James R., Crisp and others have suggested that I should post a clarafication of UniKEF. What is is and what it is not; as well as, state the views of UniKEF as to shortfalls of conventional theories.

In light of two other recent strings and the tone evolving there I am encouraged to believe that this might just be useful.

To keep this short I will only highlight or provide an overview from which further discussions might evolve.

UniKEF

In very general terms the Universe becomes bounded (Finite) encompassed in a greater creation. There are two Domain Limits to our Universe.

a - Qualitative: That is related to a v = c relative velocity or energy level differential.

b - Quantitative: That is related to energy density and a physical dimension of the Universe.

1 - UniKEF requires a leap of faith from the outset. That leap is not unlike other leaps in history for example where the existance of "neutrinos" or "Higgs" particles are theorized. That is to say there is no test or observational basis for the initial assumption.

But that assumption becomes supported when its predictions and subjective conclusions are made as compared to current advances in technology and observations that no longer seem to fit existing theories.

2 - The primary function of UniKEF is that of gravity. Here some mathematical evidence, if not proof, and testing seems to indicate that indeed such a concept is reality and that testing data is not explained by conventional theories on the subject.

In 1956 Professors at Purdue Physics Department reviewed the original manuscript and compared it to a modernized version of Le' Sage Gravity. That should provide a basic understanding of the gravity concept. That concept is supported by a calculus analysis and by current ongoing testing which the data is outside explanation by any current theory of gravity.

With gravity as the primary underpinning support for the view, many other speculations are made which are not supported by anything other than such a concept tends to correlate with observation better than current theory.

In this area there are some graphics and rudimentary mathematics which are presented purely as "By-Way-of-Example"
which results in findings that are in keeping with those aspects of current theory that are tested or for which such phenomena have been observed.

3 - UniKEF Summary: UniKEF clearly states that it is devoid of proofs and virtually devoid of formal mathematics to back the concepts.

Conventional Theory

1 - There are areas of conventional theory where certain actions or limits are placed on actions that have not been tested but are mathematical projections based on other tests and/or observations.

Those limits are inconsistant with current observation and logic. I full well recognize that reality need not be logical in the final analysis but where such applications of conventional theory is based on purely mathematical extrapolation AND violate common sense, plus where UniKEF gives logical alternative views to the conclusions which are consistant with observation and logic, it is felt they are areas that should be explored further.

2 - One such area is "Relavistic Mass" change. UniKEF is in agreement with the observation and testing data that shows infinite energy being required to accelerate an object to v = c but only if the accelerating energy is being applied via relavistic velocities.

There is currently no stipulation in Relativity which addresses self-propelled objects, such as rockets. It is believed that is an omission in the theory because the assumption was that the v = c limit was infact an absolute limit. That no longer fits current observation (100 years after the theory was developed).

The perception of relavistic mass phenomena is in UniKEF brought about due to a decrease in energy transfer efficiency between independant systems where the energy transfer must be made with increasing velocity differential. It is linked to the Lorentz Contraction. It is computed differently in UniKEF but results in the same curve.

The conclusions drawn from that are:

a - No actual mass change occurs. It is an energy transfer efficiency phenomena. That results in that view is that self-propelled objects can exceed v = c but vanish (exceeds the Qualitative Domain Limit of our physical Universe but continues to exist at higher energy in the greater creation.

b - Current observation of Quasar traverse velocities as high as 5,200 c are valid velocites within reason and that the absence of infinite mass or negative time are indications that predictions (unproven or tested) that v = c is an absolute limit is due to inappropriate application of a 100 year old concept that needs to be modernized.

Under the circumstances the only area of UniKEF open to discussion is that of gravity and that will come when the test data is ready to be released.

My recent posts were not for the purpose of evaluation of UniKEF but to show the inappropraite responses to new concepts on the forum. Ignoring the question and challenging the basis for the question were the result.

One can only hope that will change.

Originally posted by MacM


There is currently no stipulation in Relativity which addresses self-propelled objects, such as rockets. It is believed that is an omission in the theory because the assumption was that the v = c limit was infact an absolute limit. That no longer fits current observation (100 years after the theory was developed).



I take it you have never heard of the the Relativistic Rocket equations?

Such as:

v = c * tanh(Ve/C * ln(MR))

Where v is the final velocity of the rocket
Ve is the exhaust velocity
MR is the mass ratio. (fueled rocket to empty rocket)

Hi MacM,

"UniKEF requires a leap of faith from the outset. That leap is not unlike other leaps in history for example where the existance of "neutrinos" or "Higgs" particles are theorized. That is to say there is no test or observational basis for the initial assumption."

Not a good way to start your discours on a scientificly oriented forum. As a convinced atheist, I refuse to take "leap of faiths". How will I ever be able to comprehend UniKEF ?

Neutrino's where once theoretised, that is correct (by Pauli, to explain for the missing mass in radioactive decays, if I remember correctly). Experimental evidence later backup up this assumption. I think there is a difference between the following two assumptions:

1. "well, perhaps there is some very light particle that our detectors cannot see yet that also gets a tiny amount of the energy in this reaction".

2. "well, let's assume that the universe is part of a bigger "something" that we cannot observe".

The first assumption is liable to scientific verification. The second is not. The first assumption is made within a well-established mathematically consistent and experimentally backup framework, the second is not.

For the Higgs particle, the same can be said: there is quite some theoretical support for it (we can predict and calculate the estimated mass of the particle) and experiments indeed indicate that it exists. Unfortunately I am no particle physicist so I would have to let somebody else fill you in on the details...

"But that assumption becomes supported when its predictions and subjective conclusions are made as compared to current advances in technology and observations that no longer seem to fit existing theories."

What assumption are you talking about ? The universe being encompassed in something bigger with "light" being the boundary ? This assumption cannot be verified experimentally, and hence cannot be compated to "current advances in technology and observations...". If you are talking about another assumption (perhaps not listed here), please do inform us of this (assumptions or postulates are about the most important thing in a theory).

"UniKEF Summary: UniKEF clearly states that it is devoid of proofs and virtually devoid of formal mathematics to back the concepts."

Unfortunately this gives you an additional 30 points on the crackpot scale. Please provide us with proofs and formal mathematics to convince us of your theory.

"Conventional theory: There are areas of conventional theory where certain actions or limits are placed on actions that have not been tested but are mathematical projections based on other tests and/or observations."

Please list the assumptions or limits you are referring to. You will find (as I indicated in another thread) that for example special relativity is founded on very few, very plausible assumptions. So is quantum mechanics, newtonian mechanics, ... If you contradict any the predictions made by these theories, you are fundamentally disagreeing with one of their assumptions. Please list the assumptions you disagree with and why.

Considering the relativistic mass change: I addressed this in another thread.

Sorry if I am being too hard on you (I am a very peaceful person really). You have to realise that in order to sound convincing, there are certain minimal requirements your theory has to obey. If it doesn't, then it cannot be called scientifically, and hence is doomed to be labeled as "a nice idea but not convincing" or worse "crackpot theory" (but I would never go as far as calling any idea "crackpottery" or something, but I must warn you that others will --- oh wait, chroot left ;)).

Bye!

Crisp

Crisp,

Just to clarify something:

If I'm in a rocket, and the mass of the rocket is increasing as it's travelling faster, won't the mass of the rocket's fuel increase by the same amount, thereby keeping the rocket's acceleration constant?

Tom

Crisp,

"light" being the boundary

Light is not a boundry. v =c is a boundry (an energy level function) is the boundry. But that really doesn't matter since you still require proof of something before you are willing to explore the possibilities of it.

Overall as long as that remains the attitude here then I have nothing to offer before gravity data is presented.

chroot was wrong more than he would ever admit but that is another issue. In spite of that he was still intelligent. But intelligence and common sense aren't the same thing either.

And finally nothing you have said resolves the glaring conflict between current observation and the theories that claim it is prohibited nor does it address the fact that some observations and testing data that tends to support current theory can have alternative explanations which leaves room for current observation which makes them better models.


That is just the way it is. People can lable me whatever they like but that doesn't address the issue of current theory failures.




Prosooothus,

Yep. Precisely. The exact same arguement is made in UniKEF.

If the load becomes infinte so does the fuel. (I KNOW WE ARE GOING 99.999999% c BUT NOBODY IS WATCHING SO THROTTLE UP, I want to go faster :confused: )

Great theory.

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Crisp,

Just to clarify something:

If I'm in a rocket, and the mass of the rocket is increasing as it's travelling faster, won't the mass of the rocket's fuel increase by the same amount, thereby keeping the rocket's acceleration constant?

Tom

No. The upshot is that your effective exhaust velocity will go down, and your acceleration depends on both the exhaust mass and velocity.

Janus58,

True but not quite on point. Actual rocket technology can't come close to light speed but this is not meant to be a physics question about rockets.

Lets assume an inertial drive powered by a matter/anti-matter energy source. (Also the example given in UniKEF)

The inertial drive is force delivered to the frame wirhout mass rejection. If the rocket becomes infinite in mass you now have infinite matter/anti-matter to power your reactionless drive.

You also have a closed system where nothing has relavistic velocity.

Now what?

Crisp,

I forgot to ask why you haven't shit canned Relativity since it doesn't meet your standards to be a scientific theory.

The first assumption is liable to scientific verification. The second is not.

Please explain to me how you propose to test the v = c as being an absolute velocity limit, since the same theory prohibits you from going there?

How you going to test "Infinite Mass" prediction?

If it isn't testable after all it isn't science.

Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,

True but not quite on point. Actual rocket technology can't come close to light speed but this is not meant to be a physics question about rockets.

You're the one who brought up rockets, and how SR didn't apply to them


Lets assume an inertial drive powered by a matter/anti-matter energy source. (Also the example given in UniKEF)

The inertial drive is force delivered to the frame wirhout mass rejection. If the rocket becomes infinite in mass you now have infinite matter/anti-matter to power your reactionless drive.

You also have a closed system where nothing has relavistic velocity.

Now what?

While we're at it, why don't we assume that fishes were wishes?

