# OK Relavists

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, May 6, 2003.

1. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
It takes many lines for you to explain gravitational force in your frane work, it takes about half a page to state, and solve Newton's equations!

What is simple?

Messages:
5,946
Re: Typical

5. ### letheRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
2,009
are you under the impression, ryans, that when newton first published his theory of gravitation, it took only one line? if so, then you are wrong. he filled several chapters of principia with it. the explanation alone took one.

just because you can state a result in one line, does not mean that the theory was simple, or easy to state, or trivial to come up with, in the beginning. in fact, i believe the contrary is true: the simpler and more obvious the theory, the more difficult it is to come up with.

7. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
The derivation can be found on the UniKEF homepage... however it is a mess to derive, and in the end relies on constants which are not easily measurable. Also, the derivation gives the same result as integrating point forces over an area/volume (I think you know what I mean, but the phrasing may be poor). The benefit in the standard approach is that it is easily calculatable and doesn't rely on any unknown constants. You can actually get an answer, and not a bunch of unknowns.

Regardless, I can't think of much you use either method for besides astrophysics (nebula 'colliding' and all that). Everything within our solar system would just simplify to point masses.

8. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Echo

Persol,

ANS: Please note that that was an echo.

Also you made a rather lengthy post upset because I told ryans I had a better grasp on reality. Your post is generally accepted and just let me note that I occasionaly post comments to piss off people that are attempting to piss me off. That was one of them.

Don't want to give the impression I think I am a know it all "also. "

9. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104

lethe,

ANS: I know we don't agree very often and that your post is from the heart on the issue not in denfense of me. But we agree here.

10. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Constants

Persol,

ANS: I am assuming the constants you are referring to are "U" and "~".

They are simply a hypothetical bifurcation of the standard "G" constant. Their product will result in "G". One would use "G" to calculate gravity but "U" and "~" will have other useful purposes once they are determined.

ANS: Actually this is not yet known. Dr Allards calculus only evaluates the concept as applied to two circles and the UniKEF form of integration has never been done for solid geometry.

"Silly me", I thought when I came here I would find interest and others would pick up the idea and pursue the derivations.

Further the concept does not integrate objects to a point source in the same manner that standard integration is used. U.. Integration has a different function which includes geometry of the object in its final conclusion. Only solid congruent spheres will produce the same general result of being equivelent points

This issue goes directly to the testing that has been under way (post poned now for two month due to medical family problems in Indiana but has recently been re-started).

ANS: The "Unknowns" issues has been addressed above. I would agree standard is going to be easier but I don't find that an issue. Newtonian is easier than Relativity but you like Relativity. I believe it should come down to which one is the most correct to observation and testing. I can tell you that as of right now Newton is in trouble and I think so is Einstien but I won't go there until my data is at hand and at that time I am going to fully enjoy this MSB's participation.

11. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
Does your UniKEF theory circumvent renormalization in quantum electrodynamics?

If you give me the answer to this integral, I swear from this day that I will be a bonifide convert.

since I cannot easily show formula I will say it in words,

The integral of [exp(-ar)/r] between the limits of zero and infinity. Look up the yukawa potential to see its exact form.

12. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Distraction

ryans,

ANS: Here is the perfect example of what I have said earlier.

You like to shift topics to find one that meets your needs. Clearly nobody has said UniKEF is inclusive of every dynamic process in the Universe.

It in fact has been made clear that it only scratches the surface of a very few.

Off point and supurflous.:m:

13. ### ryansCome to see me about a dog heyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
995
Mac you ****, this as a genuine proposition. To my knowledge, this integral cannot be solved within the framework of modern mathematics, due to the nature of the singularity at r=0. If someone can solve this integral, it would change physics, as it is a standard integral in field theories where infinities arise. Thus if a solution is found in your framework, I will be genuinly and instantly converted.

Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.

Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2003
14. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Compliment

ryans,

ANS: I should return the compliment but think I will maintain the high road this morning.

That is fantastic. All UniKEF needs to do is solve something you claim is mathematically unsolvable, something I have not claimed to have done.

And something that I have no interest in either since I do not accept infinity as a property linked to any reality.

I think my post stands regarding you being off point.

Last edited by a moderator: May 24, 2003
15. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Re: Constants

16. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Persol,

ANS: Pushing Gravity, I would say yes. The same results I don't think so. Other pushing gravity concepts have not used the geometric integration approach. Testing will either verify this view or it will put it in the trash heap. It is being tested without predjudice in that regard. There is no advantage to advocating a clearly incorrect view.

ANS: You are basing your perspective on a macroscopic approach. The difference are more pronounced at micro csopic scale.

I

Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.[/quote]

ANS: In a contest between Newton and Einstien I would agree.

ANS: I'm sure you and other might wish I did stop. But frankly I am not the one that has resurrected UniKEF here. Don't expect me to sit back and absorb arrows and not respoind. If you don't want to hear about testing then don't attack the concept before it is posted.

Is that fair or what?

17. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Originally posted by MacM
Pushing Gravity, I would say yes. The same results I don't think so. Other pushing gravity concepts have not used the geometric integration approach.
All 'pushing gravity' explainations I have seen use some geometric approach... most use brute force calculations, but brute force will give you answers VERY close to integration.

You are basing your perspective on a macroscopic approach. The difference are more pronounced at micro csopic scale.

Actually, gravity is less pronounced on a microscopic scale. Especially when measuing changes caused by geometry, because the atomical bonds are highly geometrically dependent. If you want to test this, in a real system, you need something large enough that the gravity plays a large role in determining the movement.

Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.
ANS: In a contest between Newton and Einstien I would agree.

Actually, in contest to every other theory so far.

If you don't want to hear about testing then don't attack the concept before it is posted. Is that fair or what?

Then don't attack relativity before you understand how it was derived and what it says. Is that fair or what?

18. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Deal

Persol,

ANS: I agree but my meaning wasn't "Atomic" microscopic but small in comparison to the macroscopic galactic view ou were citing.

[/quote] If you want to test this, in a real system, you need something large enough that the gravity plays a large role in determining the movement. [/quote]

ASN: We agree but that doesn't need to be overly huge. A bowling ball is more than adequate and they have measured microgravity in Casimir Tests.

ANS: I agree as long as you don't try to declare the contest over.

ANS: Deal but that doesn't mean I am prohibited from raising questions or challenging answers. My responses have not as late referred to UniKEF. The MSB assumes they are part of UniKEF
and that isn't necessarily so.

Lets wrap up the "Relativity" string and move on.

19. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Re: Deal

Scary, agreed on all points.

Just 2 points:
1) astronomical movement is still a good basis in this case, as the soultions are geometrical in nature
2) I keep bringing up how to determine what force is determined by gravity, and what is other forces, because it is difficult.. especially when you have other values changing (IE - shape/mass), and I imagine this will be a sticking point if your data is released.

20. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I Believe

Persol,

I know you probably won't believe this but I expect to get clobbered but I think in the long term it will produce some changes. Most likely not the ones I would like to see.

21. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Re: I Believe

EDIT: deleted text after your edit, to move it to the other post

22. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Edit

Persol,

I did also. Is it now doubly posted? I noticed I had mixed two responses into one message.