James R.,

I hope this meets your standard for posting. Due to delays in completion of the project I have decided to post current results and findings. Thanks.

**************** Response to Inquiry ****************
Testing has not been done for a couple of months due to a family emergency of my partner in Indiana. But we have been communicating and he has built a new detector which we are getting close to re-starting testing. We discovered a source of some of the strange data results we were getting. The data was still positive as to what we wanted to see but the values were varying widely and made it necessary to use "statistical analysis" to see desired results. The problem is simular to "Noise to Signal Ratio" in electronics. Our equipment it turns out was being affected by the positions of the Sun and Moon.

Once we discovered that we spent several weeks plotting data tracking the Sun and Moon. From that we have learned when we have stable periods for testing (which slows down our progress since we only have a few good days a month to get stable data).

To put the problem into perspective mathematical calculations showed that the forces from the Sun and Moon are much larger that the forces we are tracking in our detector. Sun 1E6 times and Moon 1E5 times and the overall affect of these outside gravity forces varied as their phases go into and out of lock step.

Since we have learned all this it is actually going to help the overall project in that we are also now discussing how to build a direct vector analysis machine that will give reading of optical and gravity alignments of the sun simultaneously. That should allow us to be able to do a direct calculation of SOG (Speed of Gravity).

So be patient. It is going to be worth the wait.

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

Universal Kenetic Energy Field
............(UniKEF)
........Gravity Testing
-------------------------------------------


..............................................Abst ract

UniKEF Gravity is a concept resulting from attenuation and/or
absorbtion of a universal kenetic energy flow by mass.

The concept has been dormant since its inception in 1954 due
the lack of evidence of such a field existing.

Recent work in the area of the "Chiral Condensate", the breaking
down of the "Vacuum or Voids" of space into constituant parts and
finding vast stores of energy, as well as the fact that particle
pairs come into existance and anihilate releasing energy in
1E-43 seconds, prompted a renewed effort to find a means of
testing the UniKEF concept.

The test took advantage of the fact that UniKEF Gravity is not
based upon the Center of Mass (COM) as it is in other Newtonian,
Relavistic and Quantum theories of gravity, in UniKEF gravity is
based on geometry.

A test was devised which tested the acceleration of gravity using
a modified Cavendish Balance where the test mass was symmetrical with
a hole through its center.

While the mass nor the COM change from different perspectives
the force of gravity was shown to vary as predicted by UniKEF as
being an externally generated force as a function of the specific
geometry and not an inherent local property of mass itself or that
of curved time-space; which function in response to the COM of the
mass.

The hole through the center formed a UniKEF port. The test mass
functioned as a gravity throttle valve. Opening and closing the port
increased and decreased gravity when there was no change in mass nor
center of mass.

This result is unaccounted for by other conventional concepts of
gravity.

A second series of tests are scheduled which involve a "Remote Port Plug"
shaped the same as the port, and of the same density as the missing
mass of the port in the valve, at a remote location and aligned with
the port setting.

Doing so should result in the test valve responding as though it were
once again a solid homogeneous mass where gravity appears to be based
on the COM.

Alignment of the local port should no longer alter the force of gravity.

This will clearly show that gravity is not a local phenomena but one
generated in accordance with the external field view and geometric
calculus of UniKEF Gravity.

************************************************
Pictures of equipment and testing setup may be viewed at:

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

Click "View All" on the Photo Album" at the right margin of the home page.


************** Sample Data ******************

Without a Gravity Port Plug: Monday, February 10, 2003; 4:56 PM
All tests were conducted with 4:00 minutes between readings.

TYPICAL
TEST DATA ............Time (Seconds)...................Open - Closed
---------.............--------------------------------------............--------------------
Test #..............Port Open.....Port Closed...............Differential
---------..............---------------.....----------------................--------------
1.....................68.99.............56.13..... ..............+12.86 (1)
2.....................55.34.............45.92..... ..............+ 9.42
3.....................59.82.............56.91..... ..............+ 2.91
4.....................59.34.............48.13..... ..............+11.21
5.....................47.93.............45.12..... ..............+ 2.81
6.....................42.12.............55.11..... ..............-12.99 (1)
7.....................54.16.............47.91..... ..............+ 6.25
8.....................68.54.............60.31..... ..............+ 8.23
9.....................52.91.............45.47..... ..............+ 7.44
......................--------..............-------.....................---------
......................56.57 Avg.......51.22 Avg.............+ 5.35 Avg
.................................................. .....................+ 5.34 Avg (1) Hi/Lo discarded

With the Gravity Port Plug: Open

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

FYI: Calculations show that we are attempting to measure response differentials based on F = ma where Delta F is on the order of 60 trillionths of a pound. So the test is not a direct force measurement but of response to force by timing the movabale torsion arm over a fixed distance from point of release to contact at the detector.

A slight reverse bias is set by a rotatable link in the suspension fiber to hold the weight back against an electrically grounded back stop.

The operator must also wear a ground cable to eliminate electrostatic effects.

We also learned that the operator must stand in the arms general plane some distance away to not affect the readings.

Even activity in other parts of the home have on occasion disrupted the ability to acquire data. It is damn sensative.

We also control temperature and humitity and had an air barrier built around the device to mitigate air current disturbances.

Numerous test (10 per session) have been run over these many months. Some statistical data runs would be postive by 60 seconds others by only 2-3 seconds but all have been statistically positive for the sought after affect.


Dan K. McCoin
UniKEF Author

Mac,

Didn't James specifically tell you not to do this?

- Warren

chroot,

Not as I understand his request. I am supplying data that has been generated which can be responded to pro or con as to the viability of the concept.

If he feels this is inadequate I would be disappointed but will remove the string.

I do believe what I have posted qualifies in every respect to standards for scientific testing. I give the basis for the test, what the purpose and intent of the test is, described the test arrangement, am supplying access to photographs of the test setup and data produced.

Unless I have missed something I think this qualifies to be posted and is open for peer review.

What more does master Crackpot Killer want?

Please now attack my work not my posts.

I am looking forward to positive criticisim not eneundo.

Originally posted by MacM
Please now attack my work
Jesus H. Christ... where to begin?

- Warren

chroot,

:D

WARNING, THE CONTENTS OF THIS THREAD IN NO WAY REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. IN FACT THE ONLY OPINION BEING EXPRESSED HERE IS MACS

ryans,

Is that the best you can do.:D

Almost 100 reads and no technical comments. Hmmmmm.


What happened to MacM will never post any data. Don't take my word for it and don't slam it without sound arguement. It has been presented for you or anybodyelse to duplicate the test.

Get my data and then explain yourself out of the box. That is your only valid option.

I don't comment on crackpot threads, I've got better things to do. LIKE PHYSICS.:rolleyes:

ryans,

Doesn't bother me. Considering all the times you have spent useless ink posting derogatory remarks before. Now you don't want to respond.

Have you run into a problem here?:eek:

Actually to make it a bit easier on you I will reiterate the fact that this doesnot validate UniKEF. It does however indicate a problem with current concepts and reflects a "Pushing" type of gravity as the most logical answer.

The thought of you morons, standing around that pasta pot glued to a piece of plywood, concentrating very carefully as you measure each 40 second interval on a Timex wristwatch, and thinking you're unraveling the secrets of the universe...

...IS FUNNY ENOUGH TO GIVE ME A FUCKING HERNIA!

- Warren

chroot,

The thought of you morons, standing around that pasta pot glued to a piece of plywood, concentrating very carefully as you measure each 40 second interval on a Timex wristwatch, and thinking you're unraveling the secrets of the universe...

...IS FUNNY ENOUGH TO GIVE ME A FUCKING HERNIA!

- Warren


ANS: Unfortunately you haven't addressed anything here but your ego. Pasta pot or $80M in gold bars (The way the professionals like to do things) means jack shit to physical principals unless the Micky Mouse Timex has some radical time keeping irregularities.

Of course you could always argue that "we" morons can't tell time I guess. But that will clearly be seen as defeat on your part.

Lets rather discuss the issue or better yet duplicate the experiment with your $80M in gold behind the project, oh and I forgot a large stack of Phd's just to give the Timex credability.

Let me rephrase.

Ahem. *cough cough* (clears throat)

HOLY SYSTEMATIC ERRORS BATMAN!

If you really think you're measuring gravitational effects of a few kilograms of water with a piece of PVC glued to piece of plywood, you are a far bigger idiot than I ever thought you to be.

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
HOLY SYSTEMATIC ERRORS BATMAN! Yeah, that basically sums it up. This would be much easier to point out if you showed the equations which you are using to relate t to F. However, being your experiment, it is not my job or anyone elses to figure this out.

It is even more doubtful as you are trying to say that the 5second difference is due to 60 trillionths of a pound change in force.

Even more importantly, I fail to see how this would show anything new if it actually worked. We already know that the force can not be soley determined by center of mass and total mass. As stated before this is an estimation which is correct for all our purposes. Standard methods also work fine with uniqye shapes at small distances, you just need to use some advanced math.

chroot,

Let me rephrase.

Ahem. *cough cough* (clears throat)

HOLY SYSTEMATIC ERRORS BATMAN!

If you really think you're measuring gravitational effects of a few kilograms of water with a piece of PVC glued to piece of plywood, you are a far bigger idiot than I ever thought you to be.

- Warren


ANS: Actually, I almost (But Don't) agree with you. I think I have made it clear as to the difficulties we have had with this and the instabilities, albeit all positive, have been a primary concern about releasing data.

