Introduction James R, The Introduction is on my home page but I made the request since a member just stated he had trouble with surfing MSN Groups.
The twin paradox is a GR, not an SR, phenomenon. SR describes each twin as viewing the other’s clock as running slower, and ignores the possibility of their meeting and observing a difference in biological age. In order for the two twins to meet, the traveling twin must decelerate, reverse direction, and accelerate. Acceleration/deceleration make SR no longer applicable. The traveling twin moves relative to the rest of the universe, while the twin who stays home has little motion relative to the rest of the universe. I do not know enough about GR to describe the dirty details, but it is obvious that there is a fundamental difference between the twins when you take into account their motion relative to the rest of the universe. In an otherwise empty universe, the two twins would be indistinguishable. Perhaps, they would not seem to be biologically different after moving apart at relativistic speeds and then reversing direction to meet. I wonder how GR would describe the problem in an empty universe. I know that some physicists believe there would be no inertial effects due to acceleration in an empty universe. Others suggest that a rocket engine might not function in an otherwise empty universe. There are some strange notions being posted here. For example, I am suspicious of any one who makes statements like the following. When I notice a statement like that, I ignore the rest of the discussion, assuming it has little merit. Absolutely rigid rods do not exist. If I push one end of a rod, I am interacting with molecules at my end of the rod. Those molecules interact with nearby molecules, which interact with molecules further away from me. In some nonzero time, the molecules at the other end of the pipe are effected. For mechanical interactions, I think effects propagate at the speed of sound in the medium. For electromagnetic interactions, I think the speed is relativistic. No way can any effects be noticed at the other end of the rod in zero time.
Solid Rod Dinosaur, Read your post and understand your concern but I feel you have missed the point. I have never said it is a solid rod. I was presenting an analogy. Nobody yet knows what it is, only that the energy is beyond even the density of Black Holes based on E=Mc^2. Who knows how this stuff works - nobody. This is all what if and if so what would be the consequences. Someof those consequence are very interesting and provides a rational physical view of some observations that are otherwise nonsenscial. You are to serious and apparently expect new views to be all nicely wrapped by indpeth mathematical support, tests proof positive. Let me suggest that none of that proceeded Relativity. It was decades before Relativity began to have general acceptance. And indeed Einstein screwed up big time when he proposed the Universal Constant to make the Universe Steady State. I guess if Einstein can screw up the rest of us shouldn't expect to be 100% right 100% of the time. Take a deep breath guy.
UniKEF Introduction Thanks to James R., I am posting the Introduction. I hope this clears the air a bit from my start on this board. I will admit and apologize for my tone with Warren but Warren you also asked for it with your tone and unwillingness to even consider what was being said in a macroscopic view. You tend to look for any mis-statement or words usage as a means of attack, even if they were innocent or through "Uneducated" use of terms. I am not conciding that I hope you understand. From: Mac (Original Message) Sent: 1/18/2003 6:34 PM The UniKEF Theory By Dan K. McCoin (Mac) Email: lmccoin@elp.rr.com The UniKEF Theory is an alternative view of reality which is offered to stimulate a search for a better understanding and physical description of our universe where Relativity and Strings (TOE) theories venture off into complex mathematical projections creating unreconcilable conflicts and are devoid of any physical underpinnings. Neither the mathematics nor the assumptions in UniKEF are based on any research or discoveries. They are offered as "By-Way-Of-Example" and are not to be taken as final arguments for UniKEF. UniKEF Gravity is supported by a calculus analysis and may be viewed in the PICTURE (PHOTO) or DOCUMENTS sections. While that lends credence to the overall concept it doesn't make it valid in any detailed way. It merely opens up many possibilities which should be explored. RECITAL UniKEF stands for Universal Kinetic Energy Field Theory. It is a concept of time-space based on space being formed by time-energy (UniKEF). That is time is not a 4th dimension. It is an illusion of energy transfers or flow in an energy field that creates our three dimensional space. Most Relativistic observations are preserved and are given visually and a physically understandable basis which no longer create conflicts or paradoxes with reality. I conceived the view in 1954 and over the decades since I have seen numerous discoveries which were predicted by UniKEF. Debates, discussions and comments are welcome but I encourage you to rely upon free-standing logic and/or independent mathematics. You can not prove Relativity using relativistic mathematics. CONFIRMED PREDICTIONS 1 - Heat should be a by product of the production of gravity and contributes to the core heating of the earth. A correlation of core heat rising to the surface of the earth vs the gravity field intensity at the surface point were observed by NASA 1964. 