UniKEF analysis

[MacM]

Persol,

You completely didn't address my point. Yes, you showed the COS work. No, you didn't explain how this represents the field. Well, since I'm stuck in a country by myself where I don't speak the language... I had some time on my hands... and since it seems that you aren't going to simulate a multi-directional / multi-source field, I did it myself. I don't have any programming tools on this laptop, so I had to do it in Excel.

ANS: Sheeesh And to think you have complained that my presentation was insufficient?

Your primary arguement that the current UniKEF calculation doesn't include all possible angles is and has been acknowleged. I have also stated that it is first important to determine if the initial work results are valid. Then consider the challenge you raise.

As I have stated and indicated graphically, I full well anticipate that it does not alter the result. As far as your current claim there is no way of telling what you think you have calculated so I'll reserve comment until it is properly scripted.

You should actually remember you aren't just challenging old MacM you are also challenging a recognized and highly qualified physicist doing a calculus resolution. I don't think this basic routine comes close to presenting the affect. I think your submission needs a bit of work don't you.?

[Persol]

Sheeesh And to think you have complained that my presentation was insufficient?
EVERY single step is there for you too see. This isn't very difficult to comprehend. It's your theory after all. The field in this simulation is coming from every direction.

I have also stated that it is first important to determine if the initial work results are valid.
If you are trying to ask if they are valid, then no.. they aren't. I have explained why they are not representative of the UniKEF theory.

As I have stated and indicated graphically and I FULL well anticipate that it does not alter the result.
Well, sorry bub... but it does. You WILL have a constant term in your results due to the horizontal field.

You should actually remember you aren't just challenging old MacM you are also challenging a recognized and highly qualified physicist doing a calculus resolution.
Lol... once again his calculation is just the math behind your COS idea... which isn't multi-source/dimensioned. Regardless of whether the COS works or doesn't, it tells us nothing about the applicablility of the UniKEF field (which is the topic BTW).

As far as your current claim there is no way of telling what you think you have calculated so I'll reserve comment until it is properly scripted.
Um... your field is multi-sourced and multi-direcitonal... correct? Ok, properly scripted.

I don't think this basic routine comes close to presenting the affect. I think your submission needs a bit of work don't you.?
Nope. Not at all. If you think it is wrong, point out why. As it is, it is the multi-directional and multi-sourced field as defined in your theory.

If you think it is wrong, explain why. In short:
1) You have yet to make the connection between 'cones of sources' and a multi-directional/sourced field.
2) I have explained and demonstrated that your field has a constant component and .
3) You claim I am wrong, but have not been able to explain why.

Either address the issues with your theory, or shut the hell up. Your last post had no content at all except 'you are wrong and I am right'. Do you want to try to support your position at all?

[MacM]

Persol,

Sheeesh And to think you have complained that my presentation was insufficient?
EVERY single step is there for you too see. This isn't very difficult to comprehend. It's your theory after all. The field in this simulation is coming from every direction.

Yep, it is my theory and your garbage. What you presented is hodge-podge numbers. There is absolutely no effort to perform the UniKef integration as described and the numerical output from your program is sporadic garbage. To claim to be a programmer this is a pathetic display.

I'll be posting a step by step calculation which shows the trend claimed.

I have also stated that it is first important to determine if the initial work results are valid.
If you are trying to ask if they are valid, then no.. they aren't. I have explained why they are not representative of the UniKEF theory.

I certainly suspect they are not only from the accuracy I produced but the work of Dr Allard. Your meaningless data post above is outright garbage. I thought you proclaimed to do calculus and this effort was to re-do Dr Allards work using calculus. What makes you think you can post simple garbage and make claims that are not only unsupported but so radically different that Dr Allards work? Nonsense bubby.

As I have stated and indicated graphically and I FULL well anticipate that it does not alter the result.
Well, sorry bub... but it does. You WILL have a constant term in your results due to the horizontal field.


Bullsh_t, this is pure nonesense. A horizontal field is already part of the UniKEF calculation. Surely you can do better than this. To come here and think you can hoodwink everybody.