However, having recognized that (and that you don't have a clear picture of the set up), the fact that we have continually generated "statistically" valid data I think merits using the $80M in gold bars approach.

Also you should realize that the "Control Mass" (not Pasta Pot) is now a copper - larger pot filled with sand and ultimately perhaps with lead. Also it isn't glued to a piece of plywood. That would make it hard to open and close. The plywood base has guide pins to insure COM as the control mass is rotated.

We have also built a new torsion arm which is at least 20 times more stable. (We have reduced the tendancy to track the moon and sun by being more precise in the construction of the arm. (also longer and more massive).

Our Timex is actually a legitimate stop watch. While using an atomic clock might result in better precision, reaction time, etc are not sufficient to alter the conclusions.

PS: We are also costructing an electronic compass transmitter and connecting our setup to a computer. We have just cracked the door to this and have convienced ourselves it merits a bit more sophistication.

So unless you have anything specific technically to address, I think you are in a box that you have created for yourself. Your historical comments about an "Ignorant Old Man" are at best half truths - I am old.:D

Originally posted by MacM
Also you should realize that the "Control Mass" (not Pasta Pot) is now a copper - larger pot filled with sand
Oooh, sand. A pasta pot full of sand. And they called you crazy!
Our Timex is actually a legitimate stop watch.
Oh really? Does it have the lap and split timers on it, too?
Your historical comments about an "Ignorant Old Man" are at best half truths - I am old.:D
Why exactly do you always end your posts with some ego-boosting triumphant remark? If you really were smart, and your pasta pot full of sand really did anything, you would surely have already garnered the attention of at least one of the trained people on this board. If you had any idea at all about science, someone surely would have picked up on it by now.

But no -- even the other, lesser crackpots shy away from you. You are like some kind of crackpot Buddha, so deep in Nirvana that other middling crackpots avert their gaze.

- Warren

Originally posted by MacM
Your historical comments about an "Ignorant Old Man" are at best half truths - I am old.:D You're one damn ugly woman then.

Persol,

Hey chroot hasn't even called me ugly. Don't be giving him new ideas.

Oooh, sand. A pasta pot full of sand. And they called you crazy!

Oh really? Does it have the lap and split timers on it, too?

HAHAHAHA.....LMFAO

Again

CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
:D :D :D

ryans,

I understand the ridicule. But physics doesn't really care about the cost of ones equipment. Do you have anything useful to contribute here regarding the positive results or do you think you can hide behind this flemsy wall of ignorance?:p

Mac,

Why do you think physics apparatus is so expensive? Do you think physicists just like shiny expensive toys?

- Warren

Persol,

This would be much easier to point out if you showed the equations which you are using to relate t to F.


ANS: Actually such information is only required for specific force measurement. The time change is an indirect indicator of force differential where all other factors are kept uniform.

We are not yet concerened about the mathematical details of such differential but merely to be able to show that it exists.

That was the goal of the experiment and we have been successful (barely) to show that.

Further this was a priliminary rudimentary test of the idea. Based on our results we full well intend to continue to upgrade - several times - the quality and precision, repeatability, etc., of our setup .

So all this huffing and puffing is nothing more than a waste of hot air and important opportunity to address an interesting bit of information.

You can claim other concepts are correct for all practical purposes but I challenge you here to make that apply to specific gravity calculatons.

That is show that given my "No Mass Change/No COM Change" geometry test, will result in correct predictions by your beloved theories.

Show us how Relativity will account for the non-local nature of gravity.

Relativity replaced Newton because Newton was imprecise several decimal places down the pike. But Relativity doesn't address the geometry issue.

I can say that UniKEF disagrees with Newton I can't say that UniKEF will duplicate Relativity but it may. And if it does then it is a viable alternative.

I can say that Relativity may be correct in its predictions but be incorrect as a physical reality. UniKEF (or some other pushing concept) may be the correct physical concept which produces the responses computed in Relativity.

Physicists use equipment that is highly calibrated so as to deduce that the outcome of the experiment performed, due to some measurement performed, is actually due to the phenomena in question, not some thing to do with the equipment itself. Have you tried to come up with an explanation of your experiment which is in the bounds of known physics, or have you just gone and said relativity is wrong. You should always first go and try and prove your theory wrong.

First of all, this statement is blatenly wrong

as well as the fact that particle pairs come into existance and anihilate releasing energy in 1E-43 seconds,

that would mean that the universe is not an isolated system, and the net energy of the universe would be spiralling towards infinity.

Again if you hade proper training in the methods of quantum mechanics you would know how this process takes place, but you don't, so



CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD

ryans,

Physicists use equipment that is highly calibrated so as to deduce that the outcome of the experiment performed, due to some measurement performed, is actually due to the phenomena in question, not some thing to do with the equipment itself. Have you tried to come up with an explanation of your experiment which is in the bounds of known physics, or have you just gone and said relativity is wrong. You should always first go and try and prove your theory wrong.


ANS: Thanks. We are actually starting to address some issues. I clearly cannot at this point claim we have not missed something. But I can say that we have spent considerable time and effort working through many failed attempts to find equipment issues which were affecting our tests. i.e. electrostatics was a major problem.

We have actually gone through several different suspension fibers to find one that works. Some others were sensative to flex induced bias change, changes in bias with temperature, humidity, etc.

At this juncture we have attacked every possible outside non (test gravity) issue including the gravity of the sun and moon; which we didn't expect to be an issue (a perfect torsion arm should not be sensative to their position, our arm was not perfect.

OBTW: I forgot that little tid bit. The end that tracked the sun and moon was opposite the end that we thought should. The short end always locked onto and tracked them. I have figured out why mathematically but I think I will let you stew on that one for a while since the answer further supports the UniKEF view.:D


that would mean that the universe is not an isolated system, and the net energy of the universe would be spiralling towards infinity.

ANS: I don't much care for your inclusion of the word infinity but qualifying it by "Towards" I will accept it. The view in UniKEF is that the same energy flow that produces gravity also accounts for the "Accelerating" expansion of the Universe.

So you are in fact making my point. Thanks.

ANd finally, you are incorrect when you state the experiment was an attempt to prove Relativty wrong. It hasn't yet (in terms of mathematical predictions) but if on closer evaluation with improved equipment the test produce results that disagree with Relativity then so be it and if the results agree with Relativity then it merely gives Relativity the physical basis for which I claim all physics should have.

What a pathetic display by the "educated" people here.

Let's see what we have...

From <b>ryans</b>:

<i>WARNING, THE CONTENTS OF THIS THREAD IN NO WAY REFLECT THE OPINION OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. IN FACT THE ONLY OPINION BEING EXPRESSED HERE IS MACS</i>

Pretty obvious, don't you think? Says nothing about whether MacM's work is valid or not, though.

<i>I don't comment on crackpot threads, I've got better things to do. LIKE PHYSICS</i>

No comment on the experimental method. Just unsupported condemnation.

<i>CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD
CRACKPOT THREAD</i>

Name calling.


From <b>chroot</b>:

<i>The thought of you morons, standing around that pasta pot glued to a piece of plywood, concentrating very carefully as you measure each 40 second interval on a Timex wristwatch, and thinking you're unraveling the secrets of the universe...

...IS FUNNY ENOUGH TO GIVE ME A FUCKING HERNIA!</i>

Name calling. No analysis of the presented data or experimental method. Prejudice with no support.

<i>If you really think you're measuring gravitational effects of a few kilograms of water with a piece of PVC glued to piece of plywood, you are a far bigger idiot than I ever thought you to be.</i>

And yet, it has been done before. There is at least one other site on the internet which I know of which observed gravitational effects in a garage using a ladder and a home-made torsion balance not unlike the one shown here.

<i>A pasta pot full of sand. And they called you crazy!</i>

This is nothing against the validity of the experiment, of course. Just name-calling again.

<i>If you really were smart, and your pasta pot full of sand really did anything, you would surely have already garnered the attention of at least one of the trained people on this board.</i>

Yes. He has. Some of us can keep an open mind.

<i>But no -- even the other, lesser crackpots shy away from you. You are like some kind of crackpot Buddha, so deep in Nirvana that other middling crackpots avert their gaze.</i>

More name calling. No actual analysis.


Well done, guys! You're really shining examples of legitimate scientists.

MacM:

I cannot evaluate your results properly with the information you've provided. Firstly, I am not at all clear on your experimental setup or technique. I've looked at the photos, but they do not give me enough information to tell me what you actually did, how you measured things etc. Secondly, I am not sure how you reach the conclusion that these results support your theory. You have shown no connection between your theory and the results as far as I can see, apart from making unsupported assertions that the results support the theory.

Here are some questions and comments I hope you can respond to.

<i>The test took advantage of the fact that UniKEF Gravity is not
based upon the Center of Mass (COM) as it is in other Newtonian,
Relavistic and Quantum theories of gravity, in UniKEF gravity is
based on geometry.</i>

* How does your setup take this into account?
* What particular features are relevant, and how does the setup allow your theory to be distinguished from what Newtonian theory would predict?

<i>A test was devised which tested the acceleration of gravity using
a modified Cavendish Balance where the test mass was symmetrical with
a hole through its center.

While the mass nor the COM change from different perspectives
the force of gravity was shown to vary as predicted by UniKEF as
being an externally generated force as a function of the specific
geometry and not an inherent local property of mass itself or that
of curved time-space; which function in response to the COM of the mass.</i>

* How does UniKEF predict the force will vary?
* What does Newtonian physics predict using your setup?
* How do you derive the force from your results?
* How do the results favour your theory over Newton's?

