1. I have only skimmed over it (as I have got better things to do), but it seems analogous to the calculation of irradiance in optics. Saying that, the pictures look like childrens drawings to me.

2. James R.,

I am thinking about how to set up the integration now.

It seems that what we need is a formula for the effective penetration factor of the field at each angle from zero degrees to the limit of the "cone of sources".

My problem is that this seems to be different for every field line involved, since each line passes through a different thickness of each sphere.

Can you suggest an appropriate formula I could use? (Anybody?)

Or, perhaps there is some way to relate this to an area or volume of penetration...(?)
Wish I cold help here but I'm afraid I can't. It appears that Dr Allard set up a relationship to area.

You could always draw a bunch of equally spaced lines using equal spaced angle changes and do it by hand.

3. I'm having a bit of trouble getting my mind around how to handle the full 3D problem here.

4. James R.,

I'm having a bit of trouble getting my mind around how to handle the full 3D problem here.
ANS: As I mentioned I'm not sure it is necessary. That is because the volume of a sphere is proportioal to the area of a circle by a constant fixed amount. I would think the area of a circle would show the same inverse square relationship.

5. ANS: As I mentioned I'm not sure it is necessary. That is because the volume of a sphere is proportioal to the area of a circle by a constant fixed amount. I would think the area of a circle would show the same inverse square relationship.
No it isn't.

V/A=4/3 r

where r is the radius of a circle and equivalent sphere. If you double the radius, the area increase 4 times and the volume 8 times. Hardly invariant with respect to size.

If you think of the problem in terms of a flux, then consider the conservation of fluw through concentric spheres enclosing the source, the you will get a field that decreases as 1/r in 3-d. Since the force acting on a particle is the gradient of the field, this will give you an inverse square relationship.

6. Originally Posted by ryans
If you think of the problem in terms of a flux, then consider the conservation of fluw through concentric spheres enclosing the source, the you will get a field that decreases as 1/r in 3-d. Since the force acting on a particle is the gradient of the field, this will give you an inverse square relationship.
... as for many other situations such as electrostatics aswel.

Bye!

Crisp

7. ryans,

Quote:
ANS: As I mentioned I'm not sure it is necessary. That is because the volume of a sphere is proportioal to the area of a circle by a constant fixed amount. I would think the area of a circle would show the same inverse square relationship.

No it isn't.

V/A=4/3 r

where r is the radius of a circle and equivalent sphere. If you double the radius, the area increase 4 times and the volume 8 times. Hardly invariant with respect to size.

ANS: Nobody is changing size here. The relationship between area of a circle and volume of a sphere is a fixed quantity.

8. Since you seem to hinge all your arguments on inverse-square, would you take a minute to explain what exactly is an inverse-square law? (and don't say its muddled in there with the millions of other pages of "documentation" about UniKEF, just answer me straight to the point in your next post.) Suppose that two variables are related by an inverse square-law, what does that say about their relationship? What does a plot of an inverse-square relationship look like in terms of shape? (...You don't have to be a "mathematician" to answer this.)

Pls Note: This question is highly relevant as you claim that UniKEF relies on inverse-square for its correctness, and that you understand UniKEF. (For someone who so vehemently argues FOR something, you'd think you understand it well enough that you can put your reputation on the line, so that you don't look like an ass if you're wrong... one should be careful about one's reputation and credibility...).

Originally Posted by MacM
GundamWing,

Been a while. I fully accept your post. However, UniKEF has been reduced to one falsifiable issue, that of the UniKEF inverse square function. If it is falseified then there is nothing to discuss. If it is verified, then it is a matter of how much speculation people want to hear beause nothing (as you know) has been formalized or tested.

The issue of James instructions has already been clarified and is perfectly acceptable.

9. GundamWing,

Since you seem to hinge all your arguments on inverse-square, would you take a minute to explain what exactly is an inverse-square law? (and don't say its muddled in there with the millions of other pages of "documentation" about UniKEF, just answer me straight to the point in your next post.) Suppose that two variables are related by an inverse square-law, what does that say about their relationship? What does a plot of an inverse-square relationship look like in terms of shape? (...You don't have to be a "mathematician" to answer this.)