Such a reactionless drive violates the law of action and reaction, and there is no reason to believe that it can be circumvented.

Assuming one impossible feat in an attempt to accomplish another is a very weak argument.

Even then, it wouldn't allow you to reach or exceed c relative to any other frame. Time dilation would intervene. As your speed increased, time for you would slow, dropping the rate at which your engine delivers energy the frame. Your acceleration would drop off precipitously as you approached c.

Janus58,


".Even then, it wouldn't allow you to reach or exceed c relative to any other frame. Time dilation would intervene. As your speed increased, time for you would slow, dropping the rate at which your engine delivers energy the frame. Your acceleration would drop off precipitously as you approached c.



Show me the data or, as has been so eliquently been pointed out, that view is not scientific.


Yours is an untested view using mathematical extrapolation which has results that are in conflict with current observation.

Not a strong position to argue from.

Originally posted by MacM
Show me the data or, as has been so eliquently been pointed out, that view is not scientific.

Yours is an untested view using mathematical extrapolation which has results that are in conflict with current observation.

Not a strong position to argue from. MacM,
The equation is derived from experimental evidence by sampling points which we have access too. This is an accepted technique, as it is impossible to sample an infinite number of points.

Janus58 made it clear the reactionless drive is not considered possible, but went the extra step to explain what would happen using the current theory.

Persol,





MacM,
The equation is derived from experimental evidence by sampling points which we have access too. This is an accepted technique, as it is impossible to sample an infinite number of points.

*********************
Reply: I am aware of that but your post chooses to ignore the fact that that observation has a more rational explanation than actual mass change; which also encompasses current observation.

Current theory and potentially mis-interpretation of such data leads to conclusions that are not in agreement with observation.
So if I am right or not isn't even the issue. The issue is to get theory to allow observation.
*********************



Janus58 made it clear the reactionless drive is not considered possible, but went the extra step to explain what would happen using the current theory.

************************
Reply: I agree it is not considered possible but I am less convienced that it is impossible, most especially due to my own work and experience in that field. A field that frankly I suspect I am better qualified to talk about than anyone else on this panel.

Fluidity might come close but I don't think he has built any or nearly as many units as I have.

Having said that again I really am not impressed by hearing what current theory says since it is in disagreement with actual observation.

I am very confident in the very near future you and others will be forced to begin to consider my views or at least start looking for some of your own to account for the problems such observations are starting to create for current theory. You can't ignore it forever.
*************************

that observation has a more rational explanation than actual mass change; which also encompasses current observation
What would this explanation be?

Having said that again I really am not impressed by hearing what current theory says since it is in disagreement with actual observation.
What observations? And does this other theory cover them?

Persol,



that observation has a more rational explanation than actual mass change; which also encompasses current observation .

What would this explanation be?

*********************
Reply: Keeping this at a dialog level. The explanation is that increasing energy to accelerate a particle requires applying that energy under increasing velocity differential between the source of energy and the mass being accelerated. It can easily and justifyably be considered as a consequence of decreased energy transfer efficiency.

You can view it simular to the field around a coil. Energy applied to the coil gets channeled into the space around the coil. When you disturb the circuit or try to drain power from the coil the field returns from space to continue current flow from the coil.

In the case of a particle energy being applied to it becomes less and less effective at accelerating the mass because at higher velocites more energy get bound up in space.

As the particle velocity is decreased that stored energy becomes applied to cause the particle to try and continue its motion (increased momentum) which makes it appear as though mass actually increased.

But from a point of view not involved in the process there is no actual mass change (other than that of actual energy increase due to its velocity but v = c does not equal infinity)
**************************



Having said that again I really am not impressed by hearing what current theory says since it is in disagreement with actual observation.

What observations?

*********************
Reply:

1 - Quasar Traverse Velocity. v>>>>>c many of them.


2 - Absence of obvious mass change due to such velocities and the absence of general mass increase as one looks further into space at higher and higher recession velocities >90%c.
**********************


And does this other theory cover them?

*********************
Reply: Yes. In this regard. The concept allows for v=>c for objects that are self-propelled. That is objects where there is no relative velocity between its energy source, thrust mechanisim and the load being accelerated.

And it sites such examples.
**********************

Originally posted by MacM
Keeping this at a dialog level.
Please decide if you want this to be science or a discusion of 'what ifs'.

1 - Quasar Traverse Velocity. v>>>>>c many of them.
2 - Absence of obvious mass change due to such velocities and the absence of general mass increase as one looks further into space at higher and higher recession velocities >90%c.
Sites expailning both using the existing theories have been linked by Chroot.

That is objects where there is no relative velocity between its energy source, thrust mechanisim and the load being accelerated.
If you want this to be a scientific discussion do not include reactionless drives which have not been demonstrated and have no theoretical basis.

Persol,


Keeping this at a dialog level.

Please decide if you want this to be science or a discusion of 'what ifs'.

**************************
Reply: In consideration that the math that is available is not that good, "what if" is probably as good as it gets. I have done some math on it and using geometry and trig and have duplicated the relavistic mass curve vewing it as described. But none of that meets you "Scientific Standard" as being proof. At the same time I fail to see dialog as not being scientifc either.
**************************


1 - Quasar Traverse Velocity. v>>>>>c many of them.

2 - Absence of obvious mass change due to such velocities and the absence of general mass increase as one looks further into space at higher and higher recession velocities >90%c.

Sites expailning both using the existing theories have been linked by Chroot.

*********************
Reply: Can you cite those links. I would be very interested such findings. As I have said before I am looking for the truth, not to overturn anything but if it can't answer observation I can't accept it either.
*********************


That is objects where there is no relative velocity between its energy source, thrust mechanisim and the load being accelerated.

If you want this to be a scientific discussion do not include reactionless drives which have not been demonstrated and have no theoretical basis.

***************************
Reply: They have not been demonstrated to you. They have been demonstrated to me. NOt as looking at someone elses work but by testing my own. But I understand that doesn't qualify as science until it is demonstrated and tested by other. I agree with that. But I disagree that every thought problem or test of a theory must meet scientific achievability. Unacheivable assumptions are used routinely to test concepts.

Or has the Twin Paradox actually been tested? Seems I have seen extensive strings on the subject here.
***************************************

Janus58,

I believe I failed to respond to the following:

"UniKEF Summary: UniKEF clearly states that it is devoid of proofs and virtually devoid of formal mathematics to back the concepts."

Unfortunately this gives you an additional 30 points on the crackpot scale. Please provide us with proofs and formal mathematics to convince us of your theory.


***********************
Reply: This may very well be the reality but it is a poor one and doesn't speak well of the forum or of even science.

Any concept must begin with a coherent general overview that seems to fit the need. From there it evolves into mathematically or scientifically tested theory.

That is the actual process of Theory Development. By the above standards and attitude each and every theory that you cherish began in simular fashion. A comparison of plausible methods to explain an observation or test results.

No theory that I can think of started from formalized mathematical proof or a scientificly tested basis.

Tell me I am wrong.
**************************

Lets try another subject line or observation.

How do any of you explain the recent findings that the Earth appears to be in the center of the Universe?

Seems just a bit bizzar. That would at first glance seem to put us at the point of the Big Bang. Not a likely scenario.

Janus58,

No. The upshot is that your effective exhaust velocity will go down, and your acceleration depends on both the exhaust mass and velocity.

I assume that the exhaust velocity you are referring to is relative to the rocket. If so, how exactly does the exhaust velocity change as a rocket speeds up since velocity is relative? Doesn't the change in the exhaust velocity as perceived by the rocket go against the principles of relativity, and imply that there is something like an absolute frame of reference?

Tom

MacM:

Important questions are marked with "*" below. I hope you can answer them.

<i>UniKEF

In very general terms the Universe becomes bounded (Finite) encompassed in a greater creation.</i>

* What is the nature of this "greater creation"?
* By "greater", do you just mean physically larger or something else?
* What is the nature of this boundary you mention? Is it a physical boundary, like a wall, or something different?

<i>There are two Domain Limits to our Universe.
a - Qualitative: That is related to a v = c relative velocity or energy level differential.</i>

* What is an energy level differential?

<i>b - Quantitative: That is related to energy density and a physical dimension of the Universe.</i>

* How does energy density constitute a "domain limit"?
* <b>How</b>, specifically, is the energy density and physical dimension of the universe related to the domain limit?

<i>1 - UniKEF requires a leap of faith from the outset. That leap is not unlike other leaps in history for example where the existance of "neutrinos" or "Higgs" particles are theorized. That is to say there is no test or observational basis for the initial assumption.</i>

The normal terminology for this kind of thing is "hypothesis", not "assumption". The neutrino, to take one of your examples, required no leap of faith. It was postulated in order to explain an observed energy and momentum deficit in a certain type of nuclear decay. In that case, the observation came first, then the explanation. The existence of the neutrino solved an observational problem in a very specific way, which was found to match many experimental results. Later, the concept was found to be more widely applicable than it was originally invented for.

<i>2 - The primary function of UniKEF is that of gravity. Here some mathematical evidence, if not proof, and testing seems to indicate that indeed such a concept is reality and that testing data is not explained by conventional theories on the subject.</i>

Could you please stop tiptoeing around the issue? You keep alluding to the powerful explanatory power of UniKEF, yet you never actually tell us <b>what</b> UniKEF predicts, or how it predicts it.

* If UniKEF is primarily a theory of gravity, how does it model gravity? Is gravity a force? If so, what is its mathematical form? If not, what is it?

In other words, when you say something like "testing seems to indicate that indeed such a concept is reality", don't you think that you should explain what the "such a concept" is that you're talking about?

* What is the central concept of UniKEF, as it pertains to gravity?

<i>In 1956 Professors at Purdue Physics Department reviewed the original manuscript and compared it to a modernized version of Le' Sage Gravity.</i>

* What is Le Sage gravity?

<i>That concept is supported by a calculus analysis and by current ongoing testing which the data is outside explanation by any current theory of gravity.</i>

* Which data, specifically, is outside explanation by any current theory?