2 - A "Gravity Shadow" should be found in relation to other massive bodies coupled by gravity. A shadow is now known to exist and no other theory of gravity satisfactorily explains it. The Geodetic Institute in Frankfurt, Germany measured a 4.28E-9 deviation in gravity during a Lunar eclipse in Norway in 1954. A mechanical view via UniKEF yields results of 4.2E-9 deviation predicted. The Institute granted permission for publication of UniKEF including their work as Chapter 7 - See "History", "Permission to Publish". 3 - It predicted that the expansion of the universe would be found to be accelerating. That is now considered fact. 4 - It predicted that v = c limit imposed by Relativity was invalid and is not a velocity limit for an independent inertial system. That objects would be found that exceeded the speed of light. Many such objects have been found. NASA/MIT in collaboration have found over 60 such objects. These objects are all moving traverse or orthogonal to us and it is not v=>c relative motion to us. This fact is supported in the UniKEF view. ************************************************************** DISCUSSION Purely as an academic exercise, we calculate the transverse velocities required for the four quasars PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 on the cosmological red shift hypothesis. We take the smallest value of proper motion within the uncertainty range and assume the Hubble Constant to be 50 km/s/Mpc and q0=0. Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, the transverse velocities would correspond to Vt = 760, 1000, 5200 and 2300 times the speed of light ! for PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively. Needless to say these values are without physical significance and clearly indicate that the cosmological red shift hypothesis is completely untenable. http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html ****************************************************************Science is still looking for some other explanation and has refused to acknowledge the flaws in Relativity. 5 - It predicted that we could find objects in the universe that were older than the universe itself. Such objects have been found but science is still trying to figure out why or how. 6 - UniKEF state that we each are at the center of our own unique Universe. See "UniKEF Theory"/"Documents"/Abstract"/"Vol_1", Line 1627 - 1632. UniKEF. Data now agrees with that view. *************************************************************** IS THE EARTH THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ? Varshni,Y.P.: 1976, Astrophys.Space Sci., 43, 3. <HTTP: adsabs.harvard.edu cgi-bin bib_query?1976Ap&SS..43....3V> Abstract. It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: Namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Consequences of this result are examined. http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1976a/index.html> To get to the "Earth at the Center of the Universe Data", scroll down on the above link to "Related Papers", No. 18. ******************************************************** 7 - The very foundation of UniKEF requires that there be a homogeneous, omni-directional source of kinetic energy flowing into and throughout the universe. It is now believed that what we call the "Vacuum or Void" of space is actually not empty at all but is an unimaginably dense, high energy field called the "Chiral Condensate". Space is actually a super solid but exists in a form not yet understood. This energy can also explain the universal expansion. We are witnessing the on going creation of space. The Big Bang was merely the rip in dimension releasing the Klien Bottle of creation. See "Addendums" under "Documents" OTHER PREDICTIONS a - Our universe is FINITE bounded by "Quantitative" and "Qualitative" Time-Energy Domain limits. b - Teleportation may be possible. c - There are multiple FINITE universes. (This explains the "Older objects in #5 above where finite universes domain boundaries overlap). d - We live in a DYNAMIC PRESENT in STATIC TIME, and to move your spatial ordinate you simultaneously enter the PAST and FUTURE. e - That distance is not a fixed number but varies as a function of the mass of the observer. i.e. - 4.3 light years to Alpha Centuri is only 4.3 light years for a photon traveling at the speed of light but for a bowling ball it is less. See "UniKEF Theory"/"Documents"/"Abstract"/Vol_1, lines 1650-1710 and Vol_3, lines 3545-3600, 3609-3635. f - Many more thought provoking predictions. ********************************************* It appears the board has shifted the format some. NOTE: Under "OTHER PREDICTIONS", "a" - the domain limits incorperate the features of Relativity but are derived differently than ((1 - v/c)^2)^.5
Solid Post I have currently posted on (5) topics and have just posted notice that the Introduction is posted under Relativity. There was one other comment that I saw made reference "Super Solid in a form not yet understood". I have forgotten who responded "There is no such thing as a "Super Solid" and of course that person doesn't seem to think much of my views, which is certainly ok. But I wanted to respond but a quick search of the topics I failed to relocate the comment so I am posting my response here. Hope it isfound by the original objector. That term was not mine it was extracted from a paper published on the Chiral Condensate by one of the high energy labs involved in the studies. I am learning that I should keep a log of references, which I haven't done but will certainly start to do. I can tell you it was from an organization either CERN or an equivelent recognized body.
