1. Originally Posted by chroot
The 13.7 Gly "figure" is not an "observation," it's an incorrect conclusion from an old man who doesn't know jack about cosmology. How's that for some outrageous bullshit behavior?

- Warren
Typical of chroot bullshit. Give it up you let your candy ass mouth get you in trouble once again.

2. What trouble did my "candy ass mouth" get me in, MacM? What are you even talking about? Do you even know?

- Warren

3. Originally Posted by chroot
What trouble did my "candy ass mouth" get me in, MacM? What are you even talking about? Do you even know?

- Warren
You are making a fool of yourself.

4. chroot is right, of course. Trading insults won't change that.

5. Originally Posted by James R
chroot is right, of course. Trading insults won't change that.
The insult is to assert that I was not aware of the differance between the standard 13.7Gly figure and the enlarged universe when expansion during the light travel time is considered. Like I said earlier. I personally posted the 156Gly figure when it came out.

And yes 2Iq.... is right that figure was in error and should have been 78Glyr.

But none of this goes to the issue of chroot's false slanderous attacks and your siding with him only shows your own poor judgement. Nothing you or he can say alters the fact that many months ago I posted the very information this asshole asserted I did not know.

But that is just his style. Arrogant, egotistical asshole.

6. Originally Posted by MacM
Arrogant, egotistical asshole.
This from the man who presumes his own intellect to be greater than that of hundreds of thousands of physicists and mathematicians...

7. Originally Posted by funkstar
This from the man who presumes his own intellect to be greater than that of hundreds of thousands of physicists and mathematicians...
Another unwarranted comment.

8. WOW over 61,000 views.

Thought I would bring this oldy back up just because Billy T has recently accused me of changing my views. I think this historical file proves that assertion a lie.

9. Originally Posted by MacM
WOW over 61,000 views. ...
Everyone enjoys a good laugh.

10. Originally Posted by MacM
... Billy T has recently accused me of changing my views. ...
Yes I have. Here is the documented proof you have:

The “case” MacM discusses below had clocks a & b at rest together in frame C (also called their Common Rest Frame, CRF, by MacM, who thinks that history is important instead of just the current Relative Velocity which is all that matters to standard SR.) Then later both were in inertial frames, A & B but B is receding faster from their prior launch point in frame C (and for all eternity). In post 93, MacM KNEW HOW to calculate the relative Time Dilation of clock b wrt clock a, (TDba in my compact notation):
Originally Posted by MacM
{post 93} In this case there will be dilation between the clocks but to determine what it is you must calculate each clock relavistically to the CPF and then compute the differential time dilation. ...
confirm that at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...5&postcount=93

Then in post 118 and again in 198 I showed mathematically that this lead to a self contradiction using “MacM approved methodology.” Here is summary from post 118:
Originally Posted by Billy T
{post 118} ... SUMMARY: Now two “MacM approved” but different methods have been used to calculate TDb. To distinguish them I will rename the one of the “first situation” one, which used speed VBc, TDb1 and call the other TDb2. TDb2 used two different speeds wrt to E(0,0), THEIR COMMON REST FRAME, to separately calculate the Physics Time Dilations of clocks, A & B and then subtracted these two PTDs to get TDb2.

The standard SR equations for PTDs are non-liner so it is highly unlikely that TDb1 = TDb2...
Also to further drive the stake thru MacM’s version of SR, I note that I have not yet told the entire history of clocks a & b. They were both once at mutual rest in frame F, side-by-side at F(0,0), before accelerating and then mutually coming to rest in frame E at E(0,0). Thus frame E is not the only “common rest frame.” It just happens to be their last one. ...
confirm that at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=118

Faced with this mathematical demonstration of self contradiction MacM CHANGE HIS POSITION - No longer KNEW HOW to calculate the relative Time Dilation of clock b wrt clock a I.e. MacM states in post 130:
Originally Posted by MacM
{post 130}I have repeatedly said that this +/- motion is not properly answered by a simple view either. i.e. - I readily have admitted I do not have the answer but only the appropriate questions.
You have not proven me wrong you are helping prove me right unless you can explain how either clock knows to increase tick rate physically
confirm that at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=130

The one thing MacM has been consistent and firm in, is his intuitive, but false, belief that there MUST be a “PHYSICAL CHANGE” in the frame which in the past was accelerated to produce what MacM calls “real velocity” instead of just the “illusion of motion.”