Pls Note: This question is highly relevant as you claim that UniKEF relies on inverse-square for its correctness, and that you understand UniKEF. (For someone who so vehemently argues FOR something, you'd think you understand it well enough that you can put your reputation on the line, so that you don't look like an ass if you're wrong... one should be careful about one's reputation and credibility...).
ANS: Newtonian gravity is known to have an inverse square relationship between Force produced and the seperation distance squared. (Within local ranges, MOND must be applied for galatic ranges and larger).

Fn = G*m1*m2/R^2

That is to say that each doubling of distance reduces the Force to 1/4 of the earlier Force. See attachment.

However, UniKEF came into being since I did not feel mass x mass (which is mass squared) made any sense. Mathematically it works OK but physically what is mass squared?

The UniKEF concept evolved when I found that I could also get the same inverse square force vs distance of seperation by a total accumulated mass penetrations:

Fu = U*~*(m1i+m2i]*trig. Where U is the UniKEF field, ~ is an absorbtion or attenuation coefficient and m1i and m2i are the mass penetrations integrated along with their trig functions. That is gravity becomes a matter of accumulated mass penetrations times trig functions and not a mass product.

"Attachment Workaround"

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment....tid=2503&stc=1

10. GundamWing,

not ok. Fn = G*m1*m2/R^2 simply says that the gravitational force between two objects is proportional to the product of their masses and the inverse of the distance between them. This has been proven experimentally as well as derived. Your "UniKEF" equation was not derived from anything as far as anyone can tell. p

ANS: Well you are only partially correct. If you had read all the material here you would have discovered that it was in fact derived by making drawings and using as precise as possible parallel lines and angles. Measuring them and adding them altogether. While not absolute it did come within 0.5% of the correct curve.

That is all.
ANS: Whatever that is supposed to mean.

When asked to show the math, you skirt the issue saying that it is not available, or that some Dr Allard derived it; when asked for calculations, you simply say "the results of my calculations"... where are the actual calculations themselves?? When I say I want the calculations behind something, I mean what did you add, subtract, multiple, divide, integrate, or differentiate to get your result? What were your limits of integration or whatever you did "long-hand"? Over what geometries? What assumptions were made in those calculations at each step? (by the way, I don't know how someone can do a integral "long-hand"... either you integrate, or you don't... there is no "long-hand" method -- if you are referring to some sort of simulation, where is the code? what method did you use to do the integration? (euler? runge-kutta? something else?)) It is far easier to, and would behoove you, to learn how to integrate rather than doing it "long-hand" anyway. Might save you some time, and having to listen to my banter.
ANS: My, My we are demanding aren't we. I think I just explained what was done. Your tone regarding Dr Allard is unjustified.

Giving *lame (IMO)* excuses about 30Mb disk space is ridiculous. I can put up ten times the material you posted with less than 5 MB. Perhaps you should consult with someone so you don't get ripped off into buying unnecessary disk space for so little content.
ANS: And perhaps you should read a little slower. MSN comes with 3MB which was not enough room with the photo albums etc. Not to mention the dim or tattered condition of the original manuscript. I simply pulled out enough material to give the general idea. I have indeed purchased 30 MB because I intend to expand the content.

PS:FYI - I'm at 11.5 MB now, in part since I need to change format from bmp to gif in the photo albums. You really should try and keep your responses accurate.

*Evolved like my fictitious monkey.* I still don't see what "trig" has anything to do with this.
You know I don't mind questions but your tone is out of line with your knowledge and understanding. I suppose you don't understand that if I push on something with 10 pounds force at 45 degrees to the direction I want it to move, that there is a trig function which says I only get 7.07 pounds in my desired direction. You really shouldn't pop off before you fully understand the subject.

What the heck are "mass penetrations"?
ANS: Rather than repeat everything here I refer you back to prior posts describing the very thing you are asking.

