MacM: You remind me of Velikovsky and a little bit of Lysenko. You have a talent often displayed by guests on an ancient radio talk show run by Long John Neville. Crackpots have a lot of experience arguing with knowledgeable scientists. The real scientists have little or no experience arguing with crackpots. John Neville ran a delightful show which took advantage of this. Some of his guests claimed to have ridden in UFO's, visiting the moon and other planets. Others claimed to have invented perpetual energy machines. Some were experts on the Bermuda Triangle, the lost continent of Mu (Pacific Ocean version of Atlantis), ESP, Edgar Cayce, and other fascinating concepts. They always made the scientists who argued with them look bad. It was a fun show for the listeners. One of my favorites on that show was the Mystic Barber, who also appeared on a few TV talk shows. He always wore a football helmet painted metallic silver. Attached was a piece of drain pipe available at most hardware stores. He claimed that it was a communications device allowing him to be in constant touch with aliens in UFO’s. He often seemed more sensible than the scientists he argued with on the radio talk show, but was not convincing on TV. James R, Lethe, etal: This thread is beginning to remind me an of an old adage:
lethe, I think you're wrong. Are you claiming that the clock of a twin travelling for 1 year will show the same time as a clock of a twin travelling for 1000 years because both twins experience the same acceleration/deceleration before they reach their constant speed??? Tom
Excuse me for interrupting, but No, he didn't say that. What he said was that if two observers (twins if you like), call then "Alice" and "Betty", are moving at a constant speed relative two each other then each observes the other's clock as moving more slowly. Each would observe the other as aging more slowly. That's not a paradox. That has been experimentally verified, not with Alice and Betty, but by measuring the average "lifetimes" of fast moving cosmic rays. The lifetimes of fast moving cosmic rays are longer than those of slow moving cosmic rays in precisely the way "time dilation" predicts. The only way to get a paradox would be to have the two observers "meet" in the same frame. In order to do that, one or both need to accelerate and then special relativity no longer applies (whence the paradox).
Dilation HallsofIvy, I agree with your description of what Relativity claims and I agree that muons tend to validate the affect. However, my arguement is not that some form of dilation does not or can not occur but that Relativty is not the proper resolution. I have posted a topic "UniKEF", in hope of pursueing a mutually agreeable understanding of how reality is or why Relativity isn't. I would appreciate your joining me there to discuss the issue. I am trying to re-post my arguement in a different presentation to make it more comprehensible and subject to easy resolution. Dinosauar, quote: MacM: You remind me of Velikovsky and a little bit of Lysenko. You have a talent often displayed by guests on an ancient radio talk show run by Long John Neville. Crackpots have a lot of experience arguing with knowledgeable scientists. The real scientists have little or no experience arguing with crackpots. John Neville ran a delightful show which took advantage of this. Some of his guests claimed to have ridden in UFO's, visiting the moon and other planets. Others claimed to have invented perpetual energy machines. Some were experts on the Bermuda Triangle, the lost continent of Mu (Pacific Ocean version of Atlantis), ESP, Edgar Cayce, and other fascinating concepts. They always made the scientists who argued with them look bad. It was a fun show for the listeners. ********************** Sorry, but I don't take that as a compliment. UFO's , Crackpots.
Halls, thanks for responding to that one. i didn t at all say what prosoothus inferred from me. one thing i want to point out again: SR is perfectly well equipped to deal with accelerating frames. all that is required is a little calculus. i am very busy today, but soon, after i finish with the QM thread, and the eigenvalues thread, i will post a thread showing exactly how the calculations work to resolve the twin paradox in SR. Prosoothus: i ll get back to you soon. i m kind of busy right now.