In several posts, I have given the following analogy to show that no Physical Change is required:
Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!" Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use to describe time or length in another realm or frame.

But Phyti has given a better proof of this (not an analogy) via a case of time dilation at:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=734 where I quote the essential part of Phyti ‘s “photon travel time clock” and discuss it further.

11. As I said since this is being discussed in: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94193

I will not post further here.

12. Originally Posted by DaleSpam
You really need to do some math on your own sometimes. I realize that the math for your own theory is fairly complicated, but you should at least learn how to evaluate Newtonian gravity.

Consider a simple case of two equal masses located at x=-1 and x=3 relative to our test mass. The classical force in the negative direction is 9 times the force in the positive direction, and yet the center of mass is located at x=1, in the positive direction. Now, let's rotate the system 90º about its center of mass. Now, both forces are positive and, by symmetry, the total force is directed through the center of mass. Clearly, as you said "Neither the mass nor the center of mass are different yet the force of gravity is different." The "geometry affect" is taken into consideration by Newton and the classical force does not always act through the center of mass.

I believe that the only time you can consider a distributed mass to be a point mass at the center is for spherical masses. Since the UniKEF force is the same as the Newtonian force on the interior of a sphere I expect that it will be the same on the exterior of a sphere also. I reiterate my suggestion that UniKEF will act exactly the same as classical gravity as long as the total flux is not significantly attenuated. In any case we will soon see one way or the other mathematically.

-Dale
Dale, There is an analysis you haven't considered.

The test mass m0 is located at 0. m1 located at 9 and m2 located at 11. Assume these are the nearest and farthest locations of a spherical mass centered at 10. The nearest fdorce Fn is 1/81 while Ff is 1/121, for G = 1, and m0 = m1 = m2 = 1. The combined forceFt = Fn + Ff = .02061. Ft = 2/x^2 = .02061, hence x = 9.85, which is not at the COM of the sphere. Do the same for the next mass on the sphere and its mirror image closer to the COM from the far side.

This is just a modified version of the shell theorem which is stated, 'the shell behhaves as if all the mass was concentrated at the COM of the sphere.' This is a physical impossibility as just demonstrated. The difference with the simple calculations above wrt the shell integral is that the shell integral does not compute the location of the force, it merely concludes F = GmM/d^2 whis says only the force on a test mass by a shell located a distance d from the test mass.

A solid constant density sphere will have similar results.

A solid sphere with increasing density from surface to COM will have similar results - meaning the center of gravity, taken as the location of the total force on m0, is located off set from the COM of the sphere in the direction of m0.

The 1/2 shell segment closest to the test mass contributes more force on m0 than the equal 1/2 shell segment located farther from the test mass.

Should this not be proved from observation alone?

13. Excuse me Geistkiesel, I already dealt with your Newton's shell theorem issue many months ago, and you never even bothered to respond. Did you do the vector sum? Did you not see how the cancellation of forces in certain directions works to address your perceived dilemma? I'm not happy at all to have gone to all that trouble for you if you didn't bother to even look at my argument.

And as for the additional "paradox" you mentioned about the garage and giant truck problem in MacM's other thread, I refused to post anything more in that thread but I'll answer you here. It's physically impossible to synchronize two spacially separated clocks in both frames at the same time. If I see two distant clocks and measure them as synchronized, it won't work out that way for other observers moving at some velocity relative to myself. Your proposal was to use some sort of signal in each reference frame so that the clocks could somehow be synchronized in each of these reference frames, all at the same time. The reason you can't do this is because the signal would have to travel faster than light in order to accomplish this effect, and it would violate causality in the process.

14. geistkiesel, simply refusing the even bother to learn what the algebraic derivation of the Shell theorem is doesn't mean you're magically right. The Shell theorem does derive the direction which an object would be pulled by the material, because you obtain the potential U(r) for the gravitational field and to then compute the direction in which an object at position x would be pulled you compute $\nabla U|_{x}$. This is basic calculus. CptBork has been through it with you, JamesR has been through it with you, you've been pointed to Wikipedia and books, yet you've avoided ALL of those resources.

What do you possibly hope to accomplish by ardently avoiding learning and understanding the basic tools of science, by avoiding any and all information people put infront of you? You claim to grasp calculus but the fact you've just made a number of patently false claims about the Shell Theorem would suggest either you don't know any calculus or you're willing to lie purely to try and further your claims (which you know to be wrong). What's the point?

#### Posting Permissions

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