<i>The hole through the center formed a UniKEF port. The test mass functioned as a gravity throttle valve. Opening and closing the port increased and decreased gravity when there was no change in mass nor center of mass.</i>

* What is a UniKEF port?
* What is a gravity throttle valve?
* When you say, "opening and closing" the port, what do you mean? (Turning the apparatus?)
* How does this affect the gravity?
* How is the affect different from that predicted by Newton?

<i>This result is unaccounted for by other conventional concepts of gravity.</i>

* Please explain why.

<i>TYPICAL
TEST DATA ............Time (Seconds)...................Open - Closed
---------.............--------------------------------------............--------------------
Test #..............Port Open.....Port Closed...............Differential
---------..............---------------.....----------------................--------------</i>

etc.

* What do you mean by "open" and "closed"?
* "Differential" between what and what? What is being measured here? (And in what units?)

<i>FYI: Calculations show that we are attempting to measure response differentials based on F = ma where Delta F is on the order of 60 trillionths of a pound. So the test is not a direct force measurement but of response to force by timing the movabale torsion arm over a fixed distance from point of release to contact at the detector.</i>

* What steps were taken to isolate the apparatus from the environment?
* Were any people present during testing? Were they moving around, especially near the test mass?
* How much did the test mass weigh?
* What gravitational influences would have affected the experiment? What is the order of magnitude of each of those influences? Please include: nearby objects, people, the bowl with the water and the "port", anything else that is relevant.
* What did you use for a torsion fibre?

<i>We also learned that the operator must stand in the arms general plane some distance away to not affect the readings.</i>

* What does this mean, exactly? How does it affect the results?

<i>Even activity in other parts of the home have on occasion disrupted the ability to acquire data. It is damn sensative.</i>

* Sensitive to what? How did you separate the effect you were trying to measure from these other effects?
* What did you do about air currents, exactly?

<i>Numerous test (10 per session) have been run over these many months. Some statistical data runs would be postive by 60 seconds others by only 2-3 seconds but all have been statistically positive for the sought after affect.</i>

* Please show me your statistical analysis.

Thanks, MacM.

Originally posted by James R
it should be quite clear that I am healthily skeptical of all claims.
Wow, that's clear as a bell!

- Warren

Skepticism is not a presumption that claims are untrue. Skepticism is an approach to the critical evaluation of claims, based on evidence.

The presumption that claims are untrue is cynicism, not skepticism.

This is Bullshit.

If this thread is allowed to continue, then you are paving the way for anybody to post any idea, theory or experiment that is performed, and the board is going to become clogged with this shit becasue it is going to take to fucking long to disprove all of it amongst the barrage of incompitant science that is being explained by these morons.

How can you possibly say that you can measure some disturbances in gravitational force ti one part per billion is due to the cause you are claiming, and not a car moving out on the street. What about your sample of sand, does it absorb water. What about the plywood, I'm sure its water content is a function of humidity. What about fluctuations in your measurement equipment.

THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT

Does this UniKEF theory predict the fluctuations in measurement.

This stupid fucking phantom UniKEF theory

THIS IS NOT PHYSICS,

I fail to see how you can tolerate this James. The reputation of this forum is going down the proverbial creek to where Mac's theory lies, And Mac has the paddle.

Mac. Post your bullshit elsewhere, you fail to see how scientific reasoning works, and at the moment your results are purely subjective in that you have failed to properly account for possible errors in the process of measurement.

GOD CRACKPOTS GET ME ANGRY.

ryans,

If this thread is allowed to continue, then you are paving the way for anybody to post any idea, theory or experiment that is performed, and the board is going to become clogged.... yack, yack, yack

Should we not post any new ideas or theories on sciforums, or should we contact you first to get your approval?

Maybe you have a theory of everything that explains every phenomena in the universe. If you do, then please share it with us so that MacM and I don't have to waist all of our time trying to come up with these irritating new theories. :rolleyes:

Tom

James R.,

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the actual issues here. I knew you would be fair. (and I knew some others would not :D) but again some of the ribbing is in fact quite funny. It is only when it replaces actual discussion of the issues that it is frustrating.

Let me begin by making it completely clear that I have not posted this data with any sense of "Gotcha" or that I have proven anything. The conclusion is far from substantiated but I do feel is justified as being indicated or likely in light of the shear numbers of positive results.

The problems with erratic data and enfluences on the test by things other than what we wanted to measure virtually mask the data. It is only over the long term of taking such statistical averages that any results can be seen.

I will now try to answer your questions.

************************************************** **
MacM:

I cannot evaluate your results properly with the information you've provided. Firstly, I am not at all clear on your experimental setup or technique. I've looked at the photos, but they do not give me enough information to tell me what you actually did, how you measured things etc.

ANS:If my answer is insufficient then please ask specific questions about the process and I can answer you.

After several days of suspending a dead weight on the suspension fiber for it to take its natural loaded torsional neutral bias the torsion arm is attached. It is allowed to wander until it developed a neutral position and settles to a fixed orientation.

At that point the bias adjustment (turning a rotatable link between the cieling mount and the torsion arm, is rotated to bring the arm to the orientation we want for testing.

Once that orientation was achieved a very slight back bias is introduced that hold the arm against the grounded back stop. this is to keep any motion towards the detector area from occuring from outside influences other than gravity. That is this is done without the control mass being present. The torsion arm must remain against the stop and not wander away from its stop and toward the where the control mass will be located.

At that point the whisker tool (a rod with a small piece of fiber glued to the end, is used to mechanically hold the torsion arm in position for a timed test and the control mass is put in position.

Because in the begining we found that the fiber we were using displayed what I dub a "flex bias change" or it would stiffen in a fixed position and appear relaxed but once moved it would shift its direction in the relaxed condition.

To offset any such affect tests were run in different sequences. That is Open/Closed 10 times, or Closed/Open 10 times and even open 10 time and then Closed 10 times. Statistically the averages remainded positive. (Positive means time for the torsion arm to travel from the stop to the control mass was larger with the port turned to the open position. This infers a streaming affect trough the port is reducing the amount of gravity being produced by the same mass .

Secondly, I am not sure how you reach the conclusion that these results support your theory. You have shown no connection between your theory and the results as far as I can see, apart from making unsupported assertions that the results support the theory.


ANS:In Newtonian you have the form F = G*m1*m2/r^2.

This is the force of gravity based on mass and distance between Centers of Mass (COM) only. This requires a calculus integration to reduce irregular or non-spherical objects to the equivelent of a point source so as to calculate the resulting gravity.

In UniKEF the integration being done is not to find center of mass or reduce its geometry to a point source but computes mass penetrations including the angle of such penetration which shows that mass alone doesn't determine its contribution to gravity but also the angle it is located relative to the gravity plane between two such masses. In that regard the same quantity of mass will result in a different ultimate gravity force depending on how it is oriented trigometrically or what I call the geometry affect.

This is why a sphere (i.e. - A Bowling Ball with a 1 inch hole bored through the center) will result in different gravitational force to another objects at a fixed distance depending on the orientation of the hole through it even though neither the mass nor the COM are different from different views.

This suggests (doesn't yet prove) that the cause of such an affect is due to streaming of a dynamic field producing gravity through the hole reduces the quanitity of the energy field causing gravity at the trigonometry function = 1.000 is less in one direction than the other. When the port is closed (turned sidewards most of the direct (trig = 1) function still penetrates mass. The volume of the void and the total mass are the same but the penetration of mass at specific angles is different and the resulting force is different from these different angles relative to the port.


Here are some questions and comments I hope you can respond to.

The test took advantage of the fact that UniKEF Gravity is not
based upon the Center of Mass (COM) as it is in other Newtonian,
Relavistic and Quantum theories of gravity, in UniKEF gravity is
based on geometry.

* How does your setup take this into account?

ANS: Answered above.


* What particular features are relevant, and how does the setup allow your theory to be distinguished from what Newtonian theory would predict?

Answered above but to elaborate. The amount of gravity produced by an object where neither mass nor center of mass vary is being control as a function of the objects geometry.
A Newtonian calculation would expect no such change in gravity.


A test was devised which tested the acceleration of gravity using
a modified Cavendish Balance where the test mass was symmetrical with
a hole through its center.

While the mass nor the COM change from different perspectives
the force of gravity was shown to vary as predicted by UniKEF as
being an externally generated force as a function of the specific
geometry and not an inherent local property of mass itself or that
of curved time-space; which function in response to the COM of the mass. [/color]

* How does UniKEF predict the force will vary?

ANS:By integrating mass penetrations at their angle of penetration you will get a different result than simply integrating to find COM and using total mass.

* What does Newtonian physics predict using your setup?

ANS: I hve calculated that but I will have to go find the number and will post it later since I am soon going to have to get ready for work. But that number isn't actually germain to the principles of the test. Whatever that number it is a fixed number and doesn't change when the port is opened or closed.

* How do you derive the force from your results?

ANS:We don't but could calculate it working backwards from d/t and F=ma.

* How do the results favour your theory over Newton's?

ANS:I can answer that it "favors" UniKEF over Newton since Newton would predict no such affect and UniKEF does. I can not at this juncture claim the results prove or for that matter even agree with UniKEF predictions of such a change in actual mathematical degree but only that such a change is being seen.

The hole through the center formed a UniKEF port. The test mass functioned as a gravity throttle valve. Opening and closing the port increased and decreased gravity when there was no change in mass nor center of mass.

* What is a UniKEF port?

ANS: The hole through the Bowling Ball mentioned above. It look like a standard Ball Valve for air or water but in this case is being used to restrict (not stop) gravity causing fields flowing through it.