<i>With gravity as the primary underpinning support for the view, many other speculations are made which are not supported by anything other than such a concept tends to correlate with observation better than current theory.</i>

* Please give one example of where UniKEF explains an observation better than current theory. Tell us how UniKEF explains the observation, and what is wrong with the conventional explanation.

<i>3 - UniKEF Summary: UniKEF clearly states that it is devoid of proofs and virtually devoid of formal mathematics to back the concepts.</i>

* How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories?

<i>1 - There are areas of conventional theory where certain actions or limits are placed on actions that have not been tested but are mathematical projections based on other tests and/or observations.

Those limits are inconsistant with current observation and logic.</i>

* Please provide specific examples. (Your quasar example is not a valid example, as current physics explains quite clearly why apparent quasar velocities can under certain conditions appear to be faster than light - as explained in another thread.)

<i>2 - One such area is "Relavistic Mass" change. UniKEF is in agreement with the observation and testing data that shows infinite energy being required to accelerate an object to v = c but only if the accelerating energy is being applied via relavistic velocities.</i>

* Please explain clearly why infinite energy is not required to accelerate an object to the speed of light in the case of self-propelled rockets. If possible, please provide the relevant mathematics which supports your view.

<i>There is currently no stipulation in Relativity which addresses self-propelled objects, such as rockets.</i>

Yes there is. Relativity makes no distinction between what you call "self-propelled objects" and any other object. The speed of light limit applies to all objects with mass, according to relativity. Nothing has ever been observed to go faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

<i>It is believed that is an omission in the theory because the assumption was that the v = c limit was infact an absolute limit. That no longer fits current observation (100 years after the theory was developed).</i>

* Please provide links or references to examples of observations of massive objects travelling faster than light.

<i>The perception of relavistic mass phenomena is in UniKEF brought about due to a decrease in energy transfer efficiency between independant systems where the energy transfer must be made with increasing velocity differential.</i>

* How <b>exactly</b> does this decrease in efficiency occur?
* What is its mathematical form?
* Can you give a concrete example?

<i>It is linked to the Lorentz Contraction. It is computed differently in UniKEF but results in the same curve.</i>

* Show me how UniKEF computes it.

<i>That results in that view is that self-propelled objects can exceed v = c but vanish (exceeds the Qualitative Domain Limit of our physical Universe but continues to exist at higher energy in the greater creation.</i>

* Have there been any examples of objects vanishing upon reaching v=c? Where can I find them?

<i>b - Current observation of Quasar traverse velocities as high as 5,200 c are valid velocites within reason and that the absence of infinite mass or negative time are indications that predictions (unproven or tested) that v = c is an absolute limit is due to inappropriate application of a 100 year old concept that needs to be modernized.</i>

There are no <b>observations</b> of true transverse quasar velocities greater than c. There are calculations which appear to show greater velocities, but as I understand it these calculations ignore certain important features of the physical situation, including the motion of the quasar towards or away from the observer.

The observations you have referred to date back to the 1970s, I believe. They have since been fully explained using conventional science.

<i>Under the circumstances the only area of UniKEF open to discussion is that of gravity and that will come when the test data is ready to be released.</i>

* What tests are being performed?
* Where are the tests being done?
* Who is doing the tests?
* When and where will the test results be published?

.ames R.,


I have very little disagreement with your post. I would be interested in seeing your reference to a link by chroot for the solution.

Please advise me of that link.


In respect to supporting math regarding re-interpretation of relavistic mass. It involves several graphics not easy to reproduce here.

I and copying over the text version describing the graphics and mathematical (By-Way-of Example) of an alternative view and then I will go retrive the graphics and try to insert it here.

For some reason "Cut & Paste" is not maintaining original format and formulas and data columns are shifted. It may take me some time to re-edit this post to where it is more easily readable.


UniKEF Extract:

Consider a two dimensional form of a sphere which is a circle.
Ref: Fig6b.

Draw a horizontal line through the center of the circle. It is
the "X" plane with X1 on the left and X2 on the right.

Now draw a line vertically through the center referencing it as
the "Y" plane with Y1 at the top and Y2 at the bottom. They repre-
sents the time energy flow through the spherical dimensions of
the mass.


If the mass represented by the circle is at rest relative to
these lines then the penetration of mass by tep vectors from X1
to X2 and from Y1 to Y2 and vice-versa intersect inside the circle
at the center.

The intersect of X and Y are at 90 degrees and the intersect-
ions of X1 with X2 and Y1 with Y2 is "180" degrees.

If you now give the mass a velocity moving in the X plane from
X1 toward X2 which is equal to time flux velocity in the Y plane and
re-draw a line of penetration from Y1 toward Y2, while moving the
circle uniformly toward X2. Which angles from Y1 toward X1, and
redrawing a line from Y2 to Y1 you get a line sloping from Y2 to X1.

The intersect of Ytep with the X plane is arctan(v/c) going from
90 to 45 degrees as v goes from 0 to q. Arctan is tan raised to -1.

(A) is the intersect angle (2 x arctan(v/c)) and is the intersect
angle of Ytep. Y1 and Y2 go from 180 to 90 degrees and becomes treated
as 0 to 90 degrees as velocity in the X plane goes from 0 to q.

Using arbitrary values for K by way of example:

...................................(2/pi)
UniKEF: K1 = 2+(v/q)^ ; K2 = .5 Relativity: K3 = 2 K4 = .5


Dimension in the Xu plane can be defined as rest dimension (Xo)
times the quantity of, the quantity of one minus the quantity, (A)^2
divided by 90^2, raised by K1, and all raised to the K2 root.

Dimension is a function of time-energy units (teu), ( a"Quantitat-
ive" value, at a given energy reference level geo-creatively), for an
observer at rest but which is subject to "Qualitative" change in value
for an observer at a relative velocity.

The observers physics is linked to a given tep reference energy
level for the "Quanta" of "teu" dimensional energy involved.

UniKEF: Xu = Xo x (1-((2 x arctan(v/q)/90)^k1))^.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------

UniKEF Relativity
----------------------------------- ---------------------------
Xu = Xo x (1-(A/90)^k1)^K2 Xr =Xo x (1-(v^2/c^2))^.5

Xu = Xo x (1-(A/90)^(2+(v/q)^0.6366))^.5 Xr =Xo x (1-(v/c)^2)^.5

The (A/90)^n term eliminates the trigonometeric minus sign (-)
in the tangent value of (A) and 180 degrees becomes equivelent to 0
degrees.

Where: Vq is velocity in terms of the speed of light (v/q)
A is UniKEF time-energy plane intersect angle (A), Ytep.
Xu Dimension in UniKEF terms of rest dimension (Xo)
Xr Dimension in Relavistic terms of rest dimension (Xo)
R is the ratio Xu/Xr
D is Differential (Xu-Xr)



Vq..........A...............Xu.................... ....Xr.........................R (*)....................D (*)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0----------0--------1.000000---------1.000000-------- 1.0000000-------------0
.1----11.42119----0.9949879----------0.9949875------0.9999995-------- 0.0000005
.2-----22.61987----0.9805720----------0.9797959------0.992085----------0.0007761
.3-----33.39849----0.9555720----------0.9539392------ 0.9982912--------0.0016328
.4-----43.60282----0.9183441--------- 0.9165152------ 0.9980085--------0.0018289
.5-----53.13011----0.8670111----------0.8660254------0.9988631--------0.0009857
.6-----61.92752----0.7991197----------0.8000000------ 1.0011020--------0.0008802
.7-----69.98404----0.7107495----------0.7141428------ 1.0047740--------0.0033932
.8-----77.31962----0.5941739----------0.6000000------ 1.0098050--------0.0058261
.9-----83.97442----0.4290048----------0.4358900------ 1.0160490--------0.0068850
1.0-----90.00000----0.0000000----------0.0000000------ 1.0000000--------0.0000000

(*) The failure of Xu to perfectly match Xr at this juncture in
time is insignifigant for the following reasons:

1 - The selection of K1 and K2 have been arbitrary and other terms
can be used to match relativity throughout the cycle. A poly-
nomial transfer coefficient can be developed for time-space.

2 - The precision of the RMC component, (1-v^2/c^2)^.5, has never
been tested. The ^2 and ^.5 powers are arbitrary numbers used
to satisfy the "Principle" of relativity and is not verified.

3 - This view is 2D and it is anticipated when a calculus integration
is done, the result will be simular to the UniKEF function of
gravity where the exponents vanish.

4 - The phenomena of relativity goes from "0" to infinity and so does the tangent of (A) in UniKEF. If a precise relativity
test is done then appropriate K factors can be determined
which may or may not be the same as used in "The Theory of
Relativity" today and would also re-define K1 and K2.

RMC = Relavistic Math Component = (1-(v/c)^2)^.5


mm =mo/RMC should be replaced with e = (1-(A/90)^K1)^K2.


A = (2(arctan(v/q))/90)^k1)^k2; such that mass is:

mm = mo/e


Mass isn't infinite, the energy transfer efficiency goes to "0". The
mass illusion is caused by a bifurcated distribution of applied energy.
See Fig 7c.

Part going to vector acceleration but part going into "Storage" in the
time-space field. It appears to be accumulating mass because it is
getting harder to accelerate and when we calculate its contained energy
by stopping it, the stored energy returns (flywheel effect) causing us
to measure energy equal to that proposed as the mass increase.

But MASS, geo-creatively, didn't actually change; which is why the
Black Hole Syndrome doesn't occur and objects don't influence the
ability of other masses from being accelerated or create a limit on
absolute velocity which doesn't exist according to Relativity anyway.

e is a relavistic energy transfer coefficient which is an effic-
iency term. It provides the same velocity limit as mass change but
doesn't create other paradoxes such as the "Black Hole" with an
infinite mass or different masses, at the same time, from different
view points.

Energy transfer efficiency goes toward zero as you approach v=c.
It becomes increasingly more difficult to produce a response between
the energy source and the mass being accelerated which creates the
"Perception" of a mass change.

Velocity of a mass becomes limited by the restrictions created
on acceleration by the e term limiting the ability to transfer the
force between the energy source and the mass being accelerated.