Re: Answers I hate to further hijack the thread, but (teehee) I just can't help myself. I think any intelligent person would have a problem with this. In fact, two intelligent people had problems with it in this thread. So you're allowed to make meaningless statements under the guise of informality? Perhaps you subscribe to a totally different definition of "informal" than do all of us scientists. Informality means "without rigorously proving all results." Informality does not permit the assertion of meaningless statements. I don't think any of us intelligent folks understood how a bullet going through an orange has anything to do with "heat from from the earth vs. gravity," whatever that means. The common view is not of the vacuum just being empty space. Why wouldn't we think it? You said it! So G is a vector now? It was asked for you to give a concrete example. Can you provide a concrete example? I believe it was asked for YOU to SHOW how this is done -- that's the definition of example. Can you do it? - Warren
Lethe: The computations you mentioned seem intuitively valid when presented in a course or book on SR. Since they arrive at the correct results, their use is certainly justified. In spite of the above, it is my understanding that the explanation is really a GR concept, since SR formally deals only with constant velocity situations. It would be surprising if GR disagreed with the integrations using SR equations, but I wonder if a priori, one could guarantee that they would agree. If they did not, it would be the GR calculations that would be accepted, since it is GR that allows for acceleration and gravity. It is not at all clear to me that integrating SR equations and arriving at a correct answer is equivalent to saying that SR provides an explanation resolving the twin paradox. BTW: Assuming that rocket engines would work in an otherwise empty universe, would the twins seem to have different ages? Would the traveling twin feel inertial effects due to acceleration/deceleration? I am really an amateur at both SR & GR, so I do not have much confidence in my above opinions.
Special relativity can deal with accelerations not due to gravity. It turns out that gravitational acceleration is "weird," and requires the full power of GR to explain it. A rocketship accelerating is certainly within the grasp of SR. And of course, if you exert the full power of GR on a simple problem, you will arrive at the same answers SR would give. - Warren
Nonesense chroot, Where on earth did you derive that G was a vector. I only referred to G as a force, how many times. To state that you see no connection to the analogy given of a bullet passing through an orange, where friction cause the bullet drag, delivering momemtum to the orange and generating heat, is to be obstinate or dense. The example given was for how was heat produced. Not how was gravity was produced nor how the formulas can be used to compute how long it takes something to fall from a given height. I stated that UniKEF gravity provides the same force by calculus analysis. Do you really think Dr. Allard simply got involved to waste his time? Don't be so stupid about all this. Are you interested in understanding how an alternative to Relativity can work or not? I'm here to explore, not to teach or to be teached at. Thought that was what this MSB was for. Or is it your sounding board to preach you view of reality? So I am not even going to bother responding to the other mischaracterizations and enuendo. If you have bonifide input I would like to hear it but I am not going to respond to your BS input.
Re: Nonesense Oh, I see -- when you're pressured, you just wave your hands faster and faster. You said that "The cross product of U*~ is G." This would imply that not only are U and ~ and G vector, but they are orthogonal 3-vectors. What is the analogue of the bullet in gravity? What is the analogue of the orange? What is the analogue of friction? What is the analogue of heat? But wait -- you provided the orange analogy specifically as an explanation for gravity: "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." Can you show us how this 'calculus analysis' works? Can you demonstrate the solution of how long it takes for a ball to fall one meter in your theory? Or can't you? I keep asking you to demonstrate it -- but you keep backing down. No. My purpose it to explore reality. Oh, just like you've chosen to ignore the resolution of your three-clock problem. Whenever faced with proof that you're wrong -- just ignore it! - Warren
Bubba root chroot, I have been busy trying to get you and others to knock off the petty BS and get serious and to discuss your failure to understand (based on my failure to communicate - perhaps, but more so for your tendancy to grand stand and hope to get grins), to move this topic to an area out of the main stream for serious resolution. I guess you are simply to dense to understand the connection between a bullet and kenetic energy and how that energy deposits momentum via friction and produces heat. Where did you think the name Universal Kenetic Energy Field Theory came from. If you wish to continue this I will address your concerns under the topic UniKEF. Otherwise knock yourself out.