* What is a gravity throttle valve?

ANS: Answered above.

* When you say, "opening and closing" the port, what do you mean? (Turning the apparatus?)

ANS: Yes.


* How does this affect the gravity?

ANS:Answered above but again the geometry change affects the angles of mass penetrations involved in the production of gravity by dynamic field penetrations through the geometry of the mass.


* How is the affect different from that predicted by Newton?

ANS: Equal mass with equal center of masses distance results in different gravity forces and shouldn't happen by Newtonian calculations.

This result is unaccounted for by other conventional concepts of gravity.

* Please explain why.

ANS: There is no allowance in the formula for the affect. It is TOTAL mass times TOTAL mass at a given r. The internal structure (geometry) is unaccounted for. It gets lost in the point source integration. In UniKEF that geometry integration is accounted for and results in the correct view that gravity will be different.


TYPICAL
TEST DATA ............Time (Seconds)...................Open - Closed
---------.............--------------------------------------............--------------------
Test #..............Port Open.....Port Closed...............Differential
---------..............---------------.....----------------................--------------

etc.

* What do you mean by "open" and "closed"?

ANS:Rotation the port to be aligned with the plan of gravity or orthogonal to it.


* "Differential" between what and what? What is being measured here? (And in what units?)

ANS: The data is seconds time for the torsion arm to relocate a fixed distance from the back stop to contact with the control mass stop.

FYI: Calculations show that we are attempting to measure response differentials based on F = ma where Delta F is on the order of 60 trillionths of a pound. So the test is not a direct force measurement but of response to force by timing the movabale torsion arm over a fixed distance from point of release to contact at the detector.

* What steps were taken to isolate the apparatus from the environment?

ANS:

1 - An air curtin or isolation booth.
2 - Control of temperature.
3 - Control of hunidity.
4 - Electrical grounding of all components including the operator for static electricity and the use of anti-static sprays.
5 - Not in the beginning but later tracking of the orientation of the sun and moon and taking data only in what has been found to be greater period of stability for the testing.
6 - Testing when others were not home moving around in the house. It was nothing short of spectacular that a human body within 20 feet in alignment with the device would infact alter results.

* Were any people present during testing? Were they moving around, especially near the test mass?

ANS: NO, as has been indicated. We learned that early on. My partner was almost shocked when he realised that the device was seeing him come into the room. I responded "That is because you have an attractive personality".:D

But in any case we established a fixed routine for testing and he kept his time as nearly uniform in the vicinity of the setup as possible during reconfigurations and then moved a sustantial distance away in a plane along the torsion arm and orthogonal to the plane of the test so as not to induce his body mass into the motion of the torsion arm.

* How much did the test mass weigh?

ANS: That has changed but for the unit as presented with the sample data:

Each torsion arm mass = 0.625kg
The Control mass = 8.07kg.


* What gravitational influences would have affected the experiment? What is the order of magnitude of each of those influences?

Please include: nearby objects, people, the bowl with the water and the "port", anything else that is relevant.

ANS: I don't have all these details at this time. It is located in a cinderblock basement with a concrete floor. There are items in the basement but they are stationary and at some distance from the test area.


* What did you use for a torsion fibre?

Berkley, 4# Test Trilene, 0.008 inch diameter by 3 feet long.

We also learned that the operator must stand in the arms general plane some distance away to not affect the readings.

* What does this mean, exactly? How does it affect the results?

ANS: He found if he stood less than 6 feet of the device in the torsion arm plane of motion it would follow him around the room. For testing he had to stand 10 feet away and along the torsion arm length so that his body mass didn't affect the arms motion.


Even activity in other parts of the home have on occasion disrupted the ability to acquire data. It is damn sensative.

* Sensitive to what? How did you separate the effect you were trying to measure from these other effects?

ANS: Answered above but air currents, temperature, hunidity, electrostatics, movement of masses external to the test, including the sun and moon. Since we couldn't figure out how to control them we simply had to learn when they were in an approprate alignment to do our testing.

* What did you do about air currents, exactly?

ANS: Minimal. A curtin booth and moves slowly when in the area of the arm. Again the above data IS erradic and is certainly being affected by outside interferences but over the extended period and numerous runs the averages of the 10 run tests does show an affect linked to the operation of the UniKEF valve. (At least we think so at this time). It most certainly is not proof yet but enough we feel to justify more testing).

Numerous test (10 per session) have been run over these many months. Some statistical data runs would be postive by 60 seconds others by only 2-3 seconds but all have been statistically positive for the sought after affect.

* Please show me your statistical analysis.

ANS: Statistical analysis is a bad choice of words here. What I meant was the average times of series of 10 test runs both with 10 data points and with 1 high and 1 low time discarded always show a positive result.


Thanks, MacM.

Thanks to you instead. I am pleased to share this data but understand I am making very limited claims here. Mostly my claim is that charges of non-scientifc testing are unfounded. that is not to claim anything spectacular in terms of equipment or performance. But this has been a very delicate process and every effort has been made to make the process scientific.

We are merely now at a point that statistically I feel comfortable saying something is there and needs to be investigated further - That is the extent of my claims.

Once we conclude the next series of test using the "Remote Port Plug", assuming the predictions are manafested in the data then I think a much stronger arguement will have been presented.

But this at least will allow other to begin to investigate the principle and see if others can duplicate the experiment. I believe we call that "Peer Review".

Thanks again


__________________

ryans,

[quote]How can you possibly say that you can measure some disturbances in gravitational force ti one part per billion is due to the cause you are claiming, and not a car moving out on the street. What about your sample of sand, does it absorb water. What about the plywood, I'm sure its water content is a function of humidity. What about fluctuations in your measurement equipment. [/unquote]


ANS: You are correct in your concerns about outside influences and we in fact analyzied what was in the area and even discussed the location of the house with regard to passing roadways and electrical distribution systems.

But your failure here is two fold.

1 - The test is not a precise measurement of actual force.

2 - The test and the data is based on trends under conditions (hopefully unchanging in test time frames) and the results which have varied as indicated from 60 sec differentials to 2-3 second differentials may show such outside influences but don't alter the trends produced by testing under conditions of the test at that time.

There were incidents were something did interfere with the testing sequence such as his wife came to the basement and the torsion arm would make unexpected motion, etc and the test had to be scrapped. But data that has been used is data that under our best efforts were devoid, to the greatest extent possible of outside influeneces and are reflecting the difference in the orientation of the UniKEF port in the control mass.

Also you are off by several factors on the nature of the problem with the current testing it was 60 trillionths of a pound differential not ppb.

Originally posted by MacM
Actually such information is only required for specific force measurement. The time change is an indirect indicator of force differential where all other factors are kept uniform.
The point is that you are very likely to have a measurement in there that is +/- .5 lbf, while you are trying to measure +/- 10^-20 lbf.

Further this was a priliminary rudimentary test of the idea. Based on our results we full well intend to continue to upgrade - several times - the quality and precision, repeatability, etc., of our setup .
You can not improve the 'quality and precision' if you don't now how much an error will change your final result. Also, you didn't address ryans concerns about humidity, sand density, and plywood curve. Also, regardless of how isolated you made the system, it will be heavily dependant on air currents... especially when the material is light. Saying 'we did our best to avoid error' just isn't good enough. Show us how.

You can claim other concepts are correct for all practical purposes but I challenge you here to make that apply to specific gravity calculatons.
It has been done before, by math that is complicated and best done on a computer through brute force. How do you think they calculate the gravity of odd shaped asteroids? It's not using the mass/com simplification that you are. Hell, they even use it on earth to find pockets of oil because of the change in density/gravity.

What is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish? I don't see how (if this worked) it would show us anything new. What do you expect cuurent physics to say about the system and what do you expect to happen? If no difference exists, why do the experiment?

what is this? if this guy is such an obvious crackpot, why can't you disprove his theory or rip apart his methods with some real physics. if someone came into a forum in my area of expertise with some nonsense, i would consider it a challenge to outright disprove the nonsense.

ryans, chroot, and whoever else, if this thread has no business here, PROVE IT TO US.

you think einstein would fire back with answers like, "crackpot thread" and "hahahaha"?

it is the experts here that threaten the credibility of the forum, not the crackpots.

(good stuff to those who are using actual arguments to repudiate the theory)

i am paying close attention to his crackpot vs. relativist thread.

Thanks yaya..., I have no compunction against actual peer review. That is why I came here.

Persol,

Originally posted by MacM
Actually such information is only required for specific force measurement. The time change is an indirect indicator of force differential where all other factors are kept uniform.

The point is that you are very likely to have a measurement in there that is +/- .5 lbf, while you are trying to measure +/- 10^-20 lbf.

ANS: The deviations are clearly posted and are clearly being caused by effects other than those we are looking for. There is no guarantee that sufficient mitigation of such affects is yielding true results - EXCEPT for the statistical odds that every test would be positive over 8 months of testing.


Further this was a priliminary rudimentary test of the idea. Based on our results we full well intend to continue to upgrade - several times - the quality and precision, repeatability, etc., of our setup .

You can not improve the 'quality and precision' if you don't now how much an error will change your final result.

ANS: Fair point and I don't disagree but again I am only claiming the odds of such a string of errors always providing the positive result.


Also, you didn't address ryans concerns about humidity, sand density, and plywood curve. Also, regardless of how isolated you made the system, it will be heavily dependant on air currents... especially when the material is light. Saying 'we did our best to avoid error' just isn't good enough. Show us how.

