Co- authors Wanted for Journal Paper (related to "Jello-O... " thread)

I think the only references to you or UniKEF are your posts and direct comments to you.

Again, I have no personal stake in the outcome, and I am perfectly willing to run integrals for you too. I really think that you and your theory would greatly benefit from it. You mentioned "UniKEF integrals" in your first post on this thread. Give me the details and I will run it! Then either you will uncover a real flaw in your theory or your theory will get one good piece of theoretical validation.

I can already forsee the result of this thread if you don't get involved in defining the integration here. What will happen is that Billy will pick a function that he thinks is the best representation of push gravity, I will integrate it, Billy will say "I told you so", you will say "that isn't UniKEF", and you two will degenerate back to your usual argument. So, please, take me up on my offer.

-Dale

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I appreciate your insterest and incourage you (or others) to actually take a mathematical look at it. However, Billy T has made it a habit of starting threads and/or commenting in threads making false assumptions and then claiming HE has invalidated my work.

If some bonafide mathematical proof is produced I have no particular axe to grind. It would be stupid to disregard such information. But to date none has ever been presented and what has been done (the calculus integration) supported the view.

Also the abstract is only (4) pages long and it contains a calculus example; not 100's of pages as has been asserted.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is what I mean. I had started deleting my posts but then I see this kind of horseshit attack. I'll not delete more until you have removed all such bullshit and discontinue to post such nonsense.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

1 - "This is not a UniKEF thread."

2 - "You should not post here."

Then you continue to post referances to MacM and UniKEF. It don't work that way. You comment about UniKEF then I will correct you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When has anyone ever brought up UniKEF?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

See the now deleted quote [post=897004]Here[/post] and the one just above, [post=898408]Here[/post]. Granted he only referred to MacM derogatorily and then to "his theory" but that is one and the same.

 

(tic)

 

As has been pointed out above that is not the case.

As I said above I would be delighted to have your input. It is a pushing gravity concept which is what Billy T claims to be evaluating here.

The Abstract (4) pages are here: http://www.unikef-gravity.com/

The limited calculus that has been done is here:

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/calculussect.htm

Agreed. However, if it appears you have somehow missed something then I will draw it to your attention.

Thanks.

 

DaleSpam, the issue of doing the integral is not as easy as you make it out to be. Yes you can use a program like Mathematica to easily come up with the integral of any expression, but that is not where the bottleneck is. The bottleneck is actually coming up with the integrand. That is a task Mathematica will not be able to do as it depends purely on Geometry and the definition of MacM's Pseudo-volume.

 

To all, Especailly MacM:

I do not think there is any such claim in this thread. I request and hope you post here, in great detail, mathematics about uniKEF. What I am doing, and hope you and others also will, is to avoid stating unsubstantiated claims, pro or con, about any “push gravity theory. As your’s is the best known theory such theory in this forum, I think it reasonable to mention mathematical things related to uniKEF such as Aer just has, when they relate to the problems of doing mathematical calculations.

If you will help DaleSpam formulate the expressions to integrate I think that would be most helpful. Aer, I and Shmoe all have tried to follow you web page “instructions” without success, when “success” is judged by being able to quantitatively calculate anything (for example, not even the simple gravitational attraction between a single planet and a star). It should be obvious that there are missing (in the sence of a mathematical function that can be integrated) parts to your integrand. Perhaps Aer even has some questions about the limits of your CoS - I never got even that far in my efforts.

I do not think the my post that speculated that the math operator curl was unlikely to part of uniKEF, because you very likely did not know what it was, is unfair, especially when in the same sentence, I admitted I too am ignorant (now) of the “vector potential,” which I think (from memory) can be defined even for non conservative fields with non-zero curl.

Lets agree to keep our comment and assertions etc in the uniKEF analysis thread and let this math effort proceed. OK? Tell me the “minutes” to posts of mine that you think make improper reference and I will at least remove that section of the post, if not delete the post entirely.

 

I too encourage you - if you get the informtion to DaleSpam for the calculation of even only two sphere's of different radii at only one fixed separation distance, that he can calculate their attraction that would be so great a help for us all to really understand uniKEF that my investigation of stability question can wait for DAle to complete the NUMERICAL evaluation of the star/single planet attraction calculation.