You should actually remember you aren't just challenging old MacM you are also challenging a recognized and highly qualified physicist doing a calculus resolution.
Lol... once again his calculation is just the math behind your COS idea... which isn't multi-source/dimensioned. Regardless of whether the COS works or doesn't, it tells us nothing about the applicablility of the UniKEF field (which is the topic BTW).

I do believe James R., has already addressed this issue and stated he was content to proceed with the UniKEF calculation, not your "new concept". Once the UniKEF concept has been verified or properly falsified, then I too will be looking at your claims but I can say with a high degree of confidence that your conclusion is BS from the get go.

As far as your current claim there is no way of telling what you think you have calculated so I'll reserve comment until it is properly scripted.
Um... your field is multi-sourced and multi-direcitonal... correct? Ok, properly scripted.

I don't think this basic routine comes close to presenting the affect. I think your submission needs a bit of work don't you.?
Nope. Not at all. If you think it is wrong, point out why. As it is, it is the multi-directional and multi-sourced field as defined in your theory.

That is a piece of cake. There is no calculus. There is no integration, there is no correlation to the random numbers presented and what they mean and how they were generated. GIGO. BIG TIME.

If you think it is wrong, explain why. In short:
1) You have yet to make the connection between 'cones of sources' and a multi-directional/sourced field.
2) I have explained and demonstrated that your field has a constant component and .
3) You claim I am wrong, but have not been able to explain why.

Either address the issues with your theory, or shut the hell up. Your last post had no content at all except 'you are wrong and I am right'. Do you want to try to support your position at all?

I think it is you that need to put up or shut up. I'll be posting the correct evaluation sequence with step by step explanation. Meantime have fun choaking your chicken.

[Persol]

LMAO... bitter are we. I'm disappointed to see that you have yet to address any actual issue.

Yep and it is my theory and your garbage. What you presented is hodge-podge numbers. There is absolutely no effort to perform the UniKef integration as described...
*couhg* YET AGAIN, you have shown no 'UniKEF integration'. First, you describe UniKEF as multi-sourced and multi-directional. This is not the process you use. Second, it is not integration.

I'll be posting a step by step calculation which shows the trend claimed.
And you plan on showing how this does produce a constant in the gravity term? You plan on showing how the inverse square is magically preserved?

I certainly suspect they are not only from the accuracy I produced but the work of Dr Allard.
LMAO. When you aren't relying on JamesR to babysit you, you cry "my daddy said so". Dr Allard's calculation doesn't actually represent a multi-sourced/directional field. If it does, explain how.

Your meaningless data post above is outright garbage. I thought you proclaimed to do calculus and this effort was to re-do Dr Allards work using calculus.
Nope, I claimed that the calculations you show don't actually represent a multi-directional/sourced field... and that the only way to analyze it is numerically. That is what I have done.

What makes you think you can post simple garbage and make claims that are not only unsupported but so radically different that Dr Allards work?
Lol. More unsupported claims. Show why it is garbage and disagrees with your multi-sourced/directional claims.

Bullsh_t and this is pure nonesense. A horizontal field is already part of the UniKEF calculation.
So you have a constant term in there. What do you do with it, eh? Hmmm.. constant!=inverse square.

Surely you can do better than this. To come here and think you can hoodwink everybody.
This is hilarious. Even more baseless attacks. WHAT is wrong in the simulation? Well?

I do believe James R., has already addressed this issue and stated he was content to proceed with the UniKEF calculation and not your "new concept".
Well, I'm not content... as the calculation does not actually represent UniKEF and is a waste of time. If it does, show how it is related to a multi-sourced/direcitonal field.

That is a piece of cake. There is no calculus.
Do you understand what 'numerical methods' are? As I've explained to James when he went on this tangent, your multi-sourced/directional field can not be analyzed by integration. Similar problems exist in many fields.

There is no integration and there is no correlation to the random numbers presented and what they mean and how they were generated.
Well, it's not very difficult. It is your theory after all. The simulation simulates a field coming from every direction (multi-directional/sourced), and then calculates the effect on the masses.
How they were generated is clear to see. I gave you the damn code. You did claim to know how to program. VB is by far the easiest to understand... especially when it's commented for you.