ANS: I believe this point has already been addressed. Except air currents, humidity, temperature, etc., are slow changing impacts on performance. The tests are 40 minutes runs using 10 tests with 4 minute intervals. It looks at the trend not the absolute calculation of forces. It isn't a precision test. It is a trend impact linked to the position of the valve.

It is like predicting cancer. With enough data you can give odds but you can't make a specific prediction in any one case.


You can claim other concepts are correct for all practical purposes but I challenge you here to make that apply to specific gravity calculatons.

It has been done before, by math that is complicated and best done on a computer through brute force. How do you think they calculate the gravity of odd shaped asteroids? It's not using the mass/com simplification that you are. Hell, they even use it on earth to find pockets of oil because of the change in density/gravity.

ANS: I agree. They compute irregular objects and improve on the result using geometry but their computation is not the same process as the UniKEF form of integration. However, this test involves symmetrical geometry. Further your point only makes my point the F = G*m1*m2/r^2 is not valid and one must account for geometry. I am doing that. The question is "Am I doing that and getting correct results?"


What is it exactly that you are trying to accomplish? I don't see how (if this worked) it would show us anything new. What do you expect cuurent physics to say about the system and what do you expect to happen? If no difference exists, why do the experiment?


ANS:We are trying to find a method of determining if gravity is a local phenomena or one produced via external means.

Once more sophisticated tests are done, especially including the use of a "Remote Port Plug", actual force measurements should allow bifurcating G into a field strength "U" and "~" absorbtion coeffient.

I have no specific expectations unless the evidence becomes overwhelming that gravity is not a local phenomena and is one that involves an energy input. At that point there would be a lot of changes which could result.

Even if UniKEF gravity turns out to be equal to Relativity (as yet that is unknown, it is only suspected that it doesn't match Newtonian gravity - which thereby is in general agreement with Relativity) then you now have two concepts to explain gravity.

One (Relativity) is "Subjective" and purely mathematical, the other (UniKEF or whatever ultimate concept may evolve) will be based on understandable physical principles.


PS: Yours is a properly directed criticism post. Thanks.

Ah... he's using... fishing line... for a tosion fibre.

- Warren

chroot,

Ah... he's using... fishing line... for a tosion fibre.


ANS: And? It seems to work when combined with a Pasta Pot. :D

Originally posted by MacM
The deviations are clearly posted and are clearly being caused by effects other than those we are looking for. There is no guarantee that sufficient mitigation of such affects is yielding true results - EXCEPT for the statistical odds that every test would be positive over 8 months of testing.
But the system is not suffieciently 'isolated' during your test cycles. Air currents, electrostatics, heat transfer, etc can all be changing between your 2 tests.

Fair point and I don't disagree but again I am only claiming the odds of such a string of errors always providing the positive result.
It has been seen before. Unless you can account for the impact of obvious 'noise' it is not possible to tell what is causing the result.

Except air currents, humidity, temperature, etc., are slow changing impacts on performance.
Air currents are not slow changing impacts. I agree that humidity and temperature are, but this doesn't change that they will have an effect between 2 test cycles.

I agree. They compute irregular objects and improve on the result using geometry but their computation is not the same process as the UniKEF form of integration.
I agree you are aiming at a different process... but why? As far as I can tell your math boils down to the general equations, but needs more work to get there. Then you need to use some geometric constants which are measured values. The only constant the classical form needs is G.

Further your point only makes my point the F = G*m1*m2/r^2 is not valid and one must account for geometry.
Yes, and I'm sure most people here would agree that it is not completely accurate, and just an estimate. Yet we already know how to compute gravity in a more accurate way, so I don't see what this test does for us.

We are trying to find a method of determining if gravity is a local phenomena or one produced via external means.
What results will show you which answer though? 2 mass bodies move towards each other. We know that they will do this in accordance with the already developed laws of physics, and this has been tested. Your test, by necessity, will have to agree with these more accurate/precise tests. What different result will show you that it is an external force?

One (Relativity) is "Subjective" and purely mathematical, the other (UniKEF or whatever ultimate concept may evolve) will be based on understandable physical principles.
Relativity is only 'non-physical' because we do not experience 4 dimensions of space. Your theory just trades this limitation for a fluid flow which spontaneiously generates. Also, your theory is still "subjective" because you are unable to look at it from an objective point of view because you are stuck in 3 dimensions looking at teh system with your own eyes/experiments. Nothing you do is truely subjective. This is just debating scientific philosophy now, so I'll digress.

I suppose my general question is:
What result would prove the current method is correct?
What result would prove the UniKEF method is correct?
From these data and your interpretation of it, I can see no difference between the results in either case.

Persol,

Originally posted by MacM
The deviations are clearly posted and are clearly being caused by effects other than those we are looking for. There is no guarantee that sufficient mitigation of such affects is yielding true results - EXCEPT for the statistical odds that every test would be positive over 8 months of testing.

But the system is not suffieciently 'isolated' during your test cycles. Air currents, electrostatics, heat transfer, etc can all be changing between your 2 tests.




ANS: True enough. But the point is air current and perhaps some residual electrostatic affects are the only affecta that could change rapidly enough to alter trends over short testing periods.

And the odds of such affect always being in the positive direction seems to discount that as being the cause of positive data.



Fair point and I don't disagree but again I am only claiming the odds of such a string of errors always providing the positive result.

It has been seen before. Unless you can account for the impact of obvious 'noise' it is not possible to tell what is causing the result.


ANS: Same reply as above. "Odds" not proof yet.




Except air currents, humidity, temperature, etc., are slow changing impacts on performance.

Air currents are not slow changing impacts. I agree that humidity and temperature are, but this doesn't change that they will have an effect between 2 test cycles.


ANS: Yes I agree and have said so more than once in my responses to you on this point.



I agree. They compute irregular objects and improve on the result using geometry but their computation is not the same process as the UniKEF form of integration.

I agree you are aiming at a different process... but why? As far as I can tell your math boils down to the general equations, but needs more work to get there. Then you need to use some geometric constants which are measured values. The only constant the classical form needs is G.


But G may infact be an affect of combined causes. It is the result
of energy field strength and absorbtion coefficient. Knowing this has value, even though one would likely still used the combined form of G for simplicity.





Further your point only makes my point the F = G*m1*m2/r^2 is not valid and one must account for geometry.

Yes, and I'm sure most people here would agree that it is not completely accurate, and just an estimate. Yet we already know how to compute gravity in a more accurate way, so I don't see what this test does for us.



ANS: Assuming that the affect is repeatable and becomes verified it will provide not only a physically understandable view of gravity but will cause obvious rethinking of other purely mathematical concepts to look for underlying physical principles. Even if the end results of each concept are the same.

A fuller understanding and knowledge base can only open the door to even more understanding and gain in knowledge. To stop with a matehmatical algorithum because it works stops inquiry and understanding.





We are trying to find a method of determining if gravity is a local phenomena or one produced via external means.


What results will show you which answer though? 2 mass bodies move towards each other. We know that they will do this in accordance with the already developed laws of physics, and this has been tested. Your test, by necessity, will have to agree with these more accurate/precise tests. What different result will show you that it is an external force?



AND: If you now re-do those test using my symmetrical geometry which has different gravitational forces depending on view, you will get different resutls. Your current results are for homogensous symmetrical bodies and my view agrees with those results. (At least that is the belief). YOur view will not be supported by your curent mathematics if tested correctly.




One (Relativity) is "Subjective" and purely mathematical, the other (UniKEF or whatever ultimate concept may evolve) will be based on understandable physical principles.

Relativity is only 'non-physical' because we do not experience 4 dimensions of space. Your theory just trades this limitation for a fluid flow which spontaneiously generates. Also, your theory is still "subjective" because you are unable to look at it from an objective point of view because you are stuck in 3 dimensions looking at teh system with your own eyes/experiments. Nothing you do is truely subjective. This is just debating scientific philosophy now, so I'll digress.



ANS: No I don't think I agree here. My view discounts a 4th dimension and it doesn't require a fluid flow (assuming you mean an Aether).




I suppose my general question is:
What result would prove the current method is correct?
What result would prove the UniKEF method is correct?
From these data and your interpretation of it, I can see no difference between the results in either case.



ANS: I fail to see how you reach that conclusion. Current concept do not predict varying gravity with geometry when that geometry is symmetrical. My does. The testing is suggestive that this is the case so clearly there is a difference and it can be measured.

Testing of this fact will show one is correct and the other is invalid whichever way the follow up test show.

Hi MacM,

I am not going to comment on your results at this time (I'll be leaving for 3 weeks of physics holidays - read: 3 weeks of absolute boredom on quantum crap - in a few hours)... But I would like to suggest that you clearly mark your replies in your posts, and what has been said by other people. I can suggest using combinations of the "quote" tag (between square brackets) and bold or italic styles. This way, your posts look more logically structured and are more pleasant to read; and more important: it allows you to clearly distinguish between what you said, what someone replied etc etc...

Just a small suggestion ;)

Bye!

Crisp

I would bet a month's salary that if you built another one of these devices, it would behave completely differently.

There simply are far too many sources of systematic error in this apparatus. It's barely middle-school science fair quality.

- Warren

Crisp,

I agree. I have been doingg that but today I was pressed for time and skipped some of the manners. My apologies.

Thanks

Originally posted by MacM
Crisp,

I agree. I have been doingg that but today I was pressed for time and skipped some of the manners. My apologies.