chroot Rest chroot, Resign not until you have resolved the 3 clock problem. Talk is cheap. Conditions of the test: One clock on earth v = 0; clock C One clock at v = 0.2c in space; clock A Once clock at v = 0.3c in space; clock B Only linear velocity is tested for 10 hours time C. Clocks are all started and stopped at the same instant. So that doesn't relate to any particular clock view. How that is achieved is of no signifigance. It is done by any means that achieves the goal. It is a stipulated conditions of the test. Oh by the way should you actually find a way to Get C and A to agree as to the time loss between A and B; don't forget this time that ALL clocks include B and I want to see B also lose the correct amount of time A/B. No return paths, no a/d Do the computations and make the clocks all agree with every observers view of reality after the clocks are stopped and returned to earth to read elapsed time during the test. When you do that and do that correctly then I will resign, not before. When you say the conditions of the test are impossible then I will tell you that is why Relativity is an invalid view of physical reality. Please post your respons under the UniKEF topic for I will not continue to rspond under somebodyelse's thread. Oh by the way should you by some fluke actually get C and A to agree on a common time loss between a/B, don't forget this time that ALL clocks includes observer of clock B. I expect to see you make B agree on the A/B time loss. Nobody has addressed that yet. Good luck genius. I believe it was you that made reference to an old saying that I should try to remember. And you are satisified with Relativity, then I have an old saying for you to remember. "Intelligence is knowing to believe only half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half". Edited by MacM on 02-20-03 at 07:15 PM
chroot Rest chroot, Resign not until you have resolved the 3 clock problem. Talk is cheap. Conditions of the test: One clock on earth v = 0; clock C One clock at v = 0.2c in space; clock A Once clock at v = 0.3c in space; clock B Only linear velocity is tested for 10 hours time C. Clocks are all started and stopped at the same instant. So that doesn't relate to any particular clock view. How that is achieved is of no signifigance. It is done by any means that achieves the goal. It is a stipulated conditions of the test. Oh by the way should you actually find a way to Get C and A to agree as to the time loss between A and B; don't forget this time that ALL clocks include B and I want to see B also lose the correct amount of time A/B. No return paths, no a/d Do the computations and make the clocks all agree with every observers view of reality after the clocks are stopped and returned to earth to read elapsed time during the test. When you do that and do that correctly then I will resign, not before. When you say the conditions of the test are impossible then I will tell you that is why Relativity is an invalid view of physical reality. Please post your respons under the UniKEF topic for I will not continue to rspond under somebodyelse's thread. Oh by the way should you by some fluke actually get C and A to agree on a common time loss between a/B, don't forget this time that ALL clocks includes observer of clock B. I expect to see you make B agree on the A/B time loss. Nobody has addressed that yet. Good luck genius. I believe it was you that made reference to an old saying that I should try to remember. And you are satisified with Relativity, then I have an old saying for you to remember. "Intelligence is knowing to believe only half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half". Edited by MacM on 02-20-03 at 07:15 PM
Moved Moved One at a time chroot, I will only address one at a time. Right now the shoe is on your foot. KID. I wish, I suspect I am considerably your senior, junior. Further I will not respond to further verbal assualts or put downs. It is act like an intelligent adult or get ignored. If you don't have the umph to resolve the 3 clock problem, that is not my problem. All further communication for UniKEF and the 3 clock problem is moved out of the mainstream to not clutter the MSB. It may be found under topic "UniKEF". If he continues to post here be pissed at him not me. Thank you.
Re: Chiral Condensate So, you were 13 when you had this dilemma about m*m in "newtownian gravity" -- please explain what is "newtonian gravity" -- What is the equation as Newton wrote it? why would gravity have anything to do with a bullet passing through an orange? I'm completely not seeing this analogy what-so-ever. Gravity, from what I understand, is simply the observed attraction between two bodies that cannot be explained by 'charges' or 'magnetic dipoles' and is proportional to mass. How does 'heat' come into this picture AT ALL? Are you suggesting then that your 'bullet' has something to do with a 'particle' view of gravity? You've lost me completely. Again, what in god's name are you talking about? If you know nothing about the "Chiral Condensate" as you claim -- how do you know that the "UniKEF" measurements have anything to do with it? What is a "gravitating body" is there a body that isn't "gravitating" then? How did your results track Newton? What does that even mean to "track Newton" -- is he lost? what energy field? "~" absorption coefficient of what? or is that "unknown" also? and my ass may also be related to "G" too, but what of it? please... as much as I am a proponent of cool ideas and understanding things by analogy... you're driving me nuts with your jugglery of terminology. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :bugeye: :m: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