I think it is you that need to put up or shut up. I'll be posting the correct evaluation sequence with step by step explanation. Meantime have fun choaking your chicken.
Well, I did 'put up'. You have yet to reconcile the contradiction between your description of the UniKEF field and the COS calculation.

So yet again Mac has decided to blindly attack something which he hasn't even looked at... only because it doesn't agree with 'his vision'. I have presented a simulation of a omni-directional / omni-sourced field as described in his theory. I have presented the code to let it be reviewed and reproduced. I have presented evidence that the field he has described as UniKEF does not approach zero at distance. MacM ignores all this and says it must be wrong because it disagrees with his theory, without even attempting to explain why.

MacM has no interest in understanding, and will blindly attack anyone who disagrees.

[MacM]

Persol,

LMAO... bitter are we. I'm disappointed to see that you have yet to address any actual issue.

Not bitter at all. Disappointed in the inability to perform as well as you claim and for your effort to snow everybody that you seem to know something. Otherwise DITTO.

*couhg* YET AGAIN, you have shown no 'UniKEF integration'. First, you describe UniKEF as multi-sourced and multi-directional. This is not the process you use. Second, it is not integration.

Well I certainly take exception to this BS false statement. I have detailed the "Long Hand Integration Process I did". I have posted a calculus integration performed by a physicist clearly your superior. It is you that haven't posted any legitimate response but BS.


And you plan on showing how this does produce a constant in the gravity term? You plan on showing how the inverse square is magically preserved?

Got no idea what you mean by "constant in gravity term". No magic required. The inverse square is the result of a properly integrated process.


LMAO. When you aren't relying on JamesR to babysit you, you cry "my daddy said so". Dr Allard's calculation doesn't actually represent a multi-sourced/directional field. If it does, explain how.

What about "We will proceed with the UniKEF C.O.S. calculation" do you not understand? You seem frustrated that you have been unable to get James to join your effort to shut down this calculation. His is a professional approach. It would be nice if you learned the scientific approach yourself.


Nope, I claimed that the calculations you show don't actually represent a multi-directional/sourced field... and that the only way to analyze it is numerically. That is what I have done.

See above comment about what this thread is about, further that your claims about the affect of the offset angles appears absolutely random and meaningless. A possible shift in curvature perhaps but not likely. Random garbage? Never. Your program is garbage and does nothing but generate random numbers and represents neither integration nor a true multidriectional field.

Lol. More unsupported claims. Show why it is garbage and disagrees with your multi-sourced/directional claims.

It shows you a fool only.

So you have a constant term in there. What do you do with it, eh? Hmmm.. constant!=inverse square.

Doesn't flapping continuously make your gums hurt?

This is hilarious. Even more baseless attacks. WHAT is wrong in the simulation? Well?

Other than the fact that there seems to be no correlation with a omnidirecton field, nor is their a coherent integration of anglular penetrations including their trig function. You can add to that no step by step explanaton of what you are doing or what the results depict. The first clue that it is garbage is the random and spuratic data.

Well, I'm not content... as the calculation does not actually represent UniKEF and is a waste of time. If it does, show how it is related to a multi-sourced/direcitonal field.

Personally I don't give a damn if Persol isn't content.

Do you understand what 'numerical methods' are? As I've explained to James when he went on this tangent, your multi-sourced/directional field can not be analyzed by integration. Similar problems exist in many fields.

Do you understand what "We will consider only the UniKEF (and Dr Allard's) integration" means. It means you adding BS to the process is a smioke screen. Forget it.


Well, it's not very difficult. It is your theory after all. The simulation simulates a field coming from every direction (multi-directional/sourced), and then calculates the effect on the masses.
How they were generated is clear to see. I gave you the damn code. You did claim to know how to program. VB is by far the easiest to understand... especially when it's commented for you.

First I do program and I could bother showing where you screwed up but personally I'll simply take the easy way out and point to the fact that you have no coherent smooth flow of data. The process being considered will not result in erradic data as you have presented. So clearly your progam sucks.

Well, I did 'put up'. You have yet to reconcile the contradiction between your description of the UniKEF field and the COS calculation.