Re: James R Response Then what on Earth prompted you to say that it gives better results than relativity? Oh, that is so not the preference of this message board! Maybe my eyes are going, but didn't I just see James offer to look at the model you are peddling here? Is it that out of line to ask for experimental confirmation? Tom
Model Tom2, quote: ******************************** Then what on Earth prompted you to say that it gives better results than relativity? ******************************** The concept is unsupported (almost) but the conclusion of the model preserves most observed features of Relativity but provides a physical base and understanding. The next step is for you "Educated" guys to tear it apart or preferrably provide the mathematical model. The model you have is problematic and has no physical base of understanding. This goes to the issues of mathematical models being algorithums (which work) but are not physical reality. quote: ************************************************* Oh, that is so not the preference of this message board! Maybe my eyes are going, but didn't I just see James offer to look at the model you are peddling here? Is it that out of line to ask for experimental confirmation? ************************************************** The slamming door comment was made earlier on during intense attack when I first posted and before any real meaningful discussion. At this point I am more than content and posting the Introduction was not an initial purpose. I did hope to get members to have a look at my home page (the Abstract is 44 pages). But due to a request from another member that was having trouble surfing MSN, I did request to post the Introdluction and James very cordially said yes. And finally it is absolutely proper to ask for confirmation of some sort. However, in this case most is speculation based on the successful calculus evaluation of the UniKEF view of gravity. We have been conducting some tests of UniKEF Gravity and currently we have data that supports the UniKEF view and it will require alteration if not abandonment of Newton, Einstien and Quantum gravity views. (That is not theory but existing fact) I hope to be able to publish within 1 - 2 months but in light of the test results I have taken my flemisy concept and put it out to be shredded as a means of infact finding out what of any of it can stand scruntiny.
Solid Rod Dinosaur, I hate to break your train of thought but I just realized I forgot to mention "Particle Entanglement". If you aren't familiar with it I do suggest you look it up but the reactions are considered instantaneous over any distance. That may not mean actual t=0 but so near it that any deviation is ignored since it has been immeasurable. At the density estimated for the Chiral Condensate your molecular model isn't even in the same country much less same ball park. One of the figures I have seen was 3E137 ergs/cm^3. Do an E=mc^2 on that and see what you get - Super Solid.
MacM: Could you please explain briefly what a chiral condensate is? Also, please pick one of the "Confirmed predictions" and show us how the UniKEF theory arrives at the prediction. Thankyou.