 

My mistake

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks. That is a much more reasonable amount of material. I will look it over. The 100 pages refered to the main UniKEF thread on this site. I was not about to wade through that when I could gather the general tone (heated) and progress (none) from the few pages that have appeared since I have been here.

I would expect so, just be polite. The instances where I have gotten something correct the first time are few and far between.

-Dale

 

Hmm. That could indeed be a problem. I will look at the pages MacM posted above. That should give me a better grasp of the problem.

I thought the difficulty was in evaluating the integrals, not in setting them up.

-Dale

 

You seem unaware of what you actually say and how. You make negative comments at every turn of your presentations. If I included a particular term or not is totally illrelevant. My theory (any theory) need not follow anything ever done before. It need only stand on its own two feet.

It is Shmoe and you mis-state his abilities.

******************** Extract from his comments ************

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/calculussect.htm

[141] “All of the work needed is in Allard's notes on Dan McCoins' web pages. They are a bit hard to read, but if you squint your eyes just right, filter out the un-needed pages, and make a few corrections you can come to the same result. There's really not much to it.
*******************************************************

Colored emphasis mine. Now why is it since he concludes the results are correct that you want to re-argue the issue making up screwball gandankins.?

 

To MacM:
I returned to the Allard’s section on calculus at your web site and simply ignored the error in “segment 1” box’s second equation, where the space between the two spheres which is also R in this special case, is substituted into the Newtonian F=Gmm/r*r for r, the center to center separation.
Shmoe had once suggested that in any specific case this error could be incorporated in the constant “K”, but there are two problems with this logic. (1) At ths point in the derivation , no specific case has yet been defined. &(2) The same “K” that appears in the very first equation of the derivation, which does have r^2 , not R^2, in the demoniator, is repeated in the second equation. I am trying to follow Allard’s work despite being wrong in the transition between Eq.1 and Eq.2, so I went to figure 20 & segument 3 box.

There are three collections of scribbles in box 3. The first is OK and defines the angle θ , but the middle one is not even an equation, (unless the minus sign to the right of S should be an equality sign?). That second “set of squiggles” contains S (Perhaps is trying to define it?) and some new angle whose squiggle symbol looks sort of like a “6” but is clearly some other angle. I studdied the drawing (fig20) and found the “S” but it appears to be the same spacing between two parallel line that is clearly labled as “T” so I do not know what it is from the fig. 20 drawing either. The angle that looks like a “6” has that “6” on the drawing also, but not clear what angle it is a lable for.
Despite all this I went on to the right of the three squiggles in ”section 3” and there found clearly indicated that T = R - S = R - (3R/2)sin6, so I strongly suspect that the minus sign to the right of the S in the middle “squiggle set” is really an equals sign and stating S = (3R/2)sin6. (The 6 is the ill defined angle). Because neither the 6 angle nor the S is well defined, and they both appear in this third, more clear, squiggle equation, I must again give up trying to follow. - (the "two unknows and only one equation" problem.)

It would help a lot if you would post here a clear copy of figure 20, with S and angle 6 clearly indicated, so I could continue. I do not know how to insert drawings in the forum, but you do. The effort to make a clear drawing defining the terms used will not be waisted, as you can them replace the fig 20 of your web page with one that one does not need to struggle with (and fail) to even identify your variables.

PS1 our post crossed in "aether space" - I just read your enough to note Shmoe's name correctly and change here.

PS2 I certainly did not say anything about Shmoe's abilities except that he too has not produced any quantative result, such as the uniKEF attraction between two spheres, a planet and sun, etc. i.e. a quantative test of uniKEF.
Lets not argue, but help DaleSpam do this. That is why I returned after months to try to follow the only math I find at you web site.

 

As I said before, this is irrelevant to what follows. All that is important is the force between two discs of radius R at distance R apart is proportional to R^2. All he's looking at is what happens as R varies, the distance could have been fixed at R apart, 2R, 3R, 1000R, it doesn't matter what you picked, just some constant times R. Then the force is proportional to R^2 as R varies. The constant of proportionality isn't what he's concerned with here, the K may have changed to a 10K a K/100000, it's irrelevant. Change them to new constants K1, K2, etc as you go along if it makes you happy.