Graphics:

""They don't transfer". How do I attach a graphics file?

MacM, just answer JamesR's questions point by point.

Here's the link from chroot:
http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum.htm

Originally posted by Prosoothus
Janus58,



I assume that the exhaust velocity you are referring to is relative to the rocket. If so, how exactly does the exhaust velocity change as a rocket speeds up since velocity is relative? Doesn't the change in the exhaust velocity as perceived by the rocket go against the principles of relativity, and imply that there is something like an absolute frame of reference?

Tom

Relative to the rocket as measured by the frame the rocket is accelerating wrt. This is the the same frame from which the mass of the rocket and payload is considered as having increased (the frame you are trying to move at >c wrt.)

Time and length dilation both play their roles. From this frame, the rocket both contracts along the axis of motion and time slows down, Thus the exhaust gases take more time to travel a shorter distance. The exhaust velocity goes down. At c the exhaust gases would travel a distance of zero in inifinite time, ergo, zero exhaust velocity.

If you say the mass of the fuel and payload change with velocity, this is according to a certain frame of reference. If you want to consider the effect this has on the rocket's velocity, this also has to be done from that same frame of reference. You can't just bounce back and forth between frames of reference willy-nilly.

Hi all,

Tom,

"If I'm in a rocket, and the mass of the rocket is increasing as it's travelling faster, won't the mass of the rocket's fuel increase by the same amount, thereby keeping the rocket's acceleration constant?"

No. There is no increase in mass from the rocket's point of view, but only from an outside observers point of view. But just because someone else sees a mass-increase (and note very well that this is really an energy increase and not related to "the amount of matter"), doesn't mean that you suddenly have more fuel to your disposal for more acceleration, or that you have to waste more fuel because you got "heavier".

MacM,

(in reply to Tom's argument)
"Yep. Precisely. The exact same arguement is made in UniKEF."

This is an incorrect prediction.

"The inertial drive is force delivered to the frame wirhout mass rejection. If the rocket becomes infinite in mass you now have infinite matter/anti-matter to power your reactionless drive."

Wrong for the reasons above.

" forgot to ask why you haven't shit canned Relativity since it doesn't meet your standards to be a scientific theory. Please explain to me how you propose to test the v = c as being an absolute velocity limit, since the same theory prohibits you from going there? How you going to test "Infinite Mass" prediction?"

You quoted me saying "The first assumption is liable to scientific testing" or something along those lines. I have listed the assumptions made in SR. These are supported by experimental evidence. SR then predicts that v = c is an upper limit. This seems to be in agreement with accelerator experiments.

Now you will probably counterargument that "that specific part of the theory cannot be tested at the moment". The reasoning why relativity is correct up to a high accuracy is mostly indirect in the following sense: the predictions of relativity are in very good agreement with experiments. These predictions results from one simple assumption: the speed of light is a constant for all observers. This assumption is backed by other experiments. Other predictions of relativity are as correct as the assumptions it makes to derive those predictions - in this case, it seems that the assumptions are correct, so are also the predictions.

"No theory that I can think of started from formalized mathematical proof or a scientificly tested basis. Tell me I am wrong."

You are wrong. The first step is an idea. The second step is to formalize that idea. The third step is to derive predictions from that idea within the formalism you designed. The fourth step is to test the predictions with experiments.

Appaerantly you skipped step two.

"How do any of you explain the recent findings that the Earth appears to be in the center of the Universe? Seems just a bit bizzar. That would at first glance seem to put us at the point of the Big Bang. Not a likely scenario."

Recent findings ? Where ? How ? When ?

From our point of view, the earth is the centre of the universe. From the point of view of someone on a planet in Proxima Centauri, that planet is the centre of the universe. That problem has already been tackled a long time ago by explaining how spacetime expands everywhere, looking as everything receedes from every point.


Then for your extract of UniKEF...

"Consider a two dimensional form of a sphere which is a circle.
Ref: Fig6b.

Draw a horizontal line through the center of the circle. It is
the "X" plane with X1 on the left and X2 on the right.

Now draw a line vertically through the center referencing it as
the "Y" plane with Y1 at the top and Y2 at the bottom."

Okay, so you take a circle and look at the four quadrants...

"They repre-
sents the time energy flow through the spherical dimensions of
the mass."

Where does this come from ? What is "time energy flow" ? What is a "spherical dimension"... of mass ???? You are using words that make totally no sense in your context.

"If you now give the mass a velocity moving in the X plane from X1 toward X2 which is equal to time flux velocity in the Y plane and re-draw a line of penetration from Y1 toward Y2, while moving the circle uniformly toward X2. Which angles from Y1 toward X1, and redrawing a line from Y2 to Y1 you get a line sloping from Y2 to X1."

What is a "time flux velocity"? Why do you all of the sudden start rotating the circle ?

"Arctan is tan raised to -1."

tan^(-1)(x) is a symbolic notation for arctan(x). There is a significant difference between (tan(x))^(-1) and arctan(x)... I suspect you interchanged the two; to put it very simply: tan(x) = y is equivalent with arctan(y) = x

Or if you like:

arctan(tan(x)) = x

So the arctan is the "inverse" function of the tangens, which is why it gets the symbolic "to the power -1" notation.

Then there is a really long explanation using symbols you don't define etc etc etc...


Anyway, I suggest we start by answering James' & my questions before continuing, shall we ?

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by MacM
Janus58,


".



Show me the data or, as has been so eliquently been pointed out, that view is not scientific.


Yours is an untested view using mathematical extrapolation which has results that are in conflict with current observation.

Not a strong position to argue from.

What current observation? Your much vaunted Superluminal Quasars?

These observations are not in conflict with Relativity as explained in the following links:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/jets.html

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/~maytag/superlum.htm

As far as the argument that objects should appear as blackholes to some and not to others due to relative velocity, It is a strawman. Relativity predicts no such thing.

Re:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/black_fast.html


Tine dilation has been tested and observed in high energy physics labs around the world on a daily basis.

Also, your question was based on the idea that the mass increase existed; you can't have a relativistic mass increase without time dialtion and length contraction, its a package deal. If you accept one in your hypothesis, the others follow naturally.


I also find it interesting that you use an antimatter-matter energy source; one that relies on the conversion of matter ro energy. Considering that this conversion follows the equation

E=mc² (also tested and verified),

which in turn is derived from the formula
E = mc²/(1-v²/c²),
(Which by the way shows that the energy content of any mass approaches infinity as said mass approaches c, regardless of how that velocity is achieved)

which is, in turn, derived from the Lorentz transformations.

No time dilation, no length contraction, no asymptotic energy increase... , then no release of energy through matter-antimatter annihilation. It's all tied up in one big package.

You want to be able to power your ship through one consequence of Relativity, while ignoring the other consequences. That is known as practicing "cafeteria science".

Crisp,

Yes. I want to give a more full response but before doing that I want to make a few quick clarifications.

1 - The link provided is interesting. I have scanned it but not digested it in depth as yet.

a - In direct contrast to an earlier post that stated this problem was solved 30 years ago, the data is in fact now (1) year old.

b - I have already seen several places in the text where unjustified assumptions have been made to force the ultimate calculation to return a result that complys with Relativity. Those assumptions are that "Nothing can exceed v = c and therefore y = z, etc".

That is to say by making the assumption that the results must conclude nothing exceeds v = c, we have this formula to insure that is the result. That is wholly unjustified and untested.


Where on earth did you get the impression that the circle or sphere is being rotated? That doesn't appear anywhere.

I will come back with a more detailed resopnse once I have determined all the erroneous interpretations that have been made or errors in my presentation.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MacM
In direct contrast to an earlier post that stated this problem was solved 30 years ago, the data is in fact now (1) year old.
Some of the sources listed list the observations and solutions as being 30 years old.

b - I have already seen several places in the text where unjustified assumptions have been made to force the ultimate calculation to return a result that complys with Relativity. Those assumptions are that "Nothing can exceed v = c and therefore y = z, etc".
They are basing their calculations on scientifically derived equations. What would you rather that they use?

That is to say by making the assumption that the results must conclude nothing exceeds v = c, we have this formula to insure that is the result. That is wholly unjustified and untested.
This is not unjustified. It's called using science. Why have science if you can not predict why something happens? They could just as easily started from the last position, and then used the math to prove it.

I will come back with a more detailed resopnse once I have determined all the erroneous interpretations that have been made or errors in my presentation.
Why don't you first address the issues that JamesR raised?

Persol,


As far as the argument that objects should appear as blackholes to some and not to others due to relative velocity, It is a strawman. Relativity predicts no such thing.

*********************
Reply:What happened to infinite mass at v = c. Are you saying that Relativity doesn't predict that? Or are you saying infinite mass doesn't represent a Black Hole.? You can't excapre conclusions based on the prediction. The jprediction of infinite mass certainly implies at least a Black Hole equal to the entire mass of the universe in a particle sized container if that is the object being accelerated!"
*********************


Time dilation has been tested and observed in high energy physics labs around the world on a daily basis.

*********************
Reply:So? That proves clocks dilate. It doesn't prove why or that it is even a function of time. It is the function of some process which can and I am sure may be affected. It doesn't even prove time exists as a tangible enity. Before that stirs some hostile response, I am not argueing that position I merely want to point out that your assumption is full of assumptions, none of which are assured as fact.
*********************


Also, your question was based on the idea that the mass increase existed; you can't have a relativistic mass increase without time dialtion and length contraction, its a package deal. If you accept one in your hypothesis, the others follow naturally.


****************
Reply: I don't buy your assumption of nothing or all here. Also I am a bit lost about your statement "Your question was based on the idea that the mass increase existed..."

