Persol,

You just re-posted and replied to my re-post. In your response I see incrediable differencs of view, I would hope to determine if you missed my points or if I miss yours.

The problem starts here:

Re-Hash:
*********************
You each have a problem.
Just because you do not like the theory does not mean we have a problem.


[[I would have to go back and look to be sure but I know my meaning there was not personnally directed. I was referring to posts that had been made. That is the basis of the disagreement upto that point seemed to be based on false grounds. So this was not meant to be taken personal]]

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


*********************
Then you make false statements:
Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity. You can't limit what you claim does not exist. Simple as that.

[[This is the one that really floors me. You are claiming here that I have made false claims when Relativity has as its very basis that all velocity is relative velocity and that there is no such thing as"Absolute Velocity". PLEASE SHOW ME ONE PASSAGE IN RELATIVITY THAT SAYS OTHERWISE. It doesn't exist. What are you saying here. Where is it coming from?]]
**********************


**********************
Then you full out attack a theory which you do not fully understand:

Relativity is bunk flat out.


[[In this case you are properly qualifying your statement but it too is borderline. Only because you put "fully" in that statement would I accept it. But it is only very marginally correct. My understanding of Relativity is fair but not full as you said. I can easily handle the algebra. I do know how to read and have read a great deal. One can understand what is being said without knowing the mechanics of the mathematics used in its detailing the process. There is a big difference in not understanding Relativity and not being capable of the more indepth mathematics in its actual resolution. I do understand Relativty. I know what it claims. I see the math and I don't challenge the math. I do challenge some of the interpretations drawn from it. I am more inclined to believe that part of the problem is an unwillingness of some to accept the premis that the math may be correct but that that doesn't represent reality. Math can be used to describe reality but it cannot create reality. Not in its entireity but in some areas I do believe that is what has happened. Even though the math appears to describe observation there are other explanations for that observation than the relavistic math. And before we get to the "You just don't understand" bit, I must remind you of what I have said many times and that is even though I hold this opinion, I do not stand alone. I stand with other scientists that are equally qualified and experienced as those that disagree with this view. My qualifications are not the issue here. The issue is the issue about Relativity. I and I alone have not made that assertion others also make that assertion and they favor LR over GR or SR and they aare highly qualified to make that choice. How do you think attacking my qualifications is answering that issue???]]
***************************


***************************
Then you make a suggestion that it is a function of something you don't understand
Light in my opinion is produced as a function of energy via the Chiral Condensate (instantaneous signal carrier involved in particle entanglement).


[[Here you are correct. I cannot say I understand the Chiral Condensate. I do understand what is being said about it and I do have a fair capacity to correlate ideas. It was a qualified statement of my opinion. I don't see that you or any of the others had any basis for challenging that idea since from the posts that sprang from that showed that those posters knew less than I, to the extreme extent of even denying such a thing even existed. It is preposterous to challenge my view of the meaning of new findings, when you don't even know of the findings. It is preposterous. Since I nor even those working in that field really know yet what it is or how it works it is ludricrus that I should be told to either explain it or shut up. You are saying you don't want to know of science discoveries because it is coming to your attention from an unqualified person. That means I shouldn't even quote a scientific journal. What all this really comes down to is that you (I am using "you" generically by the way don't get personal on me) only want to talk to others with credentials compareable to yours and you will only talk down to any others. By that I mean you are willing to teach us but never listen to us.
************************



************************
Then you say this fixes all our supposed problems without any proof
No light paradox - no need for Relativity and all those fun paradoxes or Relativity vanish. wahla.



[[The point still stands, should it be determined that the velocity of light is not actually constant but is an illusion (which it may be) then many of the problems do go away. Just like recognizing the statement "You can't set a limit on what you claim does not exist". That is a very powerful and truthful statement and none of you have satisfactorily answered that question. You do a lot of dancing and name calling but YOU HAVE NOT REDOLVED THAT ISSUE. It is still a true statement and it still applies to Relativity.

Saying "I don't understand" is not the correct answer. For you to deny that paradox of Relativity shows you don't understand the problem. The same problem that other scientist do see. Not just me. So you should really back off the personal attacks and think about the macroscopic view of the issue.]]
***********************


************************
There is no science in that post. Hence it is psuedoscience. There is a vague question in there... but the rest is an attack on a theory you don't understand.


