Fair question. Let me clarify. The detection of a variable "G" which is linked to the presence and orientation of other masses, signifies the weakened "G" due to production of gravity via attenuation and/or absorbtion of a flowing external energy field in UniKEF. This variable "G" is both due to attenuation/absorbtion and does involve distance as well. The distance issue deals with a form of "Tired Light" attrition syndrome and the "Quanitative" amount of UniKEF (which would be a "G" value) does deminish over vast distances so as to produce a finite universe. The absence of time-space is the boundry. A boundry for which there is no "What is on the other side" of the finite boundry. This view was the basis for the prediction that we would find that we were at the center of the Universe. Which red shift seems to confirm. It is an exciting finding in that indepth analysis may infact be able to determine "G" in free space as well as the coefficient of attenuation/absorbtion for penetration of mass.
One possibility now being considered for testing in 2015 is that gravity is stronger than expected over vast distances and that will eliminate Dark Matter and eliminate or certainly change GR. Imagine that. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html
Lets ALL Welcome newcomer "Yuriy" a Russian Physicist for which I have a long experience with debating on forums. Yuriy, clearly knows the text book but likes to write lengthy diatribes citing the good book and rarely is capable of addressing issues directly from free thought. He has come here and seems to immediately want to concentrate his fervor on me. I welcome his challenge and hope that he will contribute useful dialog to this thread. If however, he continues his historical practice of personal attacks instead of addressing the issue, I will merely note that on his posts. I will not waste time re-reading the Theory of Relativity. It has no function here. UniKEF stands alone to be validated or refuted by physical principles and not appeals to authority. Yuriy, you will find that I am not entrenched. I accept when you have a valid point but I do not roll over for "I know you are wrong because the text book says so". You must go beyond that level of understanding and address issues at the first principle level. Lets see where we go from here. Welcome.
DEAR READERS: In this forum there have been many topics raised in these threads by myself and others that disfavor Relativity for a variety of reason. We are generally attacked and accused of being ignorant and not understanding the issues we raise. The following is a must read for any person interested in the truth as best known by current science. These are mere extracts from a series of experiments, conferances and correspondances of numerous physicists world wide. Their findings are not as generally claimed being crackpots or unqualified workers in the field. Their ridicule, slander, libelous counter publications, isolation by the scientific community and fraud at all levels of the scientific community are clearly shown herein. It is not only a good read for those not deemed qualified to make decisions about science BUT EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO THOSE HERE THAT CONTINUE THE PRACTICE OF FALSIFYING CURRENT REALITY ABOUT PHYSICS AND RELATIVITY IN PARTICULAR WITH IRASCIBLE REPLIES. http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html#SEC1 ************************************************* http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_7.html I stated that the special relativity first postulate with regard to detection of translatory motion, was obviously false, and referenced Einstein's former research associate's argument in this regard. [73] I went on to state that any reasonably objective physicist should realize that the ultimate test of the second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant, is to analyze the modern data on the transit times of light signals in the solar system, and this evidence shows beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that the postulate is also obviously false, and I cited my above arguments in this regard So in general, much of relativity theory is true, but many of the original arguments are not. The real problem with modern science is the lack of scientific objectivity and integrity on the part of many prominent scientists, they are little more than politicians, and are far more concerned with the advancement of their careers and status, then the advancement of science. In a letter dated 3/25/90 Svetlana said that Parshin went to Minsk in early February 1990, where about 40-50 physicists had a five day anti- relativistic conference. http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_4.html#SEC4 Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." ************************* statements which Einstein made to Prof. R. S. Shankland on this matter: The several statements which Einstein made to me in Princeton concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment are not entirely consistent, as mentioned above and in my earlier publication. His statements and attitudes towards the Michelson-Morley experiment underwent a progressive change during the course of our several conversations. I wrote down within a few minutes after each meeting exactly what I recalled that he had said. On 4 February 1950 he said,"...that he had become aware of it through the writings of H. A. Lorentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention." But at a later meeting on 24 October, 1952 he said, "I am not sure when I first heard of the Michelson experiment. I was not conscious that it had influenced me directly during the seven years that relativity had been my life. I guess I just took it for granted that it was true." However, in the years 1905-1909 (he told me) he thought a great deal about Michelson's result in his discussions with Lorentz and others, and then he realized (so he told me) that he "had been conscious of Michelson's result before 1905 partly through his reading of the papers of Lorentz and more because he had simply assumed this result of Michelson to be true."