Why use such an odd symbol (tilda) for absorption/attenuation coefficients, aren't there enough greek letters out there?
ANS: Simple enough my key board doesn't have all those symbols and I don't do fancy html, etc.

Either you or Dr Addled is an engineer apparently, so why is it that the engineer doesn't have the good sense to use more standard notation?

1 - Your Dr Addled (My Dr Allard) is not only a physicist but as James R. determined is world recognized authority in FLIR technology.

2 - Dr Allard's entire input was the (8) pages of calculus, nothing else.

3 - You really should curb that attitude before you actually know what it is you are talking about.

You can't write an equation with terms like "trig" and say that it is better than an existing equation which follows norms. It's like inventing a fictitious fudge factor and saying that "my answer + the fudge factor" is approximately equal to the true answer. Then anything goes and I would never have gotten anything wrong on any of my tests back in college. I could've used a couple fudge factors here and there back in Thermo class.

ANS: That formula is not a functional formula. It is a symbolic statement for crying out loud.

A tip: give up this assanine exercise in futility, because you could do a lot more useful things for society in your remaining years, and leave the theorizing to people who are qualified. In the end philosophy is not science, and science is not philosophy -- let them remain as they are and don't confuse one for the other. On the other hand, since your entire interest in UniKEF stems from a non-scientific and non-philosophical argument, I don't really see where it fits in anyway. I can already predict your next post, it will be skirting, unrelated to the actual calculations of UniKEF, and will most likely talk about the fact that you don't know math, but someone else does and they know what they are talking about. It will contain a lot of red and blue and various other colors as well. You have become too predictable GundamWing, better start being more original at least.

11. Originally Posted by MacM
GundamWing,

ANS: Well you are only partially correct. If you had read all the material here you would have discovered that it was in fact derived by making drawings and using as precise as possible parallel lines and angles. Measuring them and adding them altogether. While not absolute it did come within 0.5% of the correct curve.

.
.
.
Just playin' with your mind Mac. I can't say I have any faith in your theory for various reasons which I will not go into, but its fun to get you riled up.

By the way, "Dr Allard" is a medical health physicist who tinkers around a bit with devices and works for the DOE. His development of FLIR technology, *still*, does not qualify him to formulate theories about the universe, nor verify them in any substantial way. A medical physicist by def'n is not a 'mathematical physicist' because he did not go through the necessary training -- rather, he is more closely affiliated with a medical device engineer. Since you will not believe / listen-to any of the physicists on this forum, perhaps you would care to contact Dr. Hawking? http://www.hawking.org.uk/info/cindex.html

12. GundamWing,

Just playin' with your mind Mac. I can't say I have any faith in your theory for various reasons which I will not go into, but its fun to get you riled up.
ANS: ME riled up? Whatever do you mean?

By the way, "Dr Allard" is a medical health physicist who tinkers around a bit with devices and works for the DOE.
ANS: You would seem to have the wrong Dr Allard. His given name was Edward. He was in ERDL Research Command when I knew him, studying Piric Acid explosives. He was not in medical. Today he is not working anywhere. He had a heart attack some years ago.

His development of FLIR technology, *still*, does not qualify him to formulate theories about the universe, nor verify them in any substantial way.
ANS: Nobody said he did. As stated his total contribution was the calculus verification of the UniKEF inverse square function based on integrated mass penetrations and their trig functions.

A medical physicist by def'n is not a 'mathematical physicist' because he did not go through the necessary training -- rather, he is more closely affiliated with a medical device engineer. Since you will not believe / listen-to any of the physicists on this forum, perhaps you would care to contact Dr. Hawking?
ANS: The comment about medical physicist is inapplicable here, as is any attempt to introduce UniKEF to Dr. Hawkins .