You put up garbage and expect others to show it is garbage. I prefer to spend my time putting together a formal presentation with step by step calculations which even the great Persol cannot disclaim. I don't waste my time chasing ghosts.

So yet again Mac has decided to blindly attack something which he hasn't even looked at... only because it doesn't agree with 'his vision'. I have presented a simulation of a omni-directional / omni-sourced field as described in his theory. I have presented the code to let it be reviewed and reproduced. I have presented evidence that the field he has described as UniKEF does not approach zero at distance. MacM ignores all this and says it must be wrong because it disagrees with his theory, without even attempting to explain why.


That is not what I have said. I have said your claim has nothing to do with this thread. It has nothing to do with a bonafied effort to assess a multidirectional field and it results in spuradic garbage data output. If you realy think you have achieved something and this isn't simply an effort to sidetrack this thread then your programmings skills and knowledge is severly lacking.

MacM has no interest in understanding, and will blindly attack anyone who disagrees.

Not so. I think it is clear any legitimate presentation that shows an error will be fully recoginized. But yours simply isn't one. It is more of a pretend to have done the math and then shout look MacM is wrong. Well it doesn't work that way. Make a decent presentation and dispaly logical data or stop wasting everybodies time. While you are at it perhaps you can enlighten us as to where Dr Allard messed up since his conclusions matched mine.

[Persol]

Got no idea what you mean by "constant in gravity term".
No matter your distance between the two objects, there will always be an occlusion along the horizontal axis... adding a +C to the end of the gravity equation.

It is more of a pretend to have done the math and then shout look MacM is wrong.
LMAO. Please please please show me where I am wrong. You have yet to even attempt to explain why this doesn't represent the field.

Yet again:
1) Explain why this simulation is wrong
2) Explain the link between UniKEF and cones of sources. The line 'I am confident the simplification works' without any backup is not sufficient.

Funny that you've resorted to completely personal attacks, and have yet to address the issue. It's simple... read slowly. Your UniKEF field does not result in a 'cones of sources' result.

Let me guess your answer "Yes it does. Dr Allard said so too"

[MacM]

Persol,


No matter your distance between the two objects, there will always be an occlusion along the horizontal axis... adding a +C to the end of the gravity equation.

If I understand your concern I think it is selfevident that you are screwed up. Your proposal appears to suggest that the C.O.S. contains an infinite number of sources and can't be integrated. Rather than conceed such a point it would first appear to validate my claim that since there is an inverse square function that therefore the universe cannot be infinite but must be finite. If so thanks for re-emphasizing that point.

LMAO. Please please please show me where I am wrong. You have yet to even attempt to explain why this doesn't represent the field.

Yet again:
1) Explain why this simulation is wrong
2) Explain the link between UniKEF and cones of sources. The line 'I am confident the simplification works' without any backup is not sufficient.

I have already stated I have no intention of chasing ghosts and wasting my time on foolishness which produces such radical data. It is clearly garbage.

Funny that you've resorted to completely personal attacks, and have yet to address the issue. It's simple... read slowly. Your UniKEF field does not result in a 'cones of sources' result.


You read slowly. "We are addressing only the UniKEF C.O.S. calculation as performed. Not some new view." For the last time forget it..

Let me guess your answer "Yes it does. Dr Allard said so too"

Gee, you seem to be wrong once again.

[MacM]

READERS:

In light of all the noise Mr Persol has been making, I thought it wise to at least put his comments into some perspective.

His contribution has been to point out that the C.O.S. as calculated in UniKEF, which used only primary angles with parallel lines of penetration through two spheres, was not valid in that from each point in space there would be the ability for a dispersed angle from that point to still penetrate both spheres (see his attachments).

He was correct however, it turns out to be an imeasureable consequence and can be ignored.

If you place two identical spheres in contact you create the largest C.O.S. which is two 180 degree cones or hemispherical zones of sources.