... ************************ Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper [49] titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars. So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a "conscientious objector"! NOTE: BY MACM: Documentation has been recovered, by A.J.Kelly via the Freedom of Information Act, that the H&K Atomic Clock Data purportedly proving time dilation was also cooked and the actual results did not support the conclusion of time dilation. *********************** http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_5.html#SEC5 The paper's (A6) equation and the accompanying information that calls for evaluating the position vectors at the signal reception time is nearly equivalent to the Galilean c+v equation (2) in my paper RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE. [18] The additional terms in the (A6) equation correct for the effects of the troposphere and charged particles, as well as the general relativity effects of gravity and velocity time dilation. The fact that the radio astronomers have been reluctant to acknowledge the full theoretical implications of their work is probably related to the unfortunate things that tend to happen to physicists that are rash enough to challenge Einstein's sacred second postulate. [22] Over twenty-three years have gone by since the original Venus radar experiments clearly showed that the speed of light in space was not constant, and still the average scientist is not aware of this fact! This demonstrates why it is important for the APS to bring true scientific freedom to the PR journal's editorial policy. [33] **************** Since Einstein's theories and his status as a scientist are at the core of the problem of modern physics being an elaborate farce, I will quote from various statements he has made with regard to the issues that have been raised. In a June 1912 letter to Zangger he asked the question: What do the colleagues say about giving up the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light? [37 p.211] With reference to the question of double stars presenting evidence against his relativity theory, he wrote the Berlin University Observatory astronomer Erwin Finlay-Freundlich the following: "I am very curious about the results of your research...," he wrote to Freundlich in 1913. "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." [38 p.207] *************************** With regard to Einstein's opinion on peer review of scientific papers: In the course of working on this last problem, Einstein believed for some time that he had shown that the rigorous relativistic field equations do not allow for the existence of gravitational waves. After he found the mistake in the argument, the final manuscript was prepared and sent to the Physical Review. It was returned to him accompanied by a lengthy referee report in which clarifications were requested. Einstein was enraged and wrote to the editor that he objected to his paper being shown to colleagues prior to publication. The editor courteously replied that refereeing was a procedure generally applied to all papers submitted to his journal, adding that he regretted that Einstein may not have been aware of this custom. Einstein sent the paper to the Journal of the Franklin Institute and, apart from one brief note of rebuttal, never published in the Physical Review again. [37 p.494] http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_6.html#SEC6 There is a possibility that the Soviet military is aware of the exact nature of the relative velocity of light in space. The American Institute of Physics publishes translation journals of the major Soviet journals, and some of these journals are carried by the University of South Florida Library in nearby Tampa. One finds many hints to the fact that Einstein's general relativity does not give a proper explanation to the transit of light signals in the solar system. For example, in the abstract of an article [79] titled "Measurements of delay time and Doppler correction in radar observations of Venus in 1975", we find: http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_8.html#SEC8 Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c. I next published a series of three more papers in that journal, the second paper [107] was titled "COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A c+v RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT" and the abstract goes: The c+v relative velocity of light explains the observational data from spectroscopic binaries and presents evidence that the Universe is not expanding. Inconsistencies between previous laboratory experiments that present evidence of c, and the interplanetary radar evidence of c+v, can be explained in terms of a dynamic ether. The third paper [108] was titled "RADAR EVIDENCE THAT THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE IS NOT c" and the