13. Au contraire'. "Dr Allard" is indeed the very same "Edward" you just referred to, I saw a number of references to him as a "medical health physicist" implying he does medical physics. I have also seen a number of references to the very same guy working in explosives and what not as you mentioned. So all in all, this guy is versatile from what I can tell. Given that he works for DOE, he's bound to be working on or at least examining a few cooky ideas on the side. Afterall, where else do all those billions of dollars go, allocated to 'defense spending'? The very same man is responsible for the FLIR, and is a consultant on radiation dosages, and was involved in a recent court case against some doctor who was overdosing certain patients *reason unknown* with radiation far above tolerance levels, ...I forget why he was doing all this though, but you can look it up for yourself if you're really curious.

As for the calculus that he's added to your theory, you've been hoodwinked, duped, bandywaggled, ...in essence, you bought snake-oil and have mistaken it for texas tea.

14. GundamWing,

As for the calculus that he's added to your theory, you've been hoodwinked, duped, bandywaggled, ...in essence, you bought snake-oil and have mistaken it for texas tea.
ANS: Actually I'd bet a months pay just based on my own initial finding, to within 0.5%, inlight of how I did it, that the process is inverse square.

As far as snake oil I got my doubts don't you.

15. GundamWing,

(by the way, I don't know how someone can do a integral "long-hand"... either you integrate, or you don't... there is no "long-hand" method -- if you are referring to some sort of simulation, where is the code?
Regarding the above. I would think you have heard of "Simpons Integration" and are familure with "Trapozoidal Correction", are you not? If not then perhaps I could tutor you.

16. I would think you have heard of "Simpons Integration" and are familure with "Trapozoidal Correction", are you not? If not then perhaps I could tutor you.
That's called numerical integration numbnuts, and in all but trivial cases it is not exact. If you are thinking that it is the equivalent of long division, you are mistaken, as long division is exact.

17. ryans,

That's called numerical integration numbnuts, and in all but trivial cases it is not exact. If you are thinking that it is the equivalent of long division, you are mistaken, as long division is exact.
ANS: Gee, I guess I should throw out my copy of "Esbach" since they refer to it as "Simpson's Integration" numbnuts. And of course it is not exact but running two Simpson's integrations one at double the "n" number and running both results through "Trapozoidal Correction" makes it pretty damn close for most purposes. You get past a few decimal places and for practical applications you simply round off anyhow. Since you didn't attack "Trapozoidal Correction" I wonder if our great scientist has even ever heard of it?

18. I am very familiar with "Simpson Integration", however I was pointing out your unfamiliar reference to numerical integration as "long hand" integration, which in your case I believe would not be refering to taking the limit of some sum as the number of elements approaches infinity.

In future, the method of integration you have refered to as long hand integration shall be refered to as numerical integration, as this is the current terminology. I am simply making it easier for you to communicate with the scientific community Mac.

19. ryans,

I am very familiar with "Simpson Integration", however I was pointing out your unfamiliar reference to numerical integration as "long hand" integration, which in your case I believe would not be refering to taking the limit of some sum as the number of elements approaches infinity.

In future, the method of integration you have refered to as long hand integration shall be refered to as numerical integration, as this is the current terminology. I am simply making it easier for you to communicate with the scientific community Mac.
Once again you have jumped to conclusions. I did not say I used Simpson's Integration on the UniKEF Inverse Square calculation. It was indeed long hand, not Simpson's Integration.

I posted this comment about Simpson's Integration to GundamWing because he was saying there is no way to integrate other than to integrate. When infact there are several algorithums that yield useful integration.

You are probably right in that what I did long hand would not properly be called integration in the calculus sense. But I accumulated and added together data to produce a whole.

WEBSTER:

Integrate - (1) to make whole or complete by adding or bringing together parts.

Other definitions refer to actual mathematical integration. So I still think calling what I did long hand integration is valid. I added together measured parts to derive a whole.

20. Originally Posted by MacM
ryans,
I posted this comment about Simpson's Integration to GundamWing because he was saying there is no way to integrate other than to integrate. When infact there are several algorithums that yield useful integration.

I did not say that there is no way to integrate other than to 'integrate'; I consider most numerical integration as 'simulation' as I stated in my post. I believe it is you Mac who have jumped the gun. I mostly use monte carlo techniques to do integration, so I lumped it in with 'simulation', my bad.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•