I am saying just the opposite. Mass does not increase at all as a function of relativity. It does increase as a function of linear velocity or energy.
****************

[/quote]
I also find it interesting that you use an antimatter-matter energy source; one that relies on the conversion of matter ro energy. Considering that this conversion follows the equation

E=mc² (also tested and verified),

which in turn is derived from the formula
E = mc²/(1-v²/c²),
(Which by the way shows that the energy content of any mass approaches infinity as said mass approaches c, regardless of how that velocity is achieved)
[/quote]

************************
Reply: The above E = mc^2 formula is a bastardized, untested version imploying relativity to force the conclusion you want.
************************



You want to be able to power your ship through one consequence of Relativity, while ignoring the other consequences. That is known as practicing "cafeteria science".


************************
Reply: The same can be said for your arguement above with regard to claiming Relativity doesn't mean Black Holes at v = c.
************************

Originally posted by MacM
Persol,
Actually, this isn't my text... but I'll answer anyhow

As far as the argument that objects should appear as blackholes to some and not to others due to relative velocity, It is a strawman. Relativity predicts no such thing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:What happened to infinite mass at v = c.
Infinite mass will never happen becuase you can not reach c, so it's a moot point.

Time dilation has been tested and observed in high energy physics labs around the world on a daily basis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:So? That proves clocks dilate. It doesn't prove why or that it is even a function of time.
It shows that time and relative velocity are related.

It is the function of some process which can and I am sure may be affected.
Affected by?

It doesn't even prove time exists as a tangible enity. Before that stirs some hostile response, I am not argueing that position I merely want to point out that your assumption is full of assumptions, none of which are assured as fact.
It isn't trying to prove that time exists as a tangible energy.

Also, your question was based on the idea that the mass increase existed; you can't have a relativistic mass increase without time dialtion and length contraction, its a package deal. If you accept one in your hypothesis, the others follow naturally.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: I don't buy your assumption of nothing or all here.
It is all based on the same theories. If one is wrong, something is wrong with the theory and the others can not be fully trusted.

Also I am a bit lost about your statement "Your question was based on the idea that the mass increase existed..."
You said "If the rocket becomes infinite in mass you now have infinite matter/anti-matter to power your reactionless drive" which is false.

I am saying just the opposite. Mass does not increase at all as a function of relativity. It does increase as a function of linear velocity or energy.
Linear velocity in relation to what?

I also find it interesting that you use an antimatter-matter energy source; one that relies on the conversion of matter ro energy. Considering that this conversion follows the equation E=mc² (also tested and verified), which in turn is derived from the formula E = mc²/(1-v²/c²), (Which by the way shows that the energy content of any mass approaches infinity as said mass approaches c, regardless of how that velocity is achieved)
************************
Reply: The above E = mc^2 formula is a bastardized, untested
version imploying relativity to force the conclusion you want.
Have you heard of atomic weapons/reactors? You can use E=mc^2 to calculate the amount of energy released. It is tested.

You want to be able to power your ship through one consequence of Relativity, while ignoring the other consequences. That is known as practicing "cafeteria science".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: The same can be said for your arguement above with regard to claiming Relativity doesn't mean Black Holes at v = c.
Fine, I'l say that relativity means current mass * infinity = new mass at the speed of light. However, the statement doesn't mean anything.

Just answer JamesR's questions already (repeated for ease of viewing):
* What is the nature of this "greater creation"?
* By "greater", do you just mean physically larger or something else?
* What is the nature of this boundary you mention? Is it a physical boundary, like a wall, or something different?
* What is an energy level differential?
* How does energy density constitute a "domain limit"?
* How, specifically, is the energy density and physical dimension of the universe related to the domain limit?
*Could you please stop tiptoeing around the issue? You keep alluding to the powerful explanatory power of UniKEF, yet you never actually tell us what UniKEF predicts, or how it predicts it.
* If UniKEF is primarily a theory of gravity, how does it model gravity? Is gravity a force? If so, what is its mathematical form? If not, what is it?
* What is the central concept of UniKEF, as it pertains to gravity?
* What is Le Sage gravity?
* Which data, specifically, is outside explanation by any current theory?
* Please give one example of where UniKEF explains an observation better than current theory. Tell us how UniKEF explains the observation, and what is wrong with the conventional explanation.
* How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories?
* Please provide specific examples. (Your quasar example is not a valid example, as current physics explains quite clearly why apparent quasar velocities can under certain conditions appear to be faster than light - as explained in another thread.)
* Please explain clearly why infinite energy is not required to accelerate an object to the speed of light in the case of self-propelled rockets. If possible, please provide the relevant mathematics which supports your view.
* Please provide links or references to examples of observations of massive objects travelling faster than light.
* How exactly does this decrease in efficiency occur?
* What is its mathematical form?
* Can you give a concrete example?
* Show me how UniKEF computes it.
* Have there been any examples of objects vanishing upon reaching v=c? Where can I find them?
* What tests are being performed?
* Where are the tests being done?
* Who is doing the tests?
* When and where will the test results be published?

Hi MacM,

"What happened to infinite mass at v = c. Are you saying that Relativity doesn't predict that? Or are you saying infinite mass doesn't represent a Black Hole.? You can't excapre conclusions based on the prediction. The jprediction of infinite mass certainly implies at least a Black Hole equal to the entire mass of the universe in a particle sized container if that is the object being accelerated!"

This is also incorrect. As already stated, the relativistic mass increase has nothing to do with restmass. It is the massive restmass that is responsible for forming a black hole under certain conditions.

See for example, the usenet Relativity FAQ
<A HREF="http://hepweb.rl.ac.uk/ppUK/PhysFAQ/black_fast.html">If you go too fast do you become a black hole?</A>

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by MacM
Persol,




*********************
Reply:What happened to infinite mass at v = c. Are you saying that Relativity doesn't predict that? Or are you saying infinite mass doesn't represent a Black Hole.? You can't excapre conclusions based on the prediction. The jprediction of infinite mass certainly implies at least a Black Hole equal to the entire mass of the universe in a particle sized container if that is the object being accelerated!"
*********************

I am saying the Relativity Taken in its entirety (SR & GR) does not predict that an object will collapse into a black hole as a result of its velocity. That argument is based on a misrepresentation of Relativity,pure and simple.





****************
Reply: I don't buy your assumption of nothing or all here.



Not an assumption, They are all inter-linked as a natural cosequence of conservation laws and the necessity of logical consistancy.


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


I also find it interesting that you use an antimatter-matter energy source; one that relies on the conversion of matter ro energy. Considering that this conversion follows the equation

E=mc² (also tested and verified),

which in turn is derived from the formula
E = mc²/(1-v²/c²),
(Which by the way shows that the energy content of any mass approaches infinity as said mass approaches c, regardless of how that velocity is achieved)


************************
Reply: The above E = mc^2 formula is a bastardized, untested version imploying relativity to force the conclusion you want.
************************


Wrong, it is a natural and logical conclusion derived from basic principles. Relativity predicts E=mc², and E=mc² has been shown to be true by observation.

A deriviation of E=Mc² can be found here:

http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/energy_mass_equivalence_body.html




************************
Reply: The same can be said for your arguement above with regard to claiming Relativity doesn't mean Black Holes at v = c.
************************


Wrong again. My argument actual relies on the complete usage and understanding of Relativity(including GR), rather than your incomplete version.

Your argument, rests on simply rejecting those parts you find inconvenient.

Persol,

Sorry for the mix up on who's text I was responding to. To many people yelling at once - :bugeye:

***************************************
Reply: The above E = mc^2 formula is a bastardized, untested
version imploying relativity to force the conclusion you want.
Have you heard of atomic weapons/reactors? You can use E=mc^2 to calculate the amount of energy released. It is tested.


************************
Reply: Surely you jest. I am a certified 1st Class Control Room Nuclear Reactor Operator with Nuclear Engineering. My point was that the Relavistic function place under E = mc^2/(here), doesn't belong there. It was added just to make E=mc^2 go to infinity at v = c. I can add those functions to anything but garbage in garbage out.
*************************


Reply: The same can be said for your arguement above with regard to claiming Relativity doesn't mean Black Holes at v = c.

Fine, I'l say that relativity means current mass * infinity = new mass at the speed of light. However, the statement doesn't mean anything.

*****************
Reply: It dang sure does mean something. It means you are stuffing every bit of mass in the universe into a single particle. If that doesn't equal a Black HOle and all that conetates, I don't know what would.
*****************


Just answer JamesR's questions already (repeated for ease of viewing):
* What is the nature of this "greater creation"?
* By "greater", do you just mean physically larger or something else?
* What is the nature of this boundary you mention? Is it a physical boundary, like a wall, or something different?


**************************
Reply: It is more of the same as exists in our Universe. But it lies beyond the Quantitative Domain Limit". That is a distance based on energy field density and coefficient of absorbtion. It causes physical dimension to shrink (simular to Lorentz Contraction but due to seperation and self disapation of the field not velocity); hence physics stops where time space stops, making our Universe a Finite bubble in a (larger) creation. If you move you move your Universal Domain Limit and remain in the center of the bubble.
**************************


* What is an energy level differential?

***************
Reply:c, 2c, 3c,......... and any interval inbetween in terms of relative velocity.
***************


* How does energy density constitute a "domain limit"?


************************
Reply: The greater the energy density of the field the further you can be seperated and still remain encompassed in our physical universe. time-space dimenishes over vast seperations due to self interaction or disapation. When energy at your level has disapated over seperation there is no more time-space. that is the Quantitative Domain Barrier.
************************


* How, specifically, is the energy density and physical dimension of the universe related to the domain limit?

*******************
Reply: I believe I have answered this but I'll try and give shorter answer using a little different explanation. The Quantitative Domain Limit is a point after seperation (Distance) that time-space goees to aero through energy disapation.
*******************


*Could you please stop tiptoeing around the issue? You keep alluding to the powerful explanatory power of UniKEF, yet you never actually tell us what UniKEF predicts, or how it predicts it.


*****************
Reply: That is a boat load. I don't see how it is possible to reduce an answer to a few paragraphs. It will be necessary to cover aspects one at a time in an orderly fashion.