Thanks

mac-

you say you were pressed for time? well let me let you in on a little secret. below every post on this message board, in the bottom right corner of each post, there are three links: report, edit, quote. if you hit quote, then you get to reply to each post individually, with the relevant text quoted and the original author cited.

it is just as easy as hitting the "reply to thread" button. it required no extra time.

chroot,

I would bet a month's salary that if you built another one of these devices, it would behave completely differently.


ANS: I won't take a losing bet. I already know the answer to your proposition since we have built a second unit and have been watching its operation in comparision. It is much more stable. I already mentioned that in an earlier post.

But from what has been observed that is not a negative but a positive. We have not yet made data runs but I expect the data to become more stable and with longer time differentials.



There simply are far too many sources of systematic error in this apparatus. It's barely middle-school science fair quality.

- Warren


ANS: I don't disagree with the fact that the current data is barely worth reporting due to the instability.

But I think we can realistically assume that air currents would not repeatedly produce positive results. Undischarged static electricity I suspect is the major cause of most of the instability, and we are discussion attaching monitoring equipment for static charges. But static charges would be consistant in their affect but it is counter to the direction of motion. That is any static charges will repell the arm and with the port closed the data would be sent in the negative rather than the positive direction.

So electrostatic charges may be the cause of erradic data but it is reducing our measured affect. No other conditions suc as the sun and moon, temperature, humidity, etc., vary rapidly enough to have signifigant affect on a 40 minutes series of 10 tests. It did cause tests on some days to be radically different than tests on other days but not from test to test in the series.

Thanks for addressing the issue.

lethe,


Originally posted by lethe
mac-

you say you were pressed for time? well let me let you in on a little secret. below every post on this message board, in the bottom right corner of each post, there are three links: report, edit, quote. if you hit quote, then you get to reply to each post individually, with the relevant text quoted and the original author cited.

it is just as easy as hitting the "reply to thread" button. it required no extra time.



ANS: Thanks. I have been opening the reply and then using the "Quote" button at the top using a cut and paste routine that doesn't work as well.

Originally posted by MacM
lethe,

ANS: Thanks. I have been opening the reply and then using the "Quote" button at the top using a cut and paste routine that doesn't work as well.

good job. and you see how easy that is? if it s a longer post, this doesn t work as well, but you can just delete all but the relevant parts. it s quite easy

Originally posted by MacM
True enough. But the point is air current and perhaps some residual electrostatic affects are the only affect that could change rapidly enough to alter trends over short testing periods.
They are the only effects we've pointed out. I'd be fairly certain that you have some currents in your liquid damper.

And the odds of such affect always being in the positive direction seems to discount that as being the cause of positive data.
As I said, it has been seen before.... but I won't beat this into the ground. You understand what I mean.

But G may infact be an affect of combined causes. It is the result
of energy field strength and absorbtion coefficient. Knowing this has value, even though one would likely still used the combined form of G for simplicity.
But the problem is that just because you can seperate G into 2 components, doesn't mean that is the 'objective view'. It just means it mathmatically gives you the same result.

Assuming that the affect is repeatable and becomes verified it will provide not only a physically understandable view of gravity but will cause obvious rethinking of other purely mathematical concepts to look for underlying physical principles. Even if the end results of each concept are the same.
My complaint is that you are simply adding another layer... and since both instances are observationally the same, you can't tell which is the 'objective truth'.

If you now re-do those test using my symmetrical geometry which has different gravitational forces depending on view, you will get different resutls. Your current results are for homogensous symmetrical bodies and my view agrees with those results. (At least that is the belief).
I think what you are saying is that current physics only addresses the gravitational forces of symmetrical bodies. Is that what you meant?
If so, it is incorrect. As I used the previous asteroid example, it is not a symmetrical body. It is understood that the force will be different depending on which side of it you are at. This is also used (to a very slight extent) in the calculation of varying ground density using gravity.

No I don't think I agree here. My view discounts a 4th dimension and it doesn't require a fluid flow (assuming you mean an Aether).
What are you using to transmit gravitational 'forces'? You've said before it was a frictionless superfluid.

Current concept do not predict varying gravity with geometry when that geometry is symmetrical.
Yes, they do. A 1meter sphere of mass m has a differnent force then a 10^60 meter sphere of mass m.

Persol,

Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by MacM

True enough. But the point is air current and perhaps some residual electrostatic affects are the only affect that could change rapidly enough to alter trends over short testing periods.
They are the only effects we've pointed out.

I'd be fairly certain that you have some currents in your liquid damper.



ANS:I agree but then again there still remains to cosntant postive affects. I would think any damper fluid currents would be statistically nulled.


And the odds of such affect always being in the positive direction seems to discount that as being the cause of positive data.

As I said, it has been seen before.... but I won't beat this into the ground. You understand what I mean.


ANS: Fair enough. Neither am I claiming anything has yet been proven, only indicated likely.


But G may infact be an affect of combined causes. It is the result
of energy field strength and absorbtion coefficient. Knowing this has value, even though one would likely still used the combined form of G for simplicity.

But the problem is that just because you can seperate G into 2 components, doesn't mean that is the 'objective view'. It just means it mathmatically gives you the same result.


ANS: It is only split if we can determine how to split it. Once the split is known that information has other value than just G. It would go to possibly a better understanding of Black Holes for example.


Assuming that the affect is repeatable and becomes verified it will provide not only a physically understandable view of gravity but will cause obvious rethinking of other purely mathematical concepts to look for underlying physical principles. Even if the end results of each concept are the same.


My complaint is that you are simply adding another layer... and since both instances are observationally the same, you can't tell which is the 'objective truth'.


ANS: I agree if all that happens is UniKEF ends up matching Relativity then one would question the value (although I would still prefer the mechanical or physical view over the pure mathematical one) but more importantly it should lead to other understandings in other areas. For me it isn't a matter of what is more simple but what is the truth in physics.

What you seem to be saying is "I don't want to know how things work, especially if it is more complicated, as long as I can calculate what I want to know". That is our basic difference. I want to know and don't care if I can do the calculations.


If you now re-do those test using my symmetrical geometry which has different gravitational forces depending on view, you will get different results. Your current results are for homogensous symmetrical bodies and my view agrees with those results. (At least that is the belief).

I think what you are saying is that current physics only addresses the gravitational forces of symmetrical bodies. Is that what you meant?


ANS: Close but not quite. As you pointed out there are more complex calculations made for irregular shaped bodies and perhaps if you were to apply those techniques to my test geometry might find my tests are telling the truth. Which means I have merely found a mechanical view that explains the same result. But if your more complex calculations fail to show that affect then your view has a problem. In either case my work will not have been in vane. Having a mechanical view that works is helpful in many ways.

If so, it is incorrect. As I used the previous asteroid example, it is not a symmetrical body. It is understood that the force will be different depending on which side of it you are at. This is also used (to a very slight extent) in the calculation of varying ground density using gravity.

No I don't think I agree here. My view discounts a 4th dimension and it doesn't require a fluid flow (assuming you mean an Aether).
What are you using to transmit gravitational 'forces'? You've said before it was a frictionless superfluid.



ANS: If I said that it was a bad choice of words for an analogy.

UniKEF is an energy field which I would think would be simular to light. Not necessarily flowing at v=c but more like several factors of c but that is pure speculation. The view considered that this U field formed space itself (dimension) but I have absolutely no idea how that could be accomplished. I only mention it because of the recent post by H. Lindner which has space itself flowing into matter causing gravity. I saw a very close parallel there.


Current concept do not predict varying gravity with geometry when that geometry is symmetrical.
Yes, they do. A 1meter sphere of mass m has a differnent force then a 10^60 meter sphere of mass m.

ANS: You miss my meaning. You are comparing two different sized or density spheres. I was talking about the same sphere having different gravity because of the symmetrical hole through it.

I agree if all that happens is UniKEF ends up matching Relativity then one would question the value (although I would still prefer the mechanical or physical view over the pure mathematical one) but more importantly it should lead to other understandings in other areas. For me it isn't a matter of what is more simple but what is the truth in physics.
There is no 'truth.' It either works or it doesn't. If it happens to be a better analogy, fine... but that doesn't mean it is mathematically simpler... and physics is based on math. An analogy is just an easier way to explain it to those who don't underatand the math.

What you seem to be saying is "I don't want to know how things work, especially if it is more complicated, as long as I can calculate what I want to know". That is our basic difference. I want to know and don't care if I can do the calculations.
But you aren't really 'knowing' anything else. You are just finding another anaogy that works. I can thoerize that billions of invisible unicorns pull mass together, using the force they calculate in their head. Then I can experiment to show that it agrees with my theory. That doesn't make it 'true'... it's just another analogy.

Having a mechanical view that works is helpful in many ways.
Yes. That's what the 'bending of space' is. It's a mechanical analogy. That doesn't make it any more or less 'true'. If all you want is to use a different analogy, fine... but if you want any real physics to result you need to develop some math that is actually of use.
At the same time however, people take the current gravity analogies, and think they are the 'truth'. All analogies have loopholes, and this is generally was leads to people attacking a theory because it seems contradictory.

You miss my meaning. You are comparing two different sized or density spheres. I was talking about the same sphere having different gravity because of the symmetrical hole through it.
Well, it takes care of that too. You can make a rectangular object... a torus... a sphere with a hole... whatever. With anything were center of mass estimation isn't accurate, you can find the actual gravity experienced. Whatever shape it is, you can calculate the gravity at various angles/distances. You can do this without the need for an absorption coefficient.

PS: Just put [ b ] before what you quote and [ /b ] after. Or... [ quote ] and [ /quote ]

So hey, look, he built a second identical apparatus and it does something totally different.