[[It ain't pseudo-science until you explain how you propose to limit a rocket from accelerating based on an observers view of the rocket. The fuel, thrust engine and rocket load are an independant system from every other observer in the universe. All of which have a different view of the rockets motion, mass, velocity etc. Before you say again, "It is because you don't understand", I do understand. I understand that the rocket pilot sees no such changes to his physical system and nothing prevents him from throtteling up. You want to argue that yes he speed up and can keep speeding up indefinitely but that he will never exceed the speed of light. Why? Well lets see, we can attempt to invoke the Velocity Addition Formula or Infinite mass limit but those are not physical limits on the rockets physics. Those are observational mathematics and every observer in the univserse would have him restricted to a different velocity if that had influence on his physics. They don't and they can't.

Since this issue has never been tested to say he can't exceed v = c is a mathematical extrapolation based on what I believe the true answer is and that is a mis-interpretation of the "apparent" mass increase to infinity.

Can I prove that hell no. But I can show a reasonable alternative to actual mass change which provides the same observation but does not impose an infinite mass limit. Maybe, just maybe you should consider that. It has a powerful impact on the restraints being imposed by your mathematical concept.
*******************

And finally I am not going to even get into a multitude of debates about prove this or prove that. You folks are content, so be it. I am not here to make converts, nor will I be converted without bonified solutions to problems I have proposed.

All your attacks mean jack crap. The only thing that counts is have you resolved the issue. My answer is NO. In many minor areas yes but to the key problems and questions NO. You have attempted to distort the issue and claim answers but they have not been on point and have not fullfilled a scientific resoluton of the problems as presented.

Before you pop off about I don't know about scientific method let me also tell you that is crap as well.

Would I prefer to be accepted by this MSB? Certainly. Is it crucial for me to do so? Absolutely not. Am I willing to alter my views? You bet but only on solid bonified basis. For the most part this forum has failed to provide that scientific basis.

It is one thing to complain that we refuse to accept an answer, it is another to continue to provide unacceptable answer and claim they are valid.

That is where we are at and that is why I feel it is important to re-structure the MSB. But the problem seems to be that many on this MSB simply feel if we don't agree with your views it is pseudo-science. It is only pseudo-science when it is proven pseudo-science and you cannot frankly judge many issues using the basis of theories being challenged as proof against the concept. That establishes a rule that it must pass a test of complete agreement with an existing theory to become a counter theory. And that is ludricrus. Some issues must be considered seperate and upon their own principles first.

Then and only then may you find alternatives that work which are not in agreement with current theory.

nuf said. Thanks for your ear.

Mac

You see, this is exactly what I was talking about.

MORE re-hashed browns? :rolleyes:

Q,

Could you be more specific in your meaning.

If you are suggesting that I an refusing to accept some answers you are correct and I am explaining why but I have no intention of extending the debate.

This is not re-hash for continued debate.

If somebody sees my point and can make a clarification of thier meaning that is useful, that would be appreciated but other than that as far as I am concerned it is all history.



Thanks.

Grrr....

You each have a problem.
Just because you do not like the theory does not mean we have a problem.
[[...So this was not meant to be taken personal]]
Then who does 'you each' refer to...

Then you make false statements:
Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity. You can't limit what you claim does not exist. Simple as that.
The speed of light in an absolute velocity.

Then you full out attack a theory which you do not fully understand:
Relativity is bunk flat out.
[]
You ask questions about relativity which you would know the answers too if you understood it.
As for the math being right and you not challenging it... what are you challenging. The model fits the reality observed... end of argument.

[i]Then you make a suggestion that it is a function of something you don't understand
...Chiral Condensate...
[[You are saying you don't want to know of science discoveries because it is coming to your attention from an unqualified person.]]
You shouldn't try and explain things that you don't understand.

[i]Then you say this fixes all our supposed problems without any proof
No light paradox - no need for Relativity and all those fun paradoxes or Relativity vanish. wahla.
[[The point still stands, should it be determined that the velocity of light is not actually constant...]]
Well since you are unable to prove this, and even to show us basic math of how your model would work, you don't have a solution. You have an undevloped idea which is not science.

There is no science in that post. Hence it is psuedoscience. There is a vague question in there... but the rest is an attack on a theory you don't understand.
[[It ain't pseudo-science until you explain how you propose to limit a rocket from accelerating based on an observers view of the rocket. The fuel, thrust engine and rocket load are an independant system from every other observer in the universe. All of which have a different view of the rockets motion, mass, velocity etc.]]
"It is because you don't understand"

Can I prove that hell no. But I can show a reasonable alternative to actual mass change which provides the same observation but does not impose an infinite mass limit.
It's not a reasonable alternative if it doesn't provide any answers. You need math to get numberical answers.

All your attacks mean jack crap.
Then why respond?

The only thing that counts is have you resolved the issue...
People are not going to work out hundreds of little problems to prove a theory to you. Take it or leave. I don't care. But don't suggest your theory (which provides nothing) to people who want answers about SCIENCE.