If you now move out along a line at various degrees of 0 thru 90 from the line of gravity you will find that a +/- 1 degree dispersion is maximum at a calculable distance. See the following table:

Degrees........Sphere
from Line......Diameters
of Gravity....Seperation
---------.....-----------
......0..............28.65
.....15.............21.24
.....30.............14.33
.....45..............8.39....All cited distances result in a maximum of +/- 1 degree
.....60..............3.84....Moving further away becomes even less deviation
.....75..............0.98
.....90..............0.00

What this means is if you are considering a point in space that is contributing to earth's gravity it will have a +/- 1 degree deviation from the UniKEF calculation at 114,600 miles.

If you are considering the Earth and something as far as the Sun then it is 2.472E-3 degrees (8.9 Seconds).

If it is a one inch ball bearing from the Sun then it is 1/205,817,126,000 th's
of one degree.

Considering that gravity is generally accepted to be Newtonian (inverse square) for at least several thousand light years, sources for the C.O.S. calculation may well be represented by parallel lines along the primary angles within the C.O.S.. The contribution of Persol's off-axis sources are wholly insignifigant and nothing but fodder to attempt to confuse the issue.

This fact becomes even more understandable if you look at the volumes of sources being considered. The volume of a sphere is 4/3 Pi r^3. The volume of gravity sources from a sphere 300,000 miles in diameter vs 10,000 ly, you will see that the volume ratio is 2.25E34/1.

His is indeed a very insignifigant local phenomena and can be ignored. Lets move on.

[Persol]

You are missing my point....

Your COS calculation takes into account a field line at 5 degrees (5 degree is tangent line in example) which intersects both spheres and the midpoint. It also takes into account all other field lines between -5 and 5 degrees that intersect the midpoint.... but what about those that do not intersect the midpoint? These will still exist in your theory, and are not handled at all (see red and green lines in attachment-m2).

You are taking you describe as a uniform field in every direction (before interacting with the masses), and completely ignoring most of that field... limiting yourself to only 2 field lines at every angle (left to right/right to left). There is not a method of simplifying all those other field lines into what you call 'cones of sources'. You can ignore field lines that do not intersect as they would not be impact the mass. You can ignore the vertical component of the lines, as these cancel out (although you have yet to seperate the horizontal and vertical component). You can not just ignore the rest. The only reasoning which would allow that is if the infinite number of field lines somehow average out to only those lines you are suggesting get looked at. You have yet to show this.

I don't care if 1 field line has a negligable impact. There are an infinite number of field lines, so that's obvious. The point is that the majority of field lines are not included at all in your COS.

[MacM]

Persol,

Your COS calculation takes into account a field line at 5 degrees (5 degree is tangent line in example) which intersects both spheres and the midpoint. It also takes into account all other field lines between -5 and 5 degrees that intersect the midpoint.... but what about those that do not intersect the midpoint? These will still exist in your theory, and are not handled at all (see red and green lines in attachment-m2).

ANS: I would think one that claims to know so much and makes a big issue that old MacM doesn't do calculus, would at least understand simple highschool trigometry.

All of your lines are considered in my above response and they are simply an insignifigant local affect. Once you move any distance at all (a few object diameters) away from the object all such angles are resolved to less than +/-1 degree.

Move the distance of the sun and it is a few seconds of a degree for the earth and wholly insignifigant for smaller objects.

Gravity is a universal phenomena, at least out to several thousand light years diatance.

The volume of sources in the C.O.S. at those ranges which produce the force is on the order of 3E34/1 vs the volume of source where such deviation from the UniKEF calculation is greater that +/- 1 degree.

No I'm afraid it is you that want to make a big deal out of nothing. Rather than simply drawing colored lines and pointing and saying look at this you didn't count this. Project those angles back to a vertex and tell us the distance away from the object. Then compare that distance to a few light years. Compute the volumes ratio and come back and tell us your results.

I have. Dispute the fact that yours is a hollow arguement.

[Crisp]

So, when are we closing this thread again ?

[Persol]

All of your lines are considered in my above response and they are simply an insignifigant local affect. Once you move any distance at all (a few object diameters) away from the object all such angles are resolved to less than +/-1 degree.
Well, since you are claiming the angles are 'insignifigant', then why your theory... which is... after all... based on angles.

Why lines intersecting in the middle? Why not horizontal lines? After all, the angles are 'insignifigant local affect[s]'.