My, my, you're really turning science on its ear now, Mac.

- Warren

Persol,

I'll not replicate your post since we are pretty much in agreement. I think our only disagreement is as to the potential value of a different workable analogy.


And absolutely my work if it has any merit and/or value must ultimately provide complete mathematical support. Good data might encourage that to actually happen.

chroot,

So hey, look, he built a second identical apparatus and it does something totally different.

My, my, you're really turning science on its ear now, Mac.



ANS: You can't seem to make up your mind. You attack (validly) the instability of the data and then bitch because we have improved our device based on experience.

Further note your falicy in claiming it is an identical unit. If it were identical it would operate the same. Obviously we have made some changes don't you think? (Or do you):D

I rather feel you would just prefer that we didn't challenge the status-quo. A mathematical concept devoid of physical under pinnings.

Persol,

Persol,

Mac: I'll not replicate your post since we are pretty much in agreement. I think our only disagreement is as to the potential value of a different workable analogy.



I just wanted to add my thought on why I feel such issues are important.

Assume for just a few moments that I might by some fluke be correct and that gravity is actually caused by a universal energy field.

I don't advocate that the simple mathematical functions (which are found to be correct) be scrapped but that to rely upon on them without question of the physics behind those functions leaves such a field undiscovered.

Discovery of such a field could result in:

1 - Learning how to extract such energy giving mankind unlimited resources.

2 - Learning how to manipulate such a field could result in new propulsion technology which would open the door to intersteller travel. Imagine being able to manipulate gravity and not having to carry fuel of any kind to travel through the universe.

I'll grant you these may be SciFi goals but Buck Rogers Lasers were around before lasers and I simply think the potential good far out weighs the tendancy to becoming entrenched into a specific concept.

So don't cast aside what works and is useable but don't stop looking for better understandings. It seems that current efforts are directed at furthering the current concepts forsaking any other view and that I feel is a tremendous error.

PS: In terms of quality or sophistication can you not see that what has been done is technically just as valid as Old Ben sticking a key on a kite string. How sophisticated was that?

But that discovery has resulted in a tremendous amount of further testing, development and service to mankind.

(And No ch I'm not comparing myself to Ben Franklin) only to the comments directed at the quality and sophistication of our effort.

I don't know how to say it any clearer. You are not testing anything new. This test will not show any evidence of an 'energy field' because, by definition, this field acts like standard gravity. I've asked flat out how this would show proof that UniKEF is right and us wrong, but the only answer supplied just demonstrated a misunderstanding of current physics. In the end the answer is that you don't know what to expect different then modern physics.

Leaving all the possible errors alone... even if there is an energy field, you are not testing for that. You are just testing the result (gravity). It tells us nothing new about what causes it.

I'll just leave the Franklin thing alone, because whatever I type you are just going to take personally.

Persol,

Originally posted by Persol
I don't know how to say it any clearer. You are not testing anything new. This test will not show any evidence of an 'energy field' because, by definition, this field acts like standard gravity. I've asked flat out how this would show proof that UniKEF is right and us wrong, but the only answer supplied just demonstrated a misunderstanding of current physics. In the end the answer is that you don't know what to expect different then modern physics.Leaving all the possible errors alone... even if there is an energy field, you are not testing for that. You are just testing the result (gravity). It tells us nothing new about what causes it.


ANS: We agree on the current data even if totally repeatable without instability. However, it seems to me the next test using the Remote Port Plug (RPP) is another matter. I do believe that will show that gravity is not a local phenomena. So for what has been done to date you are justified in your position but I believe I have found a way around the two concepts testing the same that will be the RPP tests.



I'll just leave the Franklin thing alone, because whatever I type you are just going to take personally.



ANS: I haven't taken anything said on this MSB personal. In spite of the unjustified comments and exagerated claims of the detractors, I know my qualifications and accomplishments as well as my own limitations.

The truth on that score lays between the claims that I see myself as some sort of whiz kid and that I am an ignoramous.

The fact is that one could compare the situation to being in general practice or a specialist. The more educated members here are specialist but I am not the dumb-coff that ch would like the board to think I am. I am educated in general practice.

I do know scientific methods, I have spent years in nuclear power and R&D. I have done NASA contracts and have been published.
Science is science "Physicists" do not hold the only scientific techniques they are merely specialists in the general fields of science.

Thanks for addressing the issues.

Originally posted by MacM
We agree on the current data even if totally repeatable without instability.
Well, no, I don't. I doubt you are lying, but I really have no idea what those numbers mean because you didn't provide us with much a procedure. As such, I can't agree on the data, as I don't know it's cause.

I do believe that will show that gravity is not a local phenomena.
What do you mean by 'local phenomena'? Besides this phrasing, you haven't said anything that current physics doesn't cover.

I do know scientific methods...
You may know the scientific method, but you show no application of them. Don't just say you know it, demonstrate it. This is one of the worst presentations of experimental data I have seen. Within reason, we should just refuse to evaluate it... as we don't have nearly enough information on what you actually did. This is ignoring other problems, such as the 'shotgun approach' to fixing the reliability.

I have spent years in nuclear power and R&D. I have...
The rest of your post is simply the "I'm not a quack" speech again. If you want to only discuss the research, then do that. No reason for this extra junk except to draw attacks upon yourself and divert the issue.

Persol,


Originally posted by Persol
Originally posted by MacM
We agree on the current data even if totally repeatable without instability.

Well, no, I don't. I doubt you are lying, but I really have no idea what those numbers mean because you didn't provide us with much a procedure. As such, I can't agree on the data, as I don't know it's cause.

ANS: Once again you misunderstood my meaning. I was not saying you agreed with the data presented but that we agree that the data at this point doesn't prove if gravity is a local phenomena or externally generated.


I do believe that will show that gravity is not a local phenomena.
What do you mean by 'local phenomena'? Besides this phrasing, you haven't said anything that current physics doesn't cover.


Local means a attribute of mass itself, an internal force as envisioned by Newton.



I do know scientific methods...
You may know the scientific method, but you show no application of them. Don't just say you know it, demonstrate it. This is one of the worst presentations of experimental data I have seen. Within reason, we should just refuse to evaluate it... as we don't have nearly enough information on what you actually did. This is ignoring other problems, such as the 'shotgun approach' to fixing the reliability.

I'll accept that statement in that what I posted here is a short version. A 35 page colored brochure with graphics and more detailed information was put together but I don't intend to publish it due to the instability of the current data. When a final report is made it will be presented professionally.


I have spent years in nuclear power and R&D. I have...
The rest of your post is simply the "I'm not a quack" speech again. If you want to only discuss the research, then do that. No reason for this extra junk except to draw attacks upon yourself and divert the issue.

I made this statement in direct response to asscertions like the one you made above "You don't know scientific methods". That is an incorrect assumption on your part.
YOur refined statement here is more acceptable and that is this data has not been presented showing the scientific method.
Frankly the quality of the data looks rather dumb when put into the brochure showing all the detail which produced such poor results, which is why I now choose to wait for better data.

And then there is this. Why is it that you and most others here failed to read my initial response to James R.'s questions?

Let me begin by making it completely clear that I have not posted this data with any sense of "Gotcha" or that I have proven anything. The conclusion is far from substantiated but I do feel is justified as being indicated or likely in light of the shear numbers of positive results.

The problems with erratic data and enfluences on the test by things other than what we wanted to measure virtually mask the data. It is only over the long term of taking such statistical averages that any results can be seen.

It seems to me I minimized my claims to virtually zero; which is where the data currently is. But it is not actually ZERO which is why I posted. It was simply a peek at what looks like an interesting phenomena. I have already said it does not yet prove anything.

To Anyone:

Making the following assumptions:

1 - New data from improved appratus and controlled enviornment
that is clearly positive (meaning strong stable results in favor of geometry affects)

2 - Including data from tests including a "Remote Port Plug" which causes the test mass to appear to be homogeneous, that is the geometry affect vanishes when the remote mass is included in the tests.

Question: Do you then agree that the tests justify a claim that gravity is an externally generated phenomena?

MacM:

I think you need to study up on Newtonian gravity. You claim:

<i>In Newtonian you have the form F = G*m1*m2/r^2.

This is the force of gravity based on mass and distance between Centers of Mass (COM) only. This requires a calculus integration to reduce irregular or non-spherical objects to the equivelent of a point source so as to calculate the resulting gravity.</i>

That is not true. If you're dealing with a non-spherical object in Newtonian gravity, what you do is divide the object into little bits of mass dm. The force on test mass m due to one piece of mass is:

dF = (G m /r²) dm <b>r</b>,

where <b>r</b> is a unit vector pointing from the test mass to the mass element dm, and r is the distance from the centre of the (small) test mass to the element dm.

The total force is obtained by integrating over the entire extended object. This takes the particular geometry into account.

Note: this procedure is NOT equivalent to reducing the irregular object to a point source.

Most importantly, for the present discussion, this procedure would give different forces depending on the orientation of your test apparatus - contrary to what you claim.

Hence, I conclude that you have not really tested Newtonian gravity against UniKEF, because you have not correctly worked through what Newtonian gravity would predict in the first place. Therefore, you have no basis to distinguish between Newtonian physics and UniKEF using your experiment, <i>even your results are meaningful.</i>

Moreover, it seems you cannot even display an accurate calculation of the force you expect from your own UniKEF theory. How you hope to verify the theory when you have no basis on which to compare the theory with the experimental results is beyond me.

