current view immedately sets into motion efforts to patch Relativity with some new mathematics to keep it whole (Quasar issue).

You obviously don't understand. The quasar explanation is not a patch to relativity. It is an explanation using relativity. The theory of relativity is unchanged following the quasar observations and explanation.

ANS: I think we will continue to disagree on this view. I still see it as a patch and an opportunity to have looked for other meaning.


3 - I whole heartedly agree with James R as to the potential of UniKEF having validity on the whole. I do think there is some merit particularily in the gravity area, the rest is pure thought.

That's not what I said. I do not believe that UniKEF has any validity, or even potential, from what I've seen of it.

ANS: Didn't mean to suggest that you gave it an ounce of crediability but only that I do give it some hope in that regard but that I in general agree most will be determined to be wishful thinking.

4 - I am not an expert in Relativity (you could never guess) but nor am I lacking in its general understanding.

You have a very tenuous grasp of some basic buzz-words of relativity, and perhaps a few general concepts. Your knowledge of relativity is, at best, superficial.

ANS: I wouldn't disagree in total here but I do think in comparision to where members have attempted to put me I am well above that mark.

And ryans, the Merry-Go-Round was a trick question but since you were dealing with me you assumed somehow that I didn't know Relativity and therefore you could prove I didn't. You got hung up (and so did some others) on the issues of Relativity and not the issues at hand which was the equal treatment of Relativity for the ruler as well as the m-g-r.

The m-g-r question is not a "trick question". It has a clear answer according to relativity, which you lack the learning to understand. You can gloat all you want at ryans but, in the end, he has the right end of the stick and you have the wrong end.

ANS: I really have to disagree here. Nobody, including you James R, have explained how Relativity (or UniKEF) or (Pro...s' Theory) or any theory, can affect the m-g-r and not the ruler and vice versa. As described regardless of the relavistic affects (which I never challenged here) the changes are and must remain unmeasurable, hence no change in calculated Pi.

I don't want to run this into the ground but nor will I walk away from what to me is a simple and clear gotcha. It really isn't even a good math problem but I feel it is appropriate here to emphasize how one must keep their logic clear when looking at Relativity and its affect because there is tons of such descriptions being given in presentations of Relativity and they are simply wrong and misleading.

And I'm not sure but I think James R., had some suspicions as well that I was leading you geniouses around.

I don't recall anybody claiming to be a genius, MacM. We have been replying to your questions and challenges, so in that sense, yes, you have been leading us around. But you haven't come up with any argument against relativity which stands up to scutiny yet. "The vibe" doesn't cut it.

Fair enough "genius" was my term and I used it because of the dumbdown responses I was getting from the groups. That is like they thought they were talking down (WAY DOWN) to somebody. Down OK, WAY DOWN, not OK.:D

At least I thought I saw that in his post above where he indicated I was giving you guys some good mental exercise and you should have been doing a better job addressing the questions.

On the whole, I think your questions have been answered pretty well. The m-g-r problem is the hardest to explain in non-technical language, so that one hasn't had a full explanation. I, for one, have specifically said that I don't want to try to explain that one to you.

AND: Fair enough, I think yours is the best answer yet.

The simple truth is that I know enough about Relativity to ask the dumb questions and provide lengthy and etensive arguements.

...Most of which are simply repeats of your initial misconceptions.

ANS: Not entirely. Yes there may have been some misunderstandings but most of my questions were based on known explanations from Relativity but I waned to run the gamut and challenge those answers.

I have many books on Relativity.(and yes ch I have read them) Do you really think I had never heard of or understood the function of "Simultaneity"?

No doubt you've heard of it, but I still don't believe you have a good grasp of the concept.

Fair enough. It now becomes a burden on me to rehabilitate myself after asking so many stupid questions and argueing false counter points

But how long did it take to push 3 Clocks into a corner.

Not very long. I nailed it with my first reply to the relevant thread. The rest was an effort to make you understand.

ANS: You might be right but I had not taken defeat until you used "Simultaneity".

And lastly my partners brother-in-law is probably not going to make it and he has not been able to do much testing in a couple months. But soon and the data will be made available for review.

I'll believe that when I see it.
-------

ANS:Fair enough again.

I'd like to summarise my view, MacM, by trying to give you an idea of where I think you're at. You have read a few popular science books on relativity, and you have some vague ideas about what the theory says. You don't know much of the maths, so you concentrate on the concepts. Your knowledge of the concepts of relativity is based on English-language descriptions, not on the mathematical foundations of the theory.