Before you pop off about I don't know about scientific method let me also tell you that is crap as well.
The scienctific method is crap too. Gosh darn.

Am I willing to alter my views? You bet but only on solid bonified basis.
There isn't anything in your theory that is provides anything to be tested. I could just as easily say that light stands still and we move.

For the most part this forum has failed to provide that scientific basis.
Then try and get it published.

It is only pseudo-science when it is proven pseudo-science
Bullshit. It's not science until you provide some proof and reasoning for the assertions that you pulled out your rear.

and you cannot frankly judge many issues using the basis of theories being challenged as proof against the concept.
You can when the current theory agrees with our observations of reality.

Some issues must be considered seperate and upon their own principles first.
I agree... this is totaly seperate from the principles of science.

Persol,

quote:
*************
Re: Re-Hash
Grrr....

[[:) Actually I do apreciate your taking time to respond. As I said I was not posting so as to extend a debate but to look for where we are miscommunicating. There are some example in your response. NOw to determine if it is my writting or your assumption about me while you are reading.]]

******************
You each have a problem.
Just because you do not like the theory does not mean we have a problem.
[[...So this was not meant to be taken personal]]
Then who does 'you each' refer to...
********************

I would have to go back and see who the posters were but the intent of my comments were directed at conflicts with what had been posted.


********************
Then you make false statements:
Relativity says there is no such thing as absolute velocity. You can't limit what you claim does not exist. Simple as that.
The speed of light in an absolute velocity.
********************

Here is an example of what I'm saying. It seems incrediable to me that having related this issue to "Relative Velocity" vs "Absolute Velocity" that there is any confusion what-so-ever with my statement. Of course I know the speed of light is considered constant regardless of an observers "Relative" velocity.

Of course I understand that c is supposed to be an absolute speed of light. But that is not "Absolute Velocity" as meant or discussed in any (and many) books I've seen on Relativity.

They ALL say there is no such thing as "Absolute Velocity" ALL velocity is Relative. And I agree. I have never said that light in a vacuum had any measured velocity other than c.

Absolute velocity as used here and as stated in the texts refer to the fact that without a point of reference there can be no speed or velocity of an object. Speed is always relative, hence there is no absolute velocity.

Do we agree on this view?



***************
Then you full out attack a theory which you do not fully understand:
Relativity is bunk flat out.
[[In this case you are properly qualifying your statement but it too is borderline.... I see the math and I don't challenge the math... Math can be used to describe reality but it cannot create reality.]]
You ask questions about relativity which you would know the answers too if you understood it.
As for the math being right and you not challenging it... what are you challenging. The model fits the reality observed... end of argument.
****************


Here is the problem. The math does correlate to observation but the observation and the math may not be reality. It can very well be an illusion.

So it is not the end of the arguement. However, it shall be for now because as I stated this is not to be arguementative.



*****************
Then you make a suggestion that it is a function of something you don't understand
...Chiral Condensate...
[[You are saying you don't want to know of science discoveries because it is coming to your attention from an unqualified person.]]
You shouldn't try and explain things that you don't understand.
*****************


There is a big difference between suggesting a possible link to something than saying that there is a link. If I were to take your position neither I nor you should ever mention Chiral Condensate since it is mostly unknown. My remarks were clearly stated to be speculation. A speculation that has interesting consequences and may damn well be right. But then there may also be absolutely no relationship. But that is what brainstorming is all about. You seem to think nothing shuld be suggest as an idea to kick around unless it has undergone years of experimentation and validation by mathematical support. Speculation is highly useful at formenting concepts as long as they are not being presented as fact. I indicated it was speculation.

Now having gone through all of this I am inclined to agree that rote speculation probably does not belong in this forum. But that is a learned value having seen that there is no interest here in anything but text book answers.



*****************
[i]Then you say this fixes all our supposed problems without any proof
No light paradox - no need for Relativity and all those fun paradoxes or Relativity vanish. wahla.
[[The point still stands, should it be determined that the velocity of light is not actually constant...]]
Well since you are unable to prove this, and even to show us basic math of how your model would work, you don't have a solution. You have an undevloped idea which is not science.
******************

I partially agree here. First I never stated I had the solution and here it is. I suggested that should the producton of light be found to be energy sensative then the observers velocity could alter the production of light and create the "Illusion" of constant light velocity. Big difference in saying something is and that something may be. And again I would agree at this point those sort of interjections should not be made in the math & physics forum. But they would be appropriate areas for discussion in an "Alternative" forum.