You write:

<i>This suggests (doesn't yet prove) that the cause of such an affect is due to streaming of a dynamic field producing gravity through the hole reduces the quanitity of the energy field causing gravity at the trigonometry function = 1.000 is less in one direction than the other. When the port is closed (turned sidewards most of the direct (trig = 1) function still penetrates mass. The volume of the void and the total mass are the same but the penetration of mass at specific angles is different and the resulting force is different from these different angles relative to the port.</i>

This is a statement of faith, not science. The fact is:

* You can't describe the "streaming of a dynamic field" which you talk about in any meaningful mathematical way.
* You haven't specified what energy field you're talking about, or even what an energy field is.

Quite apart from the issues of theory, I am far from convinced that your experimental apparatus is actually measuring anything like what you think it is measuring. The number of extraneous influences, combined with the very small gravitational force, means that meaningful measurements of gravity are very unlikely to be occuring.

It is very dangerous to take averages across many measurements and then conclude a positive effect - especially without adopting double-blind procedures to avoid experimenter bias. The wide variations in your individual results suggest to me that they are statistically meaningless.

I agree with Persol's comments, too.

James R.,


Originally posted by James R
MacM:

I think you need to study up on Newtonian gravity. You claim:

<i>In Newtonian you have the form F = G*m1*m2/r^2.

This is the force of gravity based on mass and distance between Centers of Mass (COM) only. This requires a calculus integration to reduce irregular or non-spherical objects to the equivelent of a point source so as to calculate the resulting gravity.</i>

That is not true. If you're dealing with a non-spherical object in Newtonian gravity, what you do is divide the object into little bits of mass dm. The force on test mass m due to one piece of mass is:

dF = (G m /r²) dm <b>r</b>,

where <b>r</b> is a unit vector pointing from the test mass to the mass element dm, and r is the distance from the centre of the (small) test mass to the element dm.

The total force is obtained by integrating over the entire extended object. This takes the particular geometry into account.



ANS: I do not believe the process you just described takes trig angles of the force into account but merely point to point 1/r^2 forces. If I am wrong on that issue please advise. If it doesn't then therein lies a difference in computd affect which should be testable.



Note: this procedure is NOT equivalent to reducing the irregular object to a point source.

Most importantly, for the present discussion, this procedure would give different forces depending on the orientation of your test apparatus - contrary to what you claim.


ANS: Unfortunately I think I now agree.:D

Hence, I conclude that you have not really tested Newtonian gravity against UniKEF, because you have not correctly worked through what Newtonian gravity would predict in the first place. Therefore, you have no basis to distinguish between Newtonian physics and UniKEF using your experiment, <i>even your results are meaningful.</i>


ANS: I would have to agree, even including the use of a Remote Port Plug to block streaming, still would not rule out streaming from within (unknown force caused by mass per Newtonian view.



Moreover, it seems you cannot even display an accurate calculation of the force you expect from your own UniKEF theory. How you hope to verify the theory when you have no basis on which to compare the theory with the experimental results is beyond me.

You write:

<i>This suggests (doesn't yet prove) that the cause of such an affect is due to streaming of a dynamic field producing gravity through the hole reduces the quanitity of the energy field causing gravity at the trigonometry function = 1.000 is less in one direction than the other. When the port is closed (turned sidewards most of the direct (trig = 1) function still penetrates mass. The volume of the void and the total mass are the same but the penetration of mass at specific angles is different and the resulting force is different from these different angles relative to the port.</i>

This is a statement of faith, not science. The fact is:

* You can't describe the "streaming of a dynamic field" which you talk about in any meaningful mathematical way.
* You haven't specified what energy field you're talking about, or even what an energy field is.


ANS: Here we would disagree but only slightly. I do not think it would be necessary to show it matched some mathematical conclusion of UniKEF but only that it was unaccounted for by current physics. That has been my stated objective of the test. I have already stated many times that UniKEF is not complete and is not supported mathematically. So Yes it would at this point be impossible to say the result support UniKEF in a precise way but could indicate that current concepts were lacking in some way. But the testing doesn't support that conclusion - got more thinking and work to do.:D


Quite apart from the issues of theory, I am far from convinced that your experimental apparatus is actually measuring anything like what you think it is measuring. The number of extraneous influences, combined with the very small gravitational force, means that meaningful measurements of gravity are very unlikely to be occuring.

ANS: We disagree again but again only theoretically. Surely the setup feels the differential. It is questionable that we are seeing it in the data due to the erractic behavior of the device.
Yet I think the statistical conclusion is valid, albiet not accurate.

It is very dangerous to take averages across many measurements and then conclude a positive effect - especially without adopting double-blind procedures to avoid experimenter bias. The wide variations in your individual results suggest to me that they are statistically meaningless.

ANS: We would disagree again. Each series of (10) 40 minutes tests produced a positive result. After 8 months I find it highly UNLIKELY that such results are anything but gravity differential in nature. But certainly not of a quality I would want to try and support as an arguement against current physics.


I agree with Persol's comments, too.


Now to another issue. It has been said many times that one of the criteria for a Crackpot is they never admit they are wrong. Well I just have. So strike me off your list.:D


THANKS FOR RESPONDING TO THE ISSUE.

MacM:

<i>I do not believe the process you just described takes trig angles of the force into account but merely point to point 1/r^2 forces. If I am wrong on that issue please advise. If it doesn't then therein lies a difference in computd affect which should be testable.</i>

I'm sorry to say it, but you are wrong here. The Newtonian calculation does take the angles into account, via the vector nature of the equation I posted previously.

<i>I do not think it would be necessary to show it matched some mathematical conclusion of UniKEF but only that it was unaccounted for by current physics.</i>

That would be valid as a first step, of course. However, you haven't done the calculations for your setup using conventional Newtonian physics, so you can't know whether your experimental results are accounted for by Newtonian theory or not.

It must also be said that very accurate tests of Newtonian gravitation have been made using similar, but more accurate, apparatus to yours. The results have all supported Newtonian gravity theory. In fact, to see departures from Newton, you need to look at much bigger systems (e.g. planetary orbits etc.)

<i>That has been my stated objective of the test. I have already stated many times that UniKEF is not complete and is not supported mathematically. So Yes it would at this point be impossible to say the result support UniKEF in a precise way but could indicate that current concepts were lacking in some way.</i>

Personally, I think that <b>if</b> the movement of your apparatus is actually caused by gravity, as opposed to any of the numerous other possible causes, then you will find that Newtonian physics correctly predicts the observed behaviour to within the accuracy permitted by your setup.

But on the basis of the information you have provided, I cannot even say for sure that you are seeing gravitational effects. I seriously doubt that that is the case, given what I know of your experiment.

<i>Each series of (10) 40 minutes tests produced a positive result.</i>

The question is: why?

A good experimenter always tries to rule out other possible explanations for their results, other than the effect which they think they are testing.

What alternative possible explanations have you considered? Can you rule them out for sure?

<i>Now to another issue. It has been said many times that one of the criteria for a Crackpot is they never admit they are wrong. Well I just have. So strike me off your list.</i>

I have never called you a crackpot, MacM.

I do not believe that UniKEF cuts the mustard as a real physical theory at this stage. To do that, it would need a lot of tightening of definitions concepts, and mathematical support.

Without a detailed explanation of your experimental method (and I mean REALLY detailed), I cannot determine what it is that your apparatus is reacting to for sure. Maybe it is gravity (though I doubt it). But even if it is, I don't think this debunks any current physics or advances UniKEF's cause.

James R.,


MacM:

I do not believe the process you just described takes trig angles of the force into account but merely point to point 1/r^2 forces. If I am wrong on that issue please advise. If it doesn't then therein lies a difference in computd affect which should be testable.


I'm sorry to say it, but you are wrong here. The Newtonian calculation does take the angles into account, via the vector nature of the equation I posted previously.



Question: If so then UniKEF integration would be just a long hand method of achieving the same result.

My question is this. How does your formula achieve angle compensation? There is no trig conversions shown.

The trig in UniKEF is the Cosine of the angle between the "bit" line of force relative to the primary plane of gravity between the center of the masses.

Primary plane of gravity, what's that?

And what is a bit line of force?:bugeye:

MacM:

<i>How does your formula achieve angle compensation? There is no trig conversions shown.</i>

When you do the integration you need to keep track of the vectors.

If you're just interested in the component of the gravity force in a particular direction (say the x direction), then the expression reduces to:

dF_x = (G m/r²) cos(theta) dm

where theta is the angle between the x axis and a line drawn from the test mass to the mass element dm.

ryans,

I was just back on site to look for a reference to make more sense but instead of editing above I'll post it here.

A "bit" is a small volume of mass (a point) being calculated along the line of penetration. See Fig 25. Page 1 in the Photo Album for Calculus.

The line of penetration I am refering to is the angle shown as "Theta".

Now Dr Allard of course is doing things differently than I originally did long hand but it is still the same drawing I would use. My original manuscript calculated the length of the line of penetration times the Cosine trig function of the angle.

I made accurate measurements in 1 degree steps and added up all the trig corrected values. This wasn't a true integration but a summation of sorts that represented trends of integration.

This produced a curve of values for a series of circles at different "r" values.

That curve was within 1% of the Newtonian 1/r^2 by doing that.
That is what interested Dr Allard was the way I had arrived at the 1/r^2 curve using that long hand measurement.

You can also see it in the same photo album in UFig 1-3


PS: UFig 7 is how I derived the "Relavistic Mass" view as being loss of energy transfer efficiency. It shows the amount of the applied force that goes into the orthogonal EM field of a moving object. That too tracks Relativity to within 1% using simple trig.