This is a superficial understanding, whichever way you want to look at it. But here, on sciforums, you are attempting to argue with people who have undertaken post-graduate studies in physics. Several of us have taken courses, read books, done assignments and sat for exams in special and general relativity. And not just on the word-description analogies you get in popular books, but working directly with the maths of the theories to solve real problems. Like it or not, some of us have a deep understanding of relativity. We don't just reel off the odd equation from memory - we understand where the equation comes from, which situations it applies to, how to derive it and how to use it.

To me, MacM, and I suspect to a few other people here, your total understanding of relativity presents a very narrow view of the world. You may think that you have a good-enough grasp of concepts to be able to challenge the real physicists, but all I see is a world-view bounded on all sides by the limitations of the knowledge base on which it rests.

Let me give you an analogy. I own a car. I have a general understanding of the way an internal combustion engine works, and I can point to some of the components of the engine and tell you roughly what they do. But if my car breaks down, I take it to a qualified repair person who has actually learnt in detail about car engines. I don't try to find and fix the problem myself (unless it is something very simple and within the scope of my knowledge). I recognise my limitations. In short, I know how much I don't know. I would never claim to understand a car engine in intricate detail. My understanding is superficial.

Your understanding of relativity, when compared to that of a qualified physicist (as some of the people here are), is like my understanding of a car engine when compared to the understanding of a motor mechanic. I would not presume to tell a motor mechanic how his repair methods are wrong and based on faulty assumptions. Yet you have no problem telling me, a physicist, that my use of the theory of relativity is wrong and based on faulty assumptions.

When a motor mechanic looks at my car engine, he has an intricate mental picture of the internal workings of the engine, how the different parts link with each other, as well as the overall integration of the whole. When I look at the theory of relativity, I have an intricate picture of the nuts and bolts of the theory (in terms of the equations), as well as how different concepts link together to form an overall coherent picture of space, time, matter and energy. But even here, I know my limits. I am aware that I have much still to learn about relativity. No doubt, there are things I will never know about it which are well-understood by other people. So, I am careful to limit my comments to things I know, and generally recognise when somebody else has a better grasp of things than I do.

I wonder what gives you so much confidence in your own ability and knowledge when it comes to relativity, especially seeing as you have been pulled up on so many points by those more knowledgable than yourself.

ANS: Actually I do like your summation. I feel it is accurate (almost) and makes very good points. My only differences would be that my knowledge of Relativity is more than just reading dumb downed popular book. Still limited however in its depth. We did study some Relativity in Nuke school which was taught by degreed professors. But it wasn't a major area of study and we never got into the intricacies.

Sorry Mac, I only read the last paragraph of your post, seems like the rest would be just babble, and all the relevant information is at the end right?

We did study some Relativity in Nuke school which was taught by degreed professors. But it wasn't a major area of study and we never got into the intricacies.

So are you saying that, as WE know about the intricacies, there is a chance you will not accept our answers because you are less knowledgable? Maybe there is a chance that you could actually learn something from all this round about discussion?

MacM,

I really have to disagree here. Nobody, including you James R, have explained how Relativity (or UniKEF) or (Pro...s' Theory) or any theory,........

I didn't realize that you wanted me to explain the the m-g-r problem using my theory. :) In my theory, there is no length contraction, so the physical shape of the m-g-r doesn't change depending on its speed.

Tom

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.........

Tom you crack me up.

I didn't realize that you wanted me to explain the the m-g-r problem using my theory. In my theory, there is no length contraction, so the physical shape of the m-g-r doesn't change depending on its speed.

Is this theory consistent with anything, or are you hoping to reintroduce galilean transformations for v << c and hope nobody notices.

ryans,

Is this theory consistent with anything, or are you hoping to reintroduce galilean transformations for v << c and hope nobody notices.

I'd explain my theory to you, but it would be to difficult for you to understand. :D

Maybe in a few years, when you finish school.....:p

Tom

For me Tom school never finishes, I never stop trying to learn new things. I have also just constructed a theory, although it seemed to morph along the way to fit in with experimentally observered phenomena, as any theory should.

ryans,

I have also just constructed a theory, although it seemed to morph along the way to fit in with experimentally observered phenomena, as any theory should.

Why don't you post it, so we can all laugh at you and call you a crackpot? :D

Tom

ryans,

Sorry Mac, I only read