But to set the stage: UniKEF energy exists over a large range in a smooth spectrum of energies - i.e. c, 2c, 3c......etc. Each observers universe is limited to a differential range of c along the relavistic curve, although relativity is not used to develope that curve. They both describe the same response for example to Lorentz Contraction. That feature is the Qualitative Domain Limit.
****************


* If UniKEF is primarily a theory of gravity, how does it model gravity? Is gravity a force? If so, what is its mathematical form? If not, what is it?

*******************
Reply: UniKEF flows omnidirectionally and homogeneously throughout the Universe. As it passes through matter it (upon occassional interaction) transfers momentum to the mass. The statistical reduction of energy density by that jprocess results in less energy flowing outward from between two masses and more flowing into the masses external to their line of gravity. The result is a net push of the masses together.

For mathematics: U*~*(m1*m2/(cone of sources integrated).

You would have to review the graphics and calculus (8) pages to get more detail.
**********************


* What is the central concept of UniKEF, as it pertains to gravity?


********************
Reply: Energy differential between the amount of energy flow inbetween two masses vs the energy available and flowing to the masses from the universe external to the space between the masses; causing a net momentum transfer (force) pushing the masses together.
*********************



* What is Le Sage gravity?

********************
Reply: Le' Sage a famous Frenchman that proposed a simular view of gravity 300 years ago. BTW, that view is becoming more popular everyday.
********************


* Which data, specifically, is outside explanation by any current theory.

*************************
Reply:I'll cannot give more detail than this at this time but I will tell you this. Gravity is geometry sensative. Integrating to the Center of Mass (COM) just don't cut it.

UniKEf calculus of the geometry works COM doesnot.
*************************



* Please give one example of where UniKEF explains an observation better than current theory. Tell us how UniKEF explains the observation, and what is wrong with the conventional explanation. [quote]

**********************
Reply:We have already discussed several that all link together. No mass change, no v = c limit on self-propelled objects. While a link has been posted that proclaims to resolve the Quasar observation but it appears to be BS.

It assumes in the first instance that nothing can exceed the speed of light and bases its math on that proposition, throws in relavistic terms into trig functions and comes up with an answer that is under v = c.

I recognize this doesn't prove they are wrong. But it damn sure doesn't prove the quasars aren't moving at v>c just as we observe.

The absence of relavisitc mass permits v>c. UniKEF sees v = c as a limit to the Qualitative Domain Limit. In that regard we see the Quasar motion because that motion is not relative to us (parallel)
it is orthogonal which doesnot result in relavistic alteration. But it would consider the fragment parts are non-existant to each other in that they are seperated in energy level by v>c. They have vanished by Lorentz Contraction.
******************

[quote]
* How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories? [quote]

*********************
Reply: It agrees with infinite energy being required to accelerate a mass where such energy must be applied relavisitcally - So it is consistant with observation but the reason for that is energy transfer efficiency decrease not actual mass increase. That leaves objects free to move under their own proulsion source and
enter or lave our Qualitative Domain.

All of that fits observation without the assumptions and special math to make it otherwise. Further it reduces the logical conflicts of mass being 1 pound, 100 pound or infinite all at the same time depending upon the relative veocities of multiple observers.
*********************

[quote]
* Please provide specific examples. (Your quasar example is not a valid example, as current physics explains quite clearly why apparent quasar velocities can under certain conditions appear to be faster than light - as explained in another thread.)

******************
Reply:

1-I clearly disagree as pointed out above, that work is based on and makes a first cause assumption that nothing can exceed v=c and established factors to correct it and make it fit Relativity.

2- In any case, as has all ready been agreed to in this string. There is no evidence of a relavistic mass change on bodies in recession relative to us at substantial % c.

3-Conventional theory is inadequate to explain gravity correctly as stated above.

All the above fit UniKEF.
*******************



* Please explain clearly why infinite energy is not required to accelerate an object to the speed of light in the case of self-propelled rockets. If possible, please provide the relevant mathematics which supports your view.


*******************
Reply: Infinite energy is only required if it is pushing infinite mass. In UniKEF there is no mass change. Energy increase is the result of energy transfer efficiency decrease. A self propelled object has no relative velocity between it eneregy source, thrust device or load. Math is really complicated: F = ma, W = Fd, P=W/t.
*************************************


* Please provide links or references to examples of observations of massive objects travelling faster than light.

**************
Reply: already done. Quasars.
**************


* How exactly does this decrease in efficiency occur?

******************
Reply: It is linked to Dimension Contraction. An object in motion has an orthogonal wave from proportinal to velocity. As relative velocity increases applied energy goes more and more orthogonally into space instead of applying the force to the object. It is simular to an EM field around a coil. It becomes stored in space.
*****************


* What is its mathematical form?

******************
Reply: In regards to what?
******************


* Can you give a concrete example?

*******************
Reply: In regard to what?
*******************


* Show me how UniKEF computes it.


******************
Reply: In regard to what?
*******************



* Have there been any examples of objects vanishing upon reaching v=c? Where can I find them?

****************
Reply: Look at all the examples of things not vanishing a v = c.
Pun intended. You see numerous Quasars with traverse velocities of v>c. How many do you see parallel to us at v=>c?

Are you saying every quasar or FLT object in the universe just happens to have its vector orthogonal to us or do such objects exist but are outside our Qualivative Domain Limit"?.
*********************


* What tests are being performed?

*********************
Reply: Mass geometry effects on gravity.
*********************


* Where are the tests being done?

*********************
Reply:In the State of Indiana. In a basement.
*********************



* Who is doing the tests?

********************
Reply: A retired technical person that joined UniKEF and became interested in the concept. Data will be published and methods described such that others can duplicate these tests and they will get the same results.
*********************


[quote]
* When and where will t
he test results be published?[/qote]

****************************
Reply: The testing is broken into two distinct phases. The first phase has been completed and shows the responses predicted.

The second phase is currently underway and is designed to emphasize the results of the first phase. That is to jput the icing on the cake. Current data is sufficient to make the point. But the followup testing makes it armor clad.

A draft has already been written and final details need only be entered and printed. Still shooting for April (this year).
*******************************
*****************************

Have you heard of atomic weapons/reactors? You can use E=mc^2 to calculate the amount of energy released. It is tested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Surely you jest. I am a certified 1st Class Control Room Nuclear Reactor Operator with Nuclear Engineering.
Yes I know. You have first hand knowledge of what e=mc^2 has given us.

My point was that the Relavistic function place under E = mc^2/(here), doesn't belong there. It was added just to make E=mc^2 go to infinity at v = c. I can add those functions to anything but garbage in garbage out.
First, the UniKEF theory currently has a 'garbage in garbage out' funtion in the gravity function that was developed. Second, E = mc²/(1-v²/c²) was derived first, and then simplified to E=mc^2. It wasn't just 'to go to infinity at v = c'.

Fine, I'l say that relativity means current mass * infinity = new mass at the speed of light. However, the statement doesn't mean anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: It dang sure does mean something. It means you are stuffing every bit of mass in the universe into a single particle. If that doesn't equal a Black HOle and all that conetates, I don't know what would.
It doesn't mean anything because nothing with mass can reach the speed of light. Even stuff that approaches very close will not form a blackhole, as others have explained.

* What is the nature of this "greater creation"?
* By "greater", do you just mean physically larger or something else?
* What is the nature of this boundary you mention? Is it a physical boundary, like a wall, or something different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: It is more of the same as exists in our Universe. But it lies beyond the Quantitative Domain Limit".
If it lies beyond the limit why do we have to worry about it, and how is it provable/disprovable?

...hence physics stops where time space stops, making our Universe a Finite bubble in a (larger) creation.
So why consider the 'greater creation'?

If you move you move your Universal Domain Limit and remain in the center of the bubble.
What does this mean and how does it happen?

* What is an energy level differential?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:c, 2c, 3c,......... and any interval inbetween in terms of relative velocity.
So why is energy level differential differnt then velocity?
How does energy level differential form a domain limit?

* How does energy density constitute a "domain limit"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: The greater the energy density of the field the further you can be seperated and still remain encompassed in our physical universe.
Further seperated from what?

time-space dimenishes over vast seperations due to self interaction or disapation. When energy at your level has disapated over seperation there is no more time-space. that is the Quantitative Domain Barrier.
So beyond this barrier you simple vanish because physics no longer holds true? What is the function/reasoning/proof for this barrier?

* How, specifically, is the energy density and physical dimension of the universe related to the domain limit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: The Quantitative Domain Limit is a point after seperation (Distance) that time-space goees to aero through energy disapation.
time-space goes to aero? And how is space-time 'going' if there is no space? (no space, no movement)

*Could you please stop tiptoeing around the issue? You keep alluding to the powerful explanatory power of UniKEF, yet you never actually tell us what UniKEF predicts, or how it predicts it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UniKEF energy exists over a large range in a smooth spectrum of energies - i.e. c, 2c, 3c......etc. Each observers universe is limited to a differential range of c along the relavistic curve, although relativity is not used to develope that curve. They both describe the same response for example to Lorentz Contraction. That feature is the Qualitative Domain Limit.
So stuff goes faster then c, but not in our universe, but a different universe? This speed is measured in relation to what? If you are saying that the quasar explanations are wrong, why didn't the quasars go into this other universe?

* If UniKEF is primarily a theory of gravity, how does it model gravity? Is gravity a force? If so, what is its mathematical form? If not, what is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mathematics: U*~*(m1*m2/(cone of sources integrated).
As you've said for e=mc^s, GIGO.

You would have to review the graphics and calculus (8) pages to get more detail.
We have, and we (or atleast I) don't see any benefit to a theory which can't produce any mathematical results for a simply situation.

* What is Le Sage gravity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Le' Sage a famous Frenchman that proposed a simular view of gravity 300 years ago. BTW, that view is becoming more popular everyday.
BTW, not among physicists but it is discussed often in perpetual motion circles.

* Which data, specifically, is outside explanation by any current theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:I'll cannot give more detail than this at this time but I will tell you this. Gravity is geometry sensative. Integrating to the Center of Mass (COM) just don't cut it. UniKEf calculus of the geometry works COM doesnot.
Bullshit. That is a very large claim, and we are not just going to say 'Oh it must be right if MacM said it'. All your alleged proof of data supporting your view has been shot down, and I suspect that any further data will be of the same quality.