Chiral Condensate James R, The Chiral Condensate is one name (I believe the most recent) given to what we call the "Vacuum or Void" of space. There have been other simular or parallel concepts, I believ one was called Zero Point Energy. But to tell you what it is I am afraid I can't tell you much because the ones studying it have only started but they have produced some data. That data "suggest " that what we think is space, void, empty is really packed solid with energy. One number (the highest I've seen) is posted above. One paper referred to it as a " Super Solid in a form we do not yet understand". PREDICTIONS: 1 - Heat flow from the earth vs gravity. UniKEF is what is now being referred to as a "Pushing Gravity" concept. That is gravity is not an inate property of matter but is produced by external energy fields flowing through the mass. This requires an omni-directional, homogeneous field throughout the universe. This is one reason the work has never been finished because there was no evidence of UniKEF (Universal Kenetic Energy Field). Let me break stride a bit here and regress. The UniKEF concept came to me when I was 13 because in school I could not envision "Physically" the meaning of m*m in Newtonian Gravity. Physically that is mass squared. That is not physical, its mathematical. For example two apples should gravitate like two apples, not a square apple. So I rejected that as an explanation for gravity. I also wondered why it had an inverse square property. My initial thoughts were to view gravity like a bullet passing through an orange, transferring momentum due to friction to the orange and creating heat. The amount of heat however calculated for gravity would vaporize the earth in minutes. So It became obvious that gravity was primarily a elastic momentum transfer with only a minor inelastic function. But the consequence of this view would be core heating of the earth by gravity. The field has to be of enormous strength but have negligable interaction with mass to cover the range of gravitating bodies. The UniKEF field requirements are beginning to look very much like the Chiral Condensate. I have graphics and calculus of the gravity process on the home page. In UniKEF gravity = U * ~ *(m1 + m2) *{cones of sources trig integrated} I integrated the work in the original manuscript by hand. Drawing lines with a ruler and measuring them from a two dimesnional view and multiplied the results by a uniform distribution to create a 3D view. My results tracked Newton to better than 1%. U is an unknown strength of the energy field (I may start to adopt the Chiral Condensate value) and ~ is an unknown absorbtion coefficient (which combined may be related to G once adjustments are calculated for the different applicaton method of G in the production of gravity) Three years later a family friend of my parents, who was a professor at Purdue University, took my work there and circulated it around the Physics Department. It was there that I first heard of Le Sage. He beat me to the basic idea by 300 years but I have advanced it due to modern technology and better science availability - :bugeye: Actually the primary advance was the work of Dr Allard, physicist that did the calculus. The rest of the theory has just flowed from that beginning. PS: Now you can see why I am interested in finding "Physical" realities for mathematical algorithums. I believe they are there we just have to dig them out.
Oh, God, MacM.. I was really hoping you were above all the other zero-point energy zealots. You are free to put your index of "zero energy" anywhere you'd like. The vacuum is not "packed solid with energy" in the sense that you can get the energy out and make use of it. And acceleration is length / time^2. Do you therefore have the same problems with the concept of acceleration? See, MacM, this is why I think you're a total crackpot, unworthy of even common courtesy. You've declared here that GRAVITY equals something, some equation. What exactly does this mean? If you had said the magnitude of gravitational attraction or the acceleration experienced by a body in the field or some other quantity, I'd take you seriously. Instead, you've declared that gravity itself equals an equation. This doesn't even make sense. If I were to come on here and delcare that orange = J<sub>0</sub>(x<sup>2</sup> <font face=symbol>g</font> - t m c<sup>2</sup>), everyone would think I'm nuts, because it doesn't mean anything. So far, you're following my 12-step crackpot system to a tee. You've gotten transfixed on something you didn't understand from grade school physics... you've developed an entire complicated model around that misunderstanding, while you haven't taken the time to learn even basic real physics... you've attached a name to your theory... etc. What a waste of time. - Warren
Zero Point chroot, PLEASE read more carefully. I haven't agreed and supported zero point energy. I said I thought that was one of the name people had tried to name it. But the current trend is "Vacuum" or "Chiral Condensate" and I suppose you feel you have the where with all to declare CERN and other "Crackpots" becuae that is where the information is coming from - Have a nice ego day. I have contributed nothing to the concepte of the Vacuum or Chiral Condensate but I do tend to take CERN's word before yours even though I don't know you because I have great respect for those doing that kind of research. And for you to state that the Vacuum is not packed with energy makes you on the outside lookuing in. Let me suggest you put down your 30+ year old text and get something more modern. And to try to play symantics with a formula for gravity is indeed childish. Nobody except you seem to have a problem with definitions. Seems to me the formula speaks for itself, It defines the mechanisim for the production of gravity, it obviously is not gravity no more than E=mc^2 is energy. You do have some intolerable habits. PS: I notice you haven't answered the final question under 3 Clocks.