The point is that they are NOT 'insignifigant' at smaller ranges which your theory was supposed about. Otherwise, we have standard gravity theory.

So, when are we closing this thread again ?
Hopefully never.... because that'll mean MacM will start spewing everywhere else again.

[MacM]

Persol,

Well, since you are claiming the angles are 'insignifigant', then why your theory... which is... after all... based on angles.

ANS: The primary angles are key. It seems incredulus that you would come on here and attempt to argue to disregard 1/22,500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the sources somehow makes the calculation void. I seem to remember you were particularily concerned about 4.2E-9 when you claimed only 1E-6 could be measured. Of course your comment failed to recognize that 980 was a base number and 1E-6 is 1E-9 of that number. You need some courses on signifigant digits apparently.

Why lines intersecting in the middle? Why not horizontal lines? After all, the angles are 'insignifigant local affect[s]'.

ANS:Perhaps this would be expecting to much but it would be nice if you had any idea about what you are babbling about. The primary angles ARE signifigant, it is your deviations from those that are local in nature as has been clearly indicated. If you don't understand what you are talking about then shut up. Or ask questions don't make assinine statements.

The point is that they are NOT 'insignifigant' at smaller ranges which your theory was supposed about. Otherwise, we have standard gravity theory.

Please show us where it has ever been suggested that UniKEF gravity was a local phenomena. You are mummbling BS. Seems to claim "Otherwise, we have standard gravity theory", appears to be a cop out. You are starting to now say well it is the same as Newtonian (Which is what was said from the outset) but you choose to ignore that it was derived totally differently.

There is indeed a large difference in (m1 x m2)/r^2 vs (m1i + m2i)*trig. It has been the fact that the results are the same that has been the issue.

So, when are we closing this thread again ?
Hopefully never.... because that'll mean MacM will start spewing everywhere else again.

ANS: Like James R., indicated earlier if you don't like it then stay the hell off this thread.

[Persol]

LMAO. Well first, I didn't say anything about the scale of the numbers gave. If you go back and actually look, you will notice that it was somebody else.

Second, you are trying to make this a problem over extreme distances and arguing that the angle is irrelevant. It seems that it is silly then to compute gravity on an angle basis then.

Lastly this isn't me arguing that 1 line out of an infinite number is relevant. Quite the opposite. See if you follow this logic...

1) The UniKEF field is multi-directional and multi-source (agree?)
2) This results in the imaginary 'border' drawn around a problem being lined with an infinite number of sources. Field lines leave each source in every direction. These sources/field lines are assumed to be uniform. (agree?)
3) Your calculation tosses out any lines that do not touch a sphere. That's fine. (agree?)
4) Your calculation also ignores all the field lines that only impact 1 sphere. (agree?)
5) Imagine the sources along the left boundary. Each source has a range of angles which cross both spheres. (agree?)
6) You are taking only 1 direction from each source. Your calculation ignores all the other angles from these sources which cross both spheres. (agree?)
7) There is no justification for 4 and 6.

Where do you disagree?

[MacM]

Persol,

1) The UniKEF field is multi-directional and multi-source (agree?)

ANS: Agree.

2) This results in the imaginary 'border' drawn around a problem being lined with an infinite number of sources. Field lines leave each source in every direction. These sources/field lines are assumed to be uniform. (agree?)

ANS:A very large but finite number of sources. Any infinite source conclusion voids any inverse square response. The fact that there is a response of any kind to a change in seperation voids any conlusion of there being a infinite number of sources. Infinity time anything still equals infinity, hence there is not an infinite supply of gravitating sources. Agree on balance of comment.

3) Your calculation tosses out any lines that do not touch a sphere. That's fine. (agree?)

ANS:ONly in regard to causing gravity between objects.

4) Your calculation also ignores all the field lines that only impact 1 sphere. (agree?)

ANS: Only in regard to being effective at causing a gravitating force between two or more objects. They still create gravity potential (curved space) around the single object and contribute to some heating of massive objects.

5) Imagine the sources along the left boundary. Each source has a range of angles which cross both spheres. (agree?)