* Please give one example of where UniKEF explains an observation better than current theory. Tell us how UniKEF explains the observation, and what is wrong with the conventional explanation.
**********************
Reply:We have already discussed several that all link together. No mass change, no v = c limit on self-propelled objects.
This has not been observed, and therefore is not a problem.

While a link has been posted that proclaims to resolve the Quasar observation but it appears to be BS.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it BS. Refute the explaination if you don't like it.

It assumes in the first instance that nothing can exceed the speed of light and bases its math on that proposition, throws in relavistic terms into trig functions and comes up with an answer that is under v = c.
Odd, your theory does the same thing. The difference is that relativity has been shown by experiments to be correct.

I recognize this doesn't prove they are wrong. But it damn sure doesn't prove the quasars aren't moving at v>c just as we observe.
It doesn't prove it absolutely, but it proves it to the best of our ability without flyign to a quasar. They suggest a reason for the observation, and prove it using math. Case closed.

The absence of relavisitc mass permits v>c. UniKEF sees v = c as a limit to the Qualitative Domain Limit. In that regard we see the Quasar motion because that motion is not relative to us (parallel)
it is orthogonal which doesnot result in relavistic alteration. But it would consider the fragment parts are non-existant to each other in that they are seperated in energy level by v>c. They have vanished by Lorentz Contraction.
Why is this explanation better then the current one?

* How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories?
*********************
Reply: It agrees with infinite energy being required to accelerate a mass where such energy must be applied relavisitcally - So it is consistant with observation but the reason for that is energy transfer efficiency decrease not actual mass increase. That leaves objects free to move under their own proulsion source and
enter or lave our Qualitative Domain.
And this means what? If you accelerate 2 atoms in the same direction in a particle accelerator, and they collide, you will have the same result as a rocket spitting out an atom. Niether atom goes faster then c.

All of that fits observation without the assumptions and special math to make it otherwise. Further it reduces the logical conflicts of mass being 1 pound, 100 pound or infinite all at the same time depending upon the relative veocities of multiple observers.
First, there is a logical conflict to the relative mass. Second, you are saying you are in complete agreement with relativity anyhow. The only place you don't agree is in areas that we will never be able to test. So I ask again "How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories?"

* Please provide specific examples. (Your quasar example is not a valid example, as current physics explains quite clearly why apparent quasar velocities can under certain conditions appear to be faster than light - as explained in another thread.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: 1-I clearly disagree as pointed out above, that work is based on and makes a first cause assumption that nothing can exceed v=c and established factors to correct it and make it fit Relativity.
I don't care if you disagree. The assumption has been shown to be valid in every observer case and explained.

2- In any case, as has all ready been agreed to in this string. There is no evidence of a relavistic mass change on bodies in recession relative to us at substantial % c.
And there is no proof of anything going faster then c either. What's your point?

3-Conventional theory is inadequate to explain gravity correctly as stated above.
I'll ask again "Can you provide specific examples?"

* Please explain clearly why infinite energy is not required to accelerate an object to the speed of light in the case of self-propelled rockets. If possible, please provide the relevant mathematics which supports your view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Infinite energy is only required if it is pushing infinite mass. In UniKEF there is no mass change. Energy increase is the result of energy transfer efficiency decrease. A self propelled object has no relative velocity between it eneregy source, thrust device or load. Math is really complicated: F = ma, W = Fd, P=W/t.
How are you going to create a system where there is no relative velocity between the thrust and the load?

* Please provide links or references to examples of observations of massive objects travelling faster than light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: already done. Quasars.
Please provide one that science doesn't easily explain, and then show how you explain it better.

* How exactly does this decrease in efficiency occur?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: It is linked to Dimension Contraction. An object in motion has an orthogonal wave from proportinal to velocity.
A wave of what?

As relative velocity increases applied energy goes more and more orthogonally into space instead of applying the force to the object. It is simular to an EM field around a coil. It becomes stored in space.
And space does what with this energy?

* What is its mathematical form?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: In regards to what?
How about for the energy transfer to start.

* Can you give a concrete example?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: In regard to what?
How this explains relative mass?

* Show me how UniKEF computes it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: In regard to what?
Lorentz Contraction

* Have there been any examples of objects vanishing upon reaching v=c? Where can I find them?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Look at all the examples of things not vanishing a v = c.
Pun intended. You see numerous Quasars with traverse velocities of v>c. How many do you see parallel to us at v=>c?
This has already been explained to you.

Are you saying every quasar or FLT object in the universe just happens to have its vector orthogonal to us or do such objects exist but are outside our Qualivative Domain Limit"?.
The reason for this is geometrical, and has been explained.

* What tests are being performed?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Mass geometry effects on gravity.
Current theory already takes geomerty into account by integrating the simple form over a volume.

* Where are the tests being done?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:In the State of Indiana. In a basement.
I won't even ask how you do accurate gravity experiments in someones basement.
* Who is doing the tests?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: A retired technical person that joined UniKEF and became interested in the concept. Data will be published and methods described such that others can duplicate these tests and they will get the same results. [/b]
And you can not release any prelimenary information? It will save time arguing if you are right, and same time experimenting if we can point out flaws.

* When and where will the test results be published?
****************************
Reply: Current data is sufficient to make the point.
Then release it. Just post the text, or scan the page, or e-fax to yourself and put up the jpgs.

Persol,

I think I will respond here and drop it. Anyone interested can come to UniKEF and get a much clearer picture than trying to grab pieces here and there and give brief summaries. It has to all tie together. This approach doesn't achieve that.



Reply: Surely you jest. I am a certified 1st Class Control Room Nuclear Reactor Operator with Nuclear Engineering.

Yes I know. You have first hand knowledge of what e=mc^2 has given us.

My point was that the Relavistic function place under E = mc^2/(here), doesn't belong there. It was added just to make E=mc^2 go to infinity at v = c. I can add those functions to anything but garbage in garbage out.
First, the UniKEF theory currently has a 'garbage in garbage out' funtion in the gravity function that was developed.

**************
Reply: Garbage in/garbage out could be said for Relativity as well. But If garbage in properly defines gravity and Relativity doesn't. What can I say but sorry, you'll have to eat crow.
****************



Second, E = mc²/(1-v²/c²) was derived first, and then simplified to E=mc^2. It wasn't just 'to go to infinity at v = c'.

**************
Reply: I wouldn't argue against that point but that doesn't mean it belongs there.
****************



Fine, I'l say that relativity means current mass * infinity = new mass at the speed of light. However, the statement doesn't mean anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: It dang sure does mean something. It means you are stuffing every bit of mass in the universe into a single particle. If that doesn't equal a Black HOle and all that conetates, I don't know what would.



*****************
Reply: Only in accordance to your untested, unverified prediction of a theory that that no longer says what Einstien wrote and for which there exists an equally valid and recognized theory called LOrentz Relativity which has no such limit. This is a matter of choice and I suggest you are making an improper one.
*****************


* What is the nature of this "greater creation"?
* By "greater", do you just mean physically larger or something else?
* What is the nature of this boundary you mention? Is it a physical boundary, like a wall, or something different?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: It is more of the same as exists in our Universe. But it lies beyond the Quantitative Domain Limit".
If it lies beyond the limit why do we have to worry about it, and how is it provable/disprovable?

...hence physics stops where time space stops, making our Universe a Finite bubble in a (larger) creation.
So why consider the 'greater creation'?

If you move you move your Universal Domain Limit and remain in the center of the bubble.

[quote]
What does this mean and how does it happen?

*********************
Reply:Time-space disapates through self interaction (simular to rubbing your hands together - friction losses). After extreme distance dimension goes to zero. Without time-space nothing physically exists to this universe but one inch beyond is more universe (greater creation). When you move that boundry moves and new object come into existance in your universe.
***********************


* What is an energy level differential?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:c, 2c, 3c,......... and any interval inbetween in terms of relative velocity.
So why is energy level differential differnt then velocity?

*******************
Reply: It isn't. But this is velocity of the energy field, not your velocity.
*******************


How does energy level differential form a domain limit?

******************
Reply: Dimensional Contraction
******************


* How does energy density constitute a "domain limit"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: The greater the energy density of the field the further you can be seperated and still remain encompassed in our physical universe.

Further seperated from what?


*************
Reply: You to a point in creation where no time-space exists relative to you.
*************



time-space dimenishes over vast seperations due to self interaction or disapation. When energy at your level has disapated over seperation there is no more time-space. that is the Quantitative Domain Barrier.


So beyond this barrier you simple vanish because physics no longer holds true?

***********************
Reply: No. Physics holds true for you but your physics are no longer connected to the other observer and his physics. Same as dimensional contraction to zero.
************************



What is the function/reasoning/proof for this barrier?

**********************
Reply: Gravity would not have the inverse square relationship if the universe were not limited. This concept is based on a logical energy loss function which would infact create such a Domain Limit. (Barrier sounds to much like an egg shell wall. There is no wall, Just a Domain LImit where time-space ceases to exist to an observer.
*********************



* How, specifically, is the energy density and physical dimension of the universe related to the domain limit?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: The Quantitative Domain Limit is a point after seperation (Distance) that time-space goes to zero through energy disapation.


time-space goes to aero? And how is space-time 'going' if there is no space? (no space, no movement)

******************
Reply: Lets not play word games. "Goes to zero" does not imply nor mean motion. It is a point of T-Ek------->0.
******************


*Could you please stop tiptoeing around the issue? You keep alluding to the powerful explanatory power of UniKEF, yet you never actually tell us what UniKEF predicts, or how it predicts it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UniKEF energy exists over a large range in a smooth spectrum of energies - i.e. c, 2c, 3c......etc. Each observers universe is limited to a differential range of c along the relavistic curve, although relativity is not used to develope that curve. They both describe the same response for example to Lorentz Contraction. That feature is the Qualitative Domain Limit.


So stuff goes faster then c, but not in our universe, but a different universe? This speed is measured in relation to what?