Sorry, MacM, but I have to agree with chroot here. You haven't addressed either of my questions. I asked what a chiral condensate is. Your reply was: <i>The Chiral Condensate is one name (I believe the most recent) given to what we call the "Vacuum or Void" of space.</i> Since this lacks any content except as a nominative term, I will continue to use the terms "vacuum" or simply "space". There seems to me to be nothing chiral or condensed about space in any sense. If there was, you should have been able to explain these postulated features of space. My second question was to ask you to provide the derivation from your theory of one of its "confirmed results". That, also, you have failed to do. You named: <i>1 - Heat flow from the earth vs gravity.</i> But the rest of your post does not explain how heat flow from the earth affects or derives from gravity in any way. You make statements such as: <i>gravity is not an inate property of matter but is produced by external energy fields flowing through the mass.</i> but do not explain how these fields are produced, how the flow interacts to produce gravity or anything else which might explain your statement. You also say: <i>The UniKEF field requirements are beginning to look very much like the Chiral Condensate.</i> Given your definition of "chiral condensate", I am having difficulty imagining how a "field requirement" can look like "the vacuum or void of space". Then we come to your maths: <i>In UniKEF gravity = U * ~ *(m1 + m2) *{cones of sources trig integrated}</i> As chroot asked, how can gravity equal anything? What is gravity? What are the units of U? Is U constant? How is it measured? What are the units of ~? Is it constant? How is it measured? How is it related to G? Finally, what does your equation allow us to calculate, in terms of measureable quantities checkable by experiment? Can you give us a concrete example? Let's take a simple problem: I drop a tennis ball from a height of 1 metre above the Earth's surface. How long does it take to hit the ground? If you can show me how to work out the answer using UniKEF gravity theory, then I'll agree to listen to more details of the theory.
When I posted my quastion on top of this thread I did'nt intend to challenge the theory of relativity. I only wanted to see if some one had an answer that satisfied my sence of logic.( And not to be told about goldilocks) the only post that did that so far is Dinosaur 02-07-03-9;02pm (thanks D.) I'm not a proffesional scientist. I'm a retired civil engineer and all my life I have worked with and designed things that you can see, feel and sometimes walk on. But I was born with two genes 1. curiosity 2. logic. My curiosity let me to astronomy, and my sense of logic leads me to question any cosmology theory that doesnt make sense. Hense my questioning the theory on other threads about the Big Bang. Quote; So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reallity they are not certain. And so far as thy are certain, they do not refer to reallity. Albert Einstein.
Using the search terms "Chiral Condensate CERN vacuum" in Google, I found plenty of stuff. All way over my head...way over. I can't even suggest what they talk about.
Chiral Condensate Jaxom, Welcome to the club. That is why I was only quoting them. And they want me to explain it! But they want to act like I made it up or that before I can discuss the implications that I see I should hand THEM all the answers. quote from James R: ************************************************* Sorry, MacM, but I have to agree with chroot here. You haven't addressed either of my questions. I asked what a chiral condensate is. Your reply was: The Chiral Condensate is one name (I believe the most recent) given to what we call the "Vacuum or Void" of space. Since this lacks any content except as a nominative term, I will continue to use the terms "vacuum" or simply "space". There seems to me to be nothing chiral or condensed about space in any sense. If there was, you should have been able to explain these postulated features of space. *************************************************** Hell CERN doesn't even know what it is. But I think you can see they damn well know its there and its awesome, unlike the one response which stated flatly that "No such thing existed". But we will get there. Hang on. Thanks.