ANS: True. Here is where you fail since you do not limit that range to realistic impact on the overall scheme of the gravity concept. That is the fact that such angle dispersion from the UniKEF parallel calculations vanishes within a few diameters of the object. The field causing graivty extends for at least several thousand light years. Hence this non-parallel field to the C.O.S. integration is very limited in scope compared to the total field input and can be ignored since their affect in far below measurment range. i.e. One part per 2,250,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of the total field.

6) You are taking only 1 direction from each source. Your calculation ignores all the other angles from these sources which cross both spheres. (agree?)

ANS: Agreed for the reason just given in 5) above. It is insignifigant and imeasureable, the deviation it would jproduce being in the 34th decimal place of the inverse square result.

7) There is no justification for 4 and 6.

ANS: #4 has no beraing on gravitational force between two objects. YOur comment seems total misplaced. #6. Lets do this the other way around. Lets hear your explanation as to why sources capable of contributing 1/2,250 trillion trillionth should be of concern?

[Persol]

A very large but finite number of sources. Any infinite source conclusion voids any inverse square response.
I don't quite agree with the logic here. You can have an infinite number of sources if you have either an infinite amount of matter, or if field 'attrition' is seen still seen even without contact with matter (at a slower rate). But either way we basically agree.

Persol: Each source has a range of angles which cross both spheres
MacM: That is the fact that such angle dispersion from the UniKEF parallel calculations vanishes within a few diameters of the object
Just stop talking about that for a second. Do you agree that each border of the problem has an infinite number of sources, each 'emitting' in every direction? (These sources represent the entirety of everything behind them)

It is insignifigant and imeasureable, the deviation it would jproduce being in the 34th decimal place of the inverse square result.
If you agree to the question above (infinite sources along border) then it is not insignifigant. Take the source along the axis for example. You take into acount it's effect through the center of the two masses. However, this source is emitting in every direction... and has a range of lines going through both masses. Every other source has the same issue. The COS calculation only picks up one of these lines in the range for each source.

So, do you agree with the border condition?

[MacM]

Peresol,

MacM:A very large but finite number of sources. Any infinite source conclusion voids any inverse square response.

Persol: I don't quite agree with the logic here. You can have an infinite number of sources if you have either an infinite amount of matter, or if field 'attrition' is seen still seen even without contact with matter (at a slower rate). But either way we basically agree.

ANS: I totally reject this. Sources are physical enities. Nothing physical can become infinite.

Persol: Each source has a range of angles which cross both spheres

MacM: That is the fact that such angle dispersion from the UniKEF parallel calculations vanishes within a few diameters of the object

Persol:Just stop talking about that for a second. Do you agree that each border of the problem has an infinite number of sources, each 'emitting' in every direction? (These sources represent the entirety of everything behind them)

[color=red]ANS: NO. As stated nothing physical can be infinite.[/color=red]

b[]MacM:It is insignifigant and imeasureable, the deviation it would produce being in the 34th decimal place of the inverse square result.

[Persol: If you agree to the question above (infinite sources along border) then it is not insignifigant. Take the source along the axis for example. You take into acount it's effect through the center of the two masses. However, this source is emitting in every direction... and has a range of lines going through both masses. Every other source has the same issue. The COS calculation only picks up one of these lines in the range for each source.[/b]

ANS: Just what about trigometry and angles of deviation from parallel for such sources, based on thousands of light years range and for example the earth with a radius apprx 4,000 miles (Opposite Side) vs the several thousand light years (Hypotneuse) forms an angle for any practical purpose as being parallel.

[Persol]

Nothing physical can become infinite.
Well, I'm glad that you are all-knowing.

NO. As stated nothing physical can be infinite.
So is your field uniform before it enters the problem? If so, how?

If the border is not equivalent to an infinite number of sources, then what is it?

What, EXACTLY, is your cones of source supposed to represent? How does this represent a field?

When a field impacts matter, how does it react? From descriptions you've given before it seems to be 'absorbed' by matter, with the resultant imbalance causing the force. If your border is not equivalent to an infinite number of omni-directional sources, how does this keep single objects within the field from experiencing a force?

[MacM]

Persol,

quote] MacM: Nothing physical can become infinite.