abstract states: Observed-computed residuals of Earth-Venus radar time-delay measurements from 1961 to 1966 show variations that range to over 30,000% the expected error from the best possible general relativity fit the Lincoln Lab could generate. The variations are not random but are related to relative radial velocity and intervening plasma. These variations are evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is some form of c+v and not c as predicted by Einstein's general relativity theory. The forth paper [109] was titled "EXPANSION OF A DYNAMIC ETHER HYPOTHESIS OF PHYSICAL REALITY" and revised the models of atomic structures presented in the second paper [107] by replacing fused electrons with neutrons. In a 4/4/79 letter from Dr. Robinson, he informed me that because the very negative reader reaction to these type of arguments he could no longer publish my papers on mass dynamics and relativity. In a 7/23/90 letter he expanded on his first answer by saying that he had received completely unsavory and unobjective anonymous letters and phone calls. The fifth paper [19] I've published on this was in the prestigious journal FOUNDATIONS OF PHYSICS, a journal that many prominent scientists have published papers in over the years. The paper presents the current foundation and the fundamental equations of my work on a unified theory based on mass dynamics. The title of the paper is "The Unified Quantum Electrodynamic Ether" and the abstract reads: The basic evidence and doctrines of physics and astronomy are examined and found to contain a simple, consistent unitary nature. It is proposed that all physical phenomena may be better explained in terms of a single physical entity if one accepts a conceptual advancement of presently accepted doctrine. ///// The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. ///// ************************************************** *********Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states, "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass************* The logical expansions of the modification seem to give simpler explanations for basic phenomena and the infinite and eternal nature of the universe. A c+v model will have to be developed, but because of flexibility of the dynamic ether concept, I do not anticipate any major problems. I feel that this type of approach will lead mankind toward an intimate understanding of the simple microscopic and macroscopic nature of our infinite eternal universe. This is the dawning of the golden age of physics. [Added by MacM:] UniKEF is a dynamic ether concept.
Paul Dixon anyonePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LMAO. Yet when we pointed this out last year you claimed and whinned that it wasn't/
Bullshit. Typical response. I don't know Paul Dixon but that doesn't really matter. What matters is you need not challenge me you need to challenge other physicists. Since you can't even handle me I doubt you are equipped to argue with them. Just crawl under some other skirts here and pretend to be knowledgeable. That is your forte'
To all readers: I urged you that we deal with diagnosis. Here is direct evidence: only a sick mind can state that "a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy ." In other words – no conservation of the angular momentum of the closed system, no isotropy of Space, etc. But we will gain a Biggest prize – the UniKEF!
So you become the first to join the long list of physics politicians mentioned in these references. Don't be foolish Yuriy. That was not my statement. It is from the papers of other physicists and I feel confident they are only being pragmatic and not concerned with spelling out every physical detail. UniKEF has not been mathematically detailed. I state bound energy in relavistic orbs vs linear unbound energy. Conservation has not been considered nor the impact on actual rotational velocity. Besides you don't need to be attacking me lets see you do your fancy foot work on these other physicists. BTW: You did notice Einstien's admission just before he died, did you not? He suspected Relativity was in error in 1954.
Now you aren't even trying... this has suddenly turned into a "1 out of 5 scientists cant be wrong" infomercial.
What is the matter Persol? Run out of fingers and toes? This article refers to 50 physicists and scientists in conferance. I have posted other works including hundreds of physicists and scientists.
You are correct. I read to quickly and didn't give you the consideration of making even that much jesture. 1 out of 5 would be a fair assessment but that is no small measure of the problem. The facts are that number is growing and more and more new evidence is coming forth.
Lair can have a good memory: "That was not my statement" Really? Let us read again: ///// The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. /////************************************************** *********Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states.
Look you egotistical baffoon, if you had actually read the material I linked you will find that statement in the text. My added emphasis was to place "//// text in red \\\\". It is not and was not my statement. My full statement was: ********************************************** "This is what UniKEF states. "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass." ********************************************** No where in there do you see a referance to "c". That shows a generic equivelent, not a verbatum agreement. You really should learn more english.