Answers James R, First let me thank you for posting your comments in discussion form. Now to try as best I can to respond. quote from you: ***************************** Sorry, MacM, but I have to agree with chroot here. ***************************** I can only hope that you are not in agreement with the following: quote from chroot: ***************************** gravity = U * ~ *(m1 + m2) *{cones of sources trig integrated} See, MacM, this is why I think you're a total crackpot, unworthy of even common courtesy. You've declared here that GRAVITY equals something, some equation. What exactly does this mean? If you had said the magnitude of gravitational attraction or the acceleration experienced by a body in the field or some other quantity, I'd take you seriously. Instead, you've declared that gravity itself equals an equation. This doesn't even make sense. ***************************** I am not to be given common courtesy because I communicated in an informal way. I don't think any intelligent, educated or not person has any problem with the statement "Gravity =xxxx" These MSB's are full of ppl for people, etc. He is being outright childish in an atttempt to make it impossible for others to want to even try to communicate. If he can't drive me off he thinks he can drive off the readers. That is the only logical explanation for such outright nonsense. This MSB is not the American Journal of Physics (and I only mean by that that it is supposed to be an informal discussion.) quote from you: *********************** I asked what a chiral condensate is. *********************** Answered above to Jaxom's post. quote from you: ********************************** My second question was to ask you to provide the derivation from your theory of one of its "confirmed results". That, also, you have failed to do. You named: 1 - Heat flow from the earth vs gravity. But the rest of your post does not explain how heat flow from the earth affects or derives from gravity in any way. *********************************** What about "inelastic momentum transfer" didn't you understand? What about a bullets passing through an orange, delivering monentum to, and creating heat in, the orange did you not understand? quote from my post: *************************** My initial thoughts were to view gravity like a bullet passing through an orange, transferring momentum due to friction to the orange and creating heat. The amount of heat however calculated for gravity would vaporize the earth in minutes. So It became obvious that gravity was primarily a elastic momentum transfer with only a minor inelastic function. But the consequence of this view would be core heating of the earth by gravity. **************************** quote from you: **************************** You make statements such as: gravity is not an inate property of matter but is produced by external energy fields flowing through the mass. but do not explain how these fields are produced, how the flow interacts to produce gravity or anything else which might explain your statement. **************************** I really don't understand what is missing here. This presentation was meant to be a short version, to convey the basic concept. On site I have two pages of graphics which show the function and (8) pages of calculus that details how it works. I really thought the above was adequate for the purpose of delivering the basic concept of energy flowing through a body and creating heat. Your queston about how is gravity produced is another question and for that you need the graphics and calculus. I have no nowledge what-soever how the field is produced but if you want a guess it is the consequence of the anhilation of virtual particle pairs which CERN says is flowing from the Chiral Condensate. I will continue to use Chiral Condensate in that it is an energetic source as distinguished from the common view of a vacuum as being empty space. This thread was about heat being produced in the production of gravity, not about gravity. quote from you: ************************* You also say: The UniKEF field requirements are beginning to look very much like the Chiral Condensate. Given your definition of "chiral condensate", I am having difficulty imagining how a "field requirement" can look like "the vacuum or void of space". ************************* I totally miss your confusion here. Your "Vacuum or void of space" according to CERN is actually a highly energetic medium producing particle pairs which combine and convert to pure energy. They call it the Chiral Condensate (the other name which I couldn't think of last night was "Foam"). If you don't like the name or the data tell them, it is not my discovery or claim. It may or may not be what I have been calling UniKEF but it damn well fits the view or requirements for an omni-directional, homogeneous kenetic energy field flow. And in all my statements I have made it clear that the main reason UniKEF has not been pursued more virorisly is that there had been a complete absence of the sign for any such field to exist. The "Vacuum" if you prefer is simply a very likely candidate. quote from you: ************************** Then