An interview with MacM

The truth is not obtuse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. There is a world of differance in dealing with dynamic properties such as v² and c<sup.2,/sup> than squaring a passive property.

In the case of velocities, Work = F * D, Power = Wk/t. When velocity increases time and distance decreases. Such that you have increased momentum (source of Force) divided by decreased time, hence a squaring affect.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

question 5:

Mack, As shown in recent comentaries you have demonstrated, in my opinion, a belief that relativity has painted itself into a logical corner. That it has justified itself in such a way that renders itself virtualy unfalsifiable?

Is this a fair assessment?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[I am going to lunch and willl be back later]..........

 

Nor is obtuse the truth.

 

Only as long as there are those willing to accept the unacceptable and that rely upon Fiat declarations which have no basis and are unjustified, such as believing that simultaniety is impossible because SRT says so and that because of that clock times can vary from observer to observer, without realizing that there is and can be actually only one clock time. That is the time displayed on the clock.

And as long as there are those that believe that anybody that rejects the conclusions of Relativity are inept, ignorant or do not understand Relativity. That call others arrogant to suppose to debate the reality of Relativity, then yes it would be hard to score points against it since any point will be rejected without a physical basis but only upon the declaration of "That isn't the way it is" responses.

The fact is it is the height of arrogance and stupidity to attack others that do not believe, when the only basis for their claim to having a viable view is to quote the theory itself. They are unable to justify it on physical principles.

 

question 6:

Mack you have often used the term reciprication and it's variations. Could you explain your use of this concept firstly it's philosophical [physics] premise and then it's physical premise? [if we assume no prior theoretical frame work - in other words if we assume no previous theory being valid as yet]

 

HeHe. I don't find your term "reciprication" in Webster but I assume you mean
it as meaning something that is the act of being reciprocal or to reciprocate. This seems simular but not as direct. i.e. a piston on a crankshaft reciprocates. I have used the term reciprocity.

WEBSTER: Reciprocity.

1 - Reciprocal state or relationship; mutual action; dependance; etc.

2 - The act of reciprocating, mutual excange.

Relative velocity has reciprocity in that if there exists a velocity of 30 Mph between A to B then the velocity between B to A must also be 30 Mph.

Relativity is based on relative velocity therefore any affects must be mutually applied. That means no differance in clock tick rates, mass or dimension can exist in reality between A and B due to relative velocity alone.

Since no basic differance can exist in physical reality any differances must be perceptional or illusional due to motion but not a real permanent change once A and B once again share a common IFR.

 

Question 7:
Would you consider absolutely everything to be in some sort or recipricating relationship?

 

with everything...................

 

Not sure as to the extent you wish to assert reciprocity. I have used it strictly in terms of relative velocity or equal accelerations etc. Used to broadly it would be false. That would be to claim there was never any differance in anything, which could not be supported.

 

question 8:

In your theory of Gravity you assert that gavity is the product of a kinetic energy field that pervades the universe.

Does this equate to an aether?

[n.b. As much as it is tempting I wont be entering into discussion, as it would be inappropriate for me to do so as I lack the qualifications needed so I will take the role of semi-ignorant interviewer]

 

More explicitly the kinetic energy flow is from every spatial ordinate point and flows in every direction. That is views as "Unbound" energy. Mass is considered "Bound" energy and is nothing more than compacted or condensed space. That is spatial energy moving in intensely, highly relavistic, orbitals or standing waves.

This infact accounts for the duality of light,etc where it can be a wave or particle. If I direct a nozzel of dry steam to represent an EM wave then it can be seen that the impact of that wave can be felt as though it were a bucket of water. Water and steam in this over simplified presentation are synonomous with space and matter.

The flowing space is encumbered as it passes through the compacted space (mass) and in so doing delivers momentum to the mass in the vector of the flow.

I can't reproduce here the complete process but it can be shown that it results in an inverse square relationship between masses and that it would result in grater gravity at galactic sacles which mitigates or eliminates Dark Matter. It further becomes negative on cosmological sacles and can explain the expansion of the universe without the necessity of Dark Energy.

I also develope (1 - v²/c²)^1/2 from the old ether concept of (c-v) and (c+v).

However, I do not call this energy an ether. More importantly it is not an ether. Ether being only a passive medium to carry light waves, etc.

UniKEF is a dynamic part of the universe. Indeed time itself is considered a property of the dynamic flow. That is energy causing change and change being the only evidence or foundation for time.