*************
There is no science in that post. Hence it is psuedoscience. There is a vague question in there... but the rest is an attack on a theory you don't understand.
[[It ain't pseudo-science until you explain how you propose to limit a rocket from accelerating based on an observers view of the rocket. The fuel, thrust engine and rocket load are an independant system from every other observer in the universe. All of which have a different view of the rockets motion, mass, velocity etc.]]
"It is because you don't understand"
***************


I still contend you miss the mark here but that cannot be resolved in this forum but might be in a dialog forum where ideas are not first screened to determine if they fit a relavistic solution.

The point missing here is that I am not saying the math is wrong but that the conclusion you draw from thae math may be wrong. But it is not a subject which can or even should be intertwined in a purely text book format.

The alternative forum allows for open discussion of general principle whereby one can (and I have) arrive at the same observation which your math validates, but do so without the same underlying principles or end conclusion. This is valid scientific exploration. Is it science in the sense of the word appllied in math & physics ? No. But it is the best of science. It is the exploration and not the repeating of rote memory from books and ideas of prior scientific work.

If one explores a new view and arrives at a conclusion that does not fit observation then that is a valid reason to reject the idea but if the the idea arrives at the same general conclusion which supports the observation then it merits further study even if it disagrees with the foundation of prior theory.




*****************
Can I prove that hell no. But I can show a reasonable alternative to actual mass change which provides the same observation but does not impose an infinite mass limit.
It's not a reasonable alternative if it doesn't provide any answers. You need math to get numberical answers.
*****************


Here I do have math that support the concept but it requires far to many unproven components to even attempt to make that point. I will wait until I have published the data aI have promised because then I believe the tone here will change and greater flexability to consider speculation will occur.

UniKEF math on this issue produces the same observation but is not based on Relativity.



********************
All your attacks mean jack crap.
Then why respond?
********************


I would hope to one day see some change in attitude on the MSB regarding potential concepts, albiet unproven, that offer increased understanding of reality.



********************
The only thing that counts is have you resolved the issue...
People are not going to work out hundreds of little problems to prove a theory to you. Take it or leave. I don't care. But don't suggest your theory (which provides nothing) to people who want answers about SCIENCE.
*********************


I hate to accept this but I am convienced you are correct. Persons here seem to have to interest in developing ideas but only to argue old ones. I do take exception to the statement that UniKEF provides nothing. Should it ultimately, even to a small degree be found correct, it provdes a great deal. In its current state you are correct it provides nothing because nobody seems willing to explore the possibilites.

To me that is a disappointment. I did not come here just to get help proving my theory, for my credit. I had hoped it might spark some interest which could lead to others finishing the concept in their own right.


**********************
Before you pop off about I don't know about scientific method let me also tell you that is crap as well.
The scienctific method is crap too. Gosh darn.
**********************


Another complete misunderstanding here. I never said and would never say that scientific methods are crap. That would be ludricrus.

The fact is I do know scientific methods. I am a published author for NASA studies. I do know scientific and technical writting. My statement therefore was addressing the allegation that "I do not know scientific methods" was crap.



****************
Am I willing to alter my views? You bet but only on solid bonified basis.
There isn't anything in your theory that is provides anything to be tested. I could just as easily say that light stands still and we move.

For the most part this forum has failed to provide that scientific basis.
Then try and get it published.
*****************


Not until it is ready, and perhaps piece meal. UniKEF gravity may
get published in absence of the balance of the theory.



*************
It is only pseudo-science when it is proven pseudo-science
Bullshit. It's not science until you provide some proof and reasoning for the assertions that you pulled out your rear.
*************

Proof? I disagree. Nice but not required. Reasoning certainly and I do have that but it has never been heard because there has been no attention to anything but did I miss-spell a word or use a word incorrectly, etc, etc.

Accepted science, yes then you need proof. The report being written now has such proof. So time is on my side.




******************
and you cannot frankly judge many issues using the basis of theories being challenged as proof against the concept.
You can when the current theory agrees with our observations of reality.

Some issues must be considered seperate and upon their own principles first.
I agree... this is totaly seperate from the principles of science.
******************


We actually agree here. Amazing

From what I see here having gone through and attempting to post responses to your replys, the problem seems to be the standard imposed both in terms of mathematics and experimentation which rejects any speculation or suggestions from entering this forum/

Something is either text book or it is pseudo-sceince. Where that goes wrong is that no theory that I am aware of has ever been completed which didn't first appear as an idea. Failure to explore ideas therefore limits the possiblity of any new theories and solutions to ever evolve.

I will even agree with you that this is not the place for such development but niether is pseudo-science.


Thanks again for your tiem. I hope we at least have a better understanding of each other, even if we are not in agreement.