we come to your maths: In UniKEF gravity = U * ~ *(m1 + m2) *{cones of sources trig integrated} As chroot asked, how can gravity equal anything? What is gravity? *************************** quote from my post: ******************************* I have graphics and calculus of the gravity process on the home page. In UniKEF gravity = U * ~ *(m1 + m2) *{cones of sources trig integrated} ******************************* You don't see the link between the statement I have graphics and calculus................"; which proceeds the formula? DOES ANYBODYELSE OUT THERE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. WERE YOU LEFT TO BELIEVE THAT I THOUGH GRAVITY = A FORMULA? I THINK NOT BUT IF SO THAT IS SCAREY FOLKS. quote from you: ********************************* What are the units of U? Is U constant? How is it measured? What are the units of ~? Is it constant? How is it measured? How is it related to G? *************************** quote from my post: *************************** U is an unknown strength of the energy field (I may start to adopt the Chiral Condensate value) and ~ is an unknown absorbtion coefficient (which combined may be related to G once adjustments are calculated for the different applicaton method of G in the production of gravity) **************************** U is an unknown....., ~ is an unknown.......; U*~ = G Seems absolutely clear to me. The cross product of U*~ is G. It is up to you educated guys to figure out. If G = 1 then: 1E60 x 1E-60 = 1 = G, or 1E30 x 1E-30 = 1 = G. I don't know and it doesn't matter. It will be nice to figure that out but the cross product is the only thing need to compute the force of gravity and that is G. quote from you: ***************************** Finally, what does your equation allow us to calculate, in terms of measureable quantities checkable by experiment? Can you give us a concrete example? ***************************** Force of gravity using my m1+m2 vs m1*m2. Same end force number, differt derivation. quote from you: ************************** Let's take a simple problem: I drop a tennis ball from a height of 1 metre above the Earth's surface. How long does it take to hit the ground? If you can show me how to work out the answer using UniKEF gravity theory, then I'll agree to listen to more details of the theory. ************************** Just substitue UniKEF force of gravity for your standard gravity and calculate it. Force is force however derived. The same force is going to give you the same physical response. To get to this point you will have to understand how to compute the UniKEF force of gravity and for that you must understand the graphics and calculus. Frankly I would use the conventional algebra formulas in that they are easier than the calculus version. BUt the important thin here is that UniKEF gravity makes sense physically and lends itself to alternate understanding of other aspects of the universe. All of which at this point include assumptions which must be taken (just as with Relativity) with a great deal of faith). I hope this helps if not then I am not sure what else to tell you.
Dinosaur: the twin paradox is easily understood in SR, there is no need to use GR. although GR can help you understand this paradox, it is actually much easier to deal with in SR. apolo: firstly, ignore the debate going on with MacM. it is irrelevant to your valid question. you should be annoyed that your thread was hijacked. i am. secondly, read the link that chroot posted. it is a very good explanation to your question. dinosaurs comment was mostly correct. however, you certainly do not need GR to solve this paradox. in that regard, he is not correct. but the essence of his post still holds: the axioms of SR are statements about inertial frames. one of the twins is in an inertal frame, but one is not. therefore there is a difference between the two twins, and they can unambiguously decide which on is older. although the axioms of SR are only about inertial frames, that does not mean that you cannot treat accelerated motion in SR. let me explain. if one twin is traveling constant velocity relative to the other, then there is no way to distinguish. one looks like he s moving slowly to the other, and vice versus. but once one of them starts accelerating, his time dilation is not symmetric with the inertial twin. the inertial twin ages faster. when they meet in the end, the accelerating twin will be older. SR is perfectly equipped to tell you exactly how much older one twin is. you just treat the accelerating twin as if he is in an instantaneously inertial frame, and integrate.
Apology apolo, You also have my apology. I didnot intend to highjack your thread. But I have been attacked at every word and the attackers seem to think that their BS should be left stand unchallenged. To have done that would have been victory by default for them and it just isn't justified. Unless James R or anyother members should ask me a question, in a civil or respectful tone I have said my last on this issue. I believe enough arguement has been presented for most to draw a rational conclusion without simply assuming everybody here knows everything. Including me.