Look at the midpoint of the line joining the centers of the two circles (it's 3R/2 away from either center). There are two solid lines passing through here (I'm calling the non-horizontal one the "slanty line" below). The angle "6", I think this is a "phi", is the acute angle between these lines. S is the distance from the slanty line to the center of the circle, which should be clear now from it's definition (the "-" is an "="). S is in general different from T, the diagram is unfortunate that it appears to give the one angle "6" where they are the same, that is the case where the bottom slanty line passes though the center of the left circle.

The rest is straightforward. For a given angle "6" it works out the area in the circles's between the slanty parallel lines (the ones distance 2T apart). Then he integrates this over "6" ranging from 0 to what you called "theta". The end result is something proportional to R^2.

 

Thanks, Yes it would have made it easier to understand, but now I can get thru the first box OK, but it seems to be intrinsically restricted to the one case with both radii of the two spheres equal and also equal to the space between the spheres, or as you are stating separation equal some factor like C = 10 greater than there radii, is it not? perhaps I will replace r in first equation with C*R instead of only R and then be able to find the expected inverse C^2 relationship. Did you do this already?

I must think some more about it and look at the drawing with your text as guide still, but if the analysis assumes that the mass of each disk (assuming constant density) increases with R^2 also, is the "proof" a valid demonstration of the inverse square law for the case where the mass of the disk is instead a constant instead of always quadratically increasing as their separation changes? - Perhaps each 2D disk's mass always increasing quadratically with the changing separation is making it appear to reproduce the inverse square law? (I am not stating this, just telling some of my initial concerns, now that I can get by Allard's first box (perhaps even the third with your post's help about "angle 6" & S).

I was expecting a 3D proof that uniKEF reproduces Newtonian inverse square law: F = GMM/r*r. that is, uniKEF reproduces, in 3D, not 2D, which is: F = G*{(4/3)*π *ρ )^2}*R^6/ r*r, where ρ is the density, r is the center to center separations, and R the radius of both spheres, if we still are only considering equal radius spheres. If we then let the separation be R so r = 3R, this becomes:
F = G*{(4/27)*π *ρ )^2}*R^4 or F is proportional to R^4 not R^2 of the 2D corresponding case. I need to think more, but initilly this seems different than Newtonian case and certainly this important 3D case is different from the 2D case you discuss with separated disks (I thought Allard was considering spheres as he says he is?)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I will think about it and send PMs to you asking for more help as I try to do the 3D case more generally (separation and radii all three different) if you do not mind helping me more "thru the squiggles" I just wanted to thank you now for this help. Thanks again.

 

Must be brief:

No it's not, and it's not trying to be. See the fig 22 and on, here he allows the distance to vary (what you wanted to call C he calls D).

He's just doing 2d case with circles, I think he mentioned that at the start. The 3-d case as I understood it would be a total mess to set up.

 

Thanks for this infromation. I have not gone thru all MacM's web text. I was relying on MacM's assertion that that you and Allarad had confirmed Newton's inverse square law attraction between two spheres and now I learn that only one special 2D case has even been looked at!

 

Not a problem.

HeHe. Those 100 pages are an abstract also. The original manuscript was 250 pages. However, it covered numerous issues other than just gravity and those issue were even less supported. That is it was mostly free thoughts and speculation put on paper to think over.

Agreed. I have a barn burner reputation here but that is because when I am spit on I hit back.

That makes at least two of us. Can't speak for Billy T.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is all that has ever been claimed. Further it has been made clear and is posted in the calculus section that it is not the complete mathematics to result in a final force of gravity. It is only the inverse square function and it's origins in the UniKEF concept. The actual force would be derived by direct multiplication of U and ~ as well as density.

SHMOE,

Thank you for your clarifications. Unfortunately Billy T seems to have a mind set which has made it impossible to discuss things. In spite of that I hope that he will now begin to actually consider the issue in the manner it is presented rather than attempting to find some gendankin (which have been based on incorrect assumptions) to claim he has proven it wrong.

DALE,

Thank for your participation as well. It seems you have managed to do what I have not been able to do in a couple of years here; which is get people to actually look at the process.

I am particularily interested to see what happens with different diameters but I think it important to formalize and better define the symmetrical case since it is easier and if it isn't correct then there would be no need to go further.

TO ALL: Regardless of all the huff and puff over these many months I am not your typical crack pot. I may be wrong. I don't believe I am; howver, if it is shown to be wrong then it would be stupid to continue to claim otherwise.