Persol: Well, I'm glad that you are all-knowing.[/quote]

ANS: Snide remarks have no place in scientific endeavors. Lets turn that around and ask you to explain to the rest of us how you propose to allow anything physical to become infinite. Since by definition "Infinity" is larger than any physical quantity.

MacM: NO. As stated nothing physical can be infinite.

Persol: So is your field uniform before it enters the problem? If so, how?

ANS: Your efforts here are clearly nothing more than fishing expeditions looking for something you can claim is wrong. That is fine up the road but the current effort is to address only the inverse square calculation that has been made and claimed. Confine your responses to that issue or be ignored. I just spent several days showing your other "Gotcha" was BS. I'm not wasting anymore time with you in that regard.

Persol:If the border is not equivalent to an infinite number of sources, then what is it?

What, EXACTLY, is your cones of source supposed to represent? How does this represent a field?

ANS: See above.

Persol: When a field impacts matter, how does it react? From descriptions you've given before it seems to be 'absorbed' by matter, with the resultant imbalance causing the force.

ANS: As has been said many times here it is both attenuated by scatter (elastic reaction) and by some minimal absorbtion or inelastic reaction, which results in some heating of massive gravitating bodies.

Persol: If your border is not equivalent to an infinite number of omni-directional sources, how does this keep single objects within the field from experiencing a force?

ANS: Not a problem. It is a shame you haven't been paying attention and that I must now repeat what has already be said. Hint, it has to do with the fact as has been pointed out that all this dictates a finite universe. Further that due to the affect causing "Quantitative Domain Limits" (and apparently MOND affects) you are in the center of your own universe. Objects not dead center are pushed outward due to that very imbalance, hence the prediction that objects would be receeding faster the further out they are and that remote objects would be seen to have an accelerating expansion.

[Persol]

Persol: So is your field uniform before it enters the problem? If so, how?
ANS: Your efforts here are clearly nothing more than fishing expeditions looking for something you can claim is wrong.
No... it's me claiming that your calculation is an unsubstantiated simplification. Then you claimed 'no its not'... and I'm trying to figure out why you think that... because you have yet to explain it.

I just spent several days showing your other "Gotcha" was BS.
What the hell are you talking about? The gravity detection thing wasn't me as you claim. What I did claim is that you are not taking all the directions into account ... and that STILL hasn't been explained. I'm trying to figure out why you disagree, and you're acting like a damn child.

Persol:If the border is not equivalent to an infinite number of sources, then what is it?
What, EXACTLY, is your cones of source supposed to represent? How does this represent a field?
Ditto. Would you mind actually answering to backup your previous claims? You did tell me to ask questions...

ANS: As has been said many times here it is both attenuated by scatter (elastic reaction) and by some minimal absorbtion or inelastic reaction, which results in some heating of massive gravitating bodies.
What do you mean 'attenuated by scatter'? From the descriptions of your field it seems that the field is partially absorbed by matter, and then continues in the same direction... just weaker.

Not a problem. It is a shame you haven't been paying attention and that I must now repeat what has already be said. Hint, it has to do with the fact as has been pointed out that all this dictates a finite universe.
Ok... none of this actually answers my question. I'm trying to isolate your system, but that requires a border condition. I supplied one, which you stated was wrong. We seem to disagree about the border conditions of the problem, hence the initial complaint. I'm trying to figure out EXACTLY what the conditions are of the border.
You seem to agree that all those other field lines I pointed out do indeed exist, which seems to point out that you have the same border in mind... but don't like the terminiology I used. If you wish, pretend I said 'effectively infinite'... the result is the same either way.

You know that I think cones of sources does not represent what your theory states, and you disagree with me. As such, I'm trying to figure out how to get to that setup from the theory. If the problem is that we have two different borders in mind, then it is easily solved by you telling me what is wrong with the border.

Do you understand what I'm trying to say about each point on the border emitting a field in every direction? (These points representing the field entering the problem). You 'seem' to agree that this is the case (based on your responses to my graphics)... so I'm assuming that we agree on the border.

Now, we have the border completely covered uniformly in pseudo-sources (representing the sources behind them)... with each emitting a field in every direction. Do you disagree with this? If so, why, and what did you use as a border?