******************
Reply: Existance is on a gradient. If we are at rest relative to each other then we share common object in our universe, subject to the shift in our Qualitative Domian Limits by virtue of our seperation distance only.

If we are at a relative velocity to each other we share common objects up to a point of 2c (that common object would be a c relative to each of us) bey9ond that there is nothing common.

Everything in our universes would be entirely different. That is why two rockets flysing side by side exists with no relative effects noticable but should they reach or exceed v = c to you lthey cease to exists to you but still exist to each other with no relative velocity.
******************

[quote]
If you are saying that the quasar explanations are wrong, why didn't the quasars go into this other universe?

******************
Reply: That motion is not relative to use. Do you see any quasars having v>c coming at us? No. Does it make sense that
all Quasars activity in the universe is orthogonal to us? No. So what is a logical answer.

They exists but at v=>c to use don't exist to us.
******************



* If UniKEF is primarily a theory of gravity, how does it model gravity? Is gravity a force? If so, what is its mathematical form? If not, what is it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For mathematics: U*~*(m1*m2/(cone of sources integrated).
As you've said for e=mc^s, GIGO.

You would have to review the graphics and calculus (8) pages to get more detail.

We have, and we (or atleast I) don't see any benefit to a theory which can't produce any mathematical results for a simply situation.

*****************
Reply: Maybe because it produces correct gravity calculations and Relativity doesn't? And maybe because it is what gravity is.
It doesn't have to be simple to be correct.
*******************


* What is Le Sage gravity?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Le' Sage a famous Frenchman that proposed a simular view of gravity 300 years ago. BTW, that view is becoming more popular everyday.

BTW, not among physicists but it is discussed often in perpetual motion circles.

******************
Reply: I beg your pardon. That is just plain BS. Show me one such reference of Le' Sage gravity to perpetual motion. - That is a challenge.
******************



* Which data, specifically, is outside explanation by any current theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:I'll cannot give more detail than this at this time but I will tell you this. Gravity is geometry sensative. Integrating to the Center of Mass (COM) just don't cut it. UniKEf calculus of the geometry works COM doesnot.


Bullshit. That is a very large claim, and we are not just going to say 'Oh it must be right if MacM said it'. All your alleged proof of data supporting your view has been shot down, and I suspect that any further data will be of the same quality.

*********************
Reply: Your response is bullshit. Nothing has been shot down. Every objection made relies upon unproven extrapolations of Relativity which is in conflict with current observation.

As far as our data goes I'll make you an honorable mans challenge.

1 - If UniKEF gravity test data does not show what I have claimed. That is that no theory of gravity that relies upon the center of gravity as a point of calculation is valid. I will not say ever again on this MSB that Relativity sucks and is invalid.

2 - If what I claim about the UniKEF gravity test data is correct then you will forever agree on this MSB that Relativity sucks and is invalid.

DEAL?
************************



* Please give one example of where UniKEF explains an observation better than current theory. Tell us how UniKEF explains the observation, and what is wrong with the conventional explanation.
**********************
Reply:We have already discussed several that all link together. No mass change, no v = c limit on self-propelled objects.

This has not been observed, and therefore is not a problem.

*********************
Reply: Vice-Versa. Your claims about Relativity and an absolute limit of v = c has not been tested nor observered. Just the opposite. v>c is routinely observed.
*********************



While a link has been posted that proclaims to resolve the Quasar observation but it appears to be BS.


Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it BS. Refute the explaination if you don't like it.

**************************
Reply: I do understand it. that is the problem. And I did refute it. Do you deny that they repeatedly state "because nothing can exceed v = c, therefore "this equals that" and they stick it in the formula?

That isn't resolving the observation. It is writing a by-pass to the problem. Its whole premis is that nothing can exceed v = c. So certainly that is going to be the end result of the formula.

What do you want to bet that it can be altered to show that nothing exits with a velocity below v = c?

The observation is real. The math is BS and proves nothing.
***************************


It assumes in the first instance that nothing can exceed the speed of light and bases its math on that proposition, throws in relavistic terms into trig functions and comes up with an answer that is under v = c.

Odd, your theory does the same thing. The difference is that relativity has been shown by experiments to be correct.

*******************
Reply: Considering that UniKEF finds the same observation (mass effect), etc., I guess that means UniKEF must also be correct.
*******************


I recognize this doesn't prove they are wrong. But it damn sure doesn't prove the quasars aren't moving at v>c just as we observe.

It doesn't prove it absolutely, but it proves it to the best of our ability without flyign to a quasar. They suggest a reason for the observation, and prove it using math. Case closed.


*******************
Reply: Case re-opened. Not so fast .

1 - "They suggest a reason for the observation"? "Prove it with math?" I don't think so. Make sure you actually read what I have written above. Their math only prove the assumptions they made in formulating the solution. It is all based on "Ratio of speed of light" and factors in a formula. They clearly state they are creating operators based on the assumption that nothing exceed v = c. That premis establishs "Correction factors" to compute observation to make it fit the initial assumption. Nothing more nothing less. It proves absolutely nothing except we can scale what we see and make it fit a preconcieved idea.

2 - You haven't answered my question. Why do you suppose that all v = c observations are orthogonal to us? Are all quasar activity coincidently orthogonal to our vantage point? I suggest not.

So then if Relativity is correct we should see an equal number of Quasar jets coming at us by some relavistically adjusted velocity just below v = c.

Wonder why we don't see that? Maybe it is because Relativity sucks and is invalid. And what really is going on is that such objects exist but are beyond our Qualitative Domain Limit and cease to exist in our universe. We only see those that don't have relavistic velocity of v=>c to us. Gee that sounds like UniKEF.
**********************


The absence of relavisitc mass permits v>c. UniKEF sees v = c as a limit to the Qualitative Domain Limit. In that regard we see the Quasar motion because that motion is not relative to us (parallel)
it is orthogonal which doesnot result in relavistic alteration. But it would consider the fragment parts are non-existant to each other in that they are seperated in energy level by v>c. They have vanished by Lorentz Contraction.


Why is this explanation better then the current one?

**********************
Reply: Because it is the correct explanation? Yours doesn't answer my question about quasar activity directed at us. We don't see it. According to you we shold if relativity adjusts its velocity to keep it below v = c.
**********************


* How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories?
*********************
Reply: It agrees with infinite energy being required to accelerate a mass where such energy must be applied relavisitcally - So it is consistant with observation but the reason for that is energy transfer efficiency decrease not actual mass increase. That leaves objects free to move under their own proulsion source and
enter or leave our Qualitative Domain.


And this means what? If you accelerate 2 atoms in the same direction in a particle accelerator, and they collide, you will have the same result as a rocket spitting out an atom. Niether atom goes faster then c.

*****************
Reply:Check this statement. It makes no sense. Don't think you said what you intended.
******************



All of that fits observation without the assumptions and special math to make it otherwise. Further it reduces the logical conflicts of mass being 1 pound, 100 pound or infinite all at the same time depending upon the relative veocities of multiple observers.
First, there is a logical conflict to the relative mass. Second, you are saying you are in complete agreement with relativity anyhow.


The only place you don't agree is in areas that we will never be able to test.

So I ask again "How, then, can UniKEF possibly hope to improve on current theories?"

*********************************
Reply: I could say that was convienent but that isn't the case. I have just given you a test. What about Quasar activity not being viewed coming toward us?
*********************************



* Please provide specific examples. (Your quasar example is not a valid example, as current physics explains quite clearly why apparent quasar velocities can under certain conditions appear to be faster than light - as explained in another thread.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply:

1-I clearly disagree as pointed out above, that work is based on and makes a first cause assumption that nothing can exceed v=c and established factors to correct it and make it fit Relativity.
I don't care if you disagree. The assumption has been shown to be valid in every observer case and explained.

2- In any case, as has all ready been agreed to in this string. There is no evidence of a relavistic mass change on bodies in recession relative to us at substantial % c.
And there is no proof of anything going faster then c either. What's your point?

3-Conventional theory is inadequate to explain gravity correctly as stated above.


I'll ask again "Can you provide specific examples?"

********************
Reply: I already have.
********************



* Please explain clearly why infinite energy is not required to accelerate an object to the speed of light in the case of self-propelled rockets. If possible, please provide the relevant mathematics which supports your view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: Infinite energy is only required if it is pushing infinite mass.

In UniKEF there is no mass change. Energy increase is the result of energy transfer efficiency decrease. A self propelled object has no relative velocity between its energy source, thrust device or load. Math is really complicated: F = ma, W = Fd, P=W/t.

How are you going to create a system where there is no relative velocity between the thrust and the load?

****************
Reply: I've already done that. But that is just another arguement so I won't go there. One doesn't have to provide engineered design to do a hypothetical exercise to test the mathematics of a theory. Or have you knowledge of tests about Relativity that I am unaware of.?
*****************



* Please provide links or references to examples of observations of massive objects travelling faster than light.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: already done. Quasars.
Please provide one that science doesn't easily explain, and then show how you explain it better. [/qipte]

***************
Reply: Lets turn this around. I have already explained that your beloved solutoin is not a solution but an algorithum desinged to return observation into the accepted result of Relativity and that it is openly based on making the v = c limit a primary assumtion in the first instance. All they have done is develope a scaler to force observation to be something that it isn't to fit the desired result. It is proof of absolutely nothing.
*****************


[quote]
* How exactly does this decrease in efficiency occur?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply: It is linked to Dimension Contraction. An object in motion has an orthogonal wave from proportinal to velocity.

A wave of what?

**************************
Reply: Now I know you know the answer to tht, so I won't waste time repeating what we both know.
*************************



As relative velocity increases applied energy goes more and more orthogonally into space instead of applying the force to the object. It is simular to an EM field around a coil. It becomes stored in space.


And space does what with this energy?

******************
Reply: You are on a bicycle going 20 Mph in the same direction as a 20 Mph wind and you have a large sail attached to the handle bars . How much force do you feel? Slam on the brakes. How much force do you feel?

It is stored and wating to be applied to try and maintain the velocity of the mass which makes it appear