Lair needs a good memory: ///// The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. /////************************************************** *********Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states.
Well my memory certainly lasts longer than the 1 hour and 18 minutes it took you to re-post this outrageous misrepresentation. BTW: FYI: You fucking asshole, I do not lie but you just have by your deliberate distortion and re-posting that distortion. Do you even read or do you just go through life believing you are invinceable? Add to my list "Essen". No crackpot nor slouch scientist. http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/index.html ********************Extracts **************************** http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html "It is always better to refer to the original papers rather than to second hand accounts and I, therefore, studied Einstein’s famous paper, often regarded as one of he most important contributions in the history of science. Imagine my surprise when I found that it was in some respects one of the worse papers I had ever read. The terminology and style were unscientific and ambiguous; one of his assumptions is given on different pages in two contradictory forms, some of his statements were open to different interpretations and the worst fault in my view, was the use of thought-experiments. This practice is contrary to the scientific method which is based on conclusions drawn from the results of actual experiments. My first thoughts were, that in spite of its obvious faults of presentation, the theory must be basically sound, and before committing my criticisms to print I read widely round the subject. The additional reading only confirmed my belief that the theory was marred by its own internal contradictions. Relativitists often state that the theory is accepted by all scientists of repute but this is quite untrue. It has been strongly criticised by many scientists, including at least one Nobel prize winner. Most of the criticisms are of a general nature drawing attention to its many contradictions, so I decided to pin-point the errors which give rise to the contradictions, giving the page and line in Einstein’s paper, thus making it difficult for relativitists to dodge them and obscure them in a morass of irrational discussion. Special Theory flawed There were definite errors about which there can be no argument. One was the assumption that the velocity of light is constant. This is contrary to the foundations of science and the fact that it is repeated in all the textbooks I have seen, shows how little these foundations are understood by theoretical physicists. Science is based on the results of experiment and these results must be expressed in a single coherent set of units. The unit of length was the metre and the unit of time was the second. Velocity was a measured quantity as so many metres per second. Even though it was found to be constant under certain conditions, it was quite wrong to make it a constant by definition under all conditions. Only the unit of measurement can be made constant by definition and Einstein’s assumption constituted a duplication of units. It was this duplication that led to puzzling and contradictory results and not the profundity of the theory as relativitists like us to believe." ************************************************** Such a unit of measurment being constant is my dependance on d = vt or t = d/v. Which shows that the accumulated time differance in SRT is based on a shorter distance traveled due to length contraction. From the stationary view the conclusion that time slowed is nothing more than an illusion of motion and not a physical change in tick rate of the clock. You and the rest of the relativists are nothing but egotistical fools.
He posted what you quoted, and then you said 'this is what UniKEF says'. This isn't a distortion... it's you realizing something you quoted didn't say what you thought (surprise surprise).
Lair has to have a good memory: ///// The modification postulates that the inertial mass of matter is the same entity as the virtual mass of a photon and that a circular motion of speed c is transformed into a linear motion of speed c when mass is transformed into energy. /////************************************************** *********Emphasis Added by MacM: This states what UniKEF states.
This is really hilarious. This is the best you have? You need to advocate a complete distortion. I guess it is clear who has won this battle. Once again just so others don't miss the actual statement: Now try defending your physics. I have defended mine.
Do you really think continued repeating of the same distortion (LIE) will make it come true? You are a pathetic piece of shit. This is the best you have? You need to advocate a complete distortion. I guess it is clear who has won this battle over Relativity issues. Once again just so others don't miss the actual statement: “ Originally Posted by MacM ********************************************** "This is what UniKEF states. "Unbound" energy flowing in space and mass is "Bound" energy swirling in relavistic orbs - Space has mass." ********************************************** ” The obvious deliberate distortion by cutting my statement off incomplete relagates you and your opinions into the waste basket. READERS: Do not forget this persons tactics and use of fraud. His contributions must be totally suspect until throuroughly investigated. He is a lair and fraud. Now try defending your physics. I have defended mine.