GDW Response GundamWing, ********** 1: When I refer to Newtonian gravity I am refering to: Fg = G x (m1*m2/r^2) ********** ********** 2: Not particle necessarily but perhaps on a much smaller scale than we can detect currently but at least an energy field. Energy posses some mass. The field mass interacts with objects and results in "Pushing Gravity". That is bodies aren't pulled together by some unknown force or fall together because space is curved, they are pushed together because their is less field density between the masses after the field interacts with a body and then penetrates a second body with less field density. The filed strength between bodies is pushing apart less than the universal (much larger volume) filed is pushing towards each other. *********** ************ 3: Didn't even think about that but unless you are considering UniKEF you would not assume gravity as being related to energy. Consider that weight as being a force due to the object not moving a distance in an acceleration field (gravity). Work becomes defined as: Wk = Wt * (-d); power is defined as P = Wk/t. Compute the volume of the earth in layers with an average weight per square foot as you move out from the center of the earth and convert that to power. Don't have that fiure at hand but I have done that calculation and it is a very big number. ************ ************* 4: All I have said is that the Chiral Condensate is a likely source. So far it has been the only possible source. Beyond that nothingelse can be said at this time. UniKEF was based on the aassumption of and energy field. It as yet has been undected, except for the free fall acceleration of bodies as an indication, coupled with the core heating verification of earth by gravity, which indicates power. ************ ************ 5: A gravitating body implied one that is in close enough approximation to another body to experience sensible gravity. As you know "all mass theoretically attracts all other mass" but due to the 1/r^2 relationship to the force remote bodies are for all practical purposes merely heated bodies that have a gravity potential around them. **************** *********** 6: When I wrote the original manuscript I drew 5 sets of pairs of identical circles. Each set had different seperations between centers of circles. I then drew evenly dispersed parrallel lines in groups (at several angles ) that would pass through both circles. I measured the lines that were inside the circle area and added them up and then multiplied by a factor to convert the 2D view into 3D data. When I had finished I used the data to generate a graphic curve of data value vs seperation. That curve of data magnitude matched a force of gravity curve with seperation to within better than 1%. That was enough to cause Dr Allard to expend some time to do the calculus verification of the concept. ***************** **************** 7: U and ~ are indeed unknown values at this time. U represents the energy field strength, the ~ represents an attenuation or absorbtion coefficient of mass by the field. Collectively they represent the equivelent of the G in conventional gravity. While that hasn't been done you can work backwards to determine units of each to produce the correct units of acceleration that you want to use, metric or english, etc. ********************** ********************** 8: Sorry about driving you nuts and poor terminology or care in explaning terms. ********************** Hope this helps.
Re: GDW Response So, what was you're problem with his equation? What is on a 'much smaller scale' than we can detect presently? What is the resolution of what we can 'detect' presently? What are we 'detecting'? When did energy possess mass? (E=mc^2 was not proof that energy possessed mass FYI, it simply implied an equivalence that deals with the conservation of mass during certain nuclear reactions, as I understand it) What is 'field mass'? When did fields possess 'mass'? Do you even know what 'mass' really means? (How many 'types' of mass are there?) What in your view leads to 'gravity' if not curved spacetime? If you say there is a 'field density' -- what field are you referring to? (Do you know how a 'field density' is calculated in the traditional way?) Why is this more 'accurate' than the existing view of 'gravity'? Why would you NOT assume gravity is related to energy EXCEPT through UniKEF? Gravitational fields (like ALL fields) stores potential energy. This is obvious. You take an object, place it a certain height, and you can calculate the gravitational potential energy as being the force of gravity on the object multiplied by the distance which it would 'fall'. When the object is 'falling' the potential energy is converted to 'kinetic energy'. Where did you think kinetic energy comes from in a gravitational field? You can't make statements about things that have no meaning -- that is, if you yourself don't know "WHAT" is a chiral condensate, then how can you say it is a likely source??? That's like me saying that "Quantum Magic Ass functions produce wobbling strings with a hyperdensity of non-imaginary quality." Now, I can't tell you what wobbling strings are, but it is quite possible that my QMA functiosn produce them. While its an impressive statement, it means absolutely nothing. What is 'sensible' gravity? What is 'non-sensible' gravity? What do you mean 'heated bodies' and what does gravity have to do with heat (again, you mix heat and gravity, and don't explain why...)? Gravity is gravity is gravity. If you can provide a graphical image here, or your words don't make sense -- parallel lines through them at several angles??? This is physical impossibilty by definition of parallel lines (cannot intersect!). And how does parallel lines have anything to do with Gravity? Who the is Dr Allard? Where did he get his PhD from? Where is he currently situated? Does he have any publications in accepted journals? And why do you 'need' to bring in calculus in the first place? Do you just use random mathematical techniques because they sound impressive, or do you have some actual reason to introduce calculus? How is mass 'attenuated'? What does that signify? How would you measure that? What would you see physically (i.e., does the mass somehow dissappear? or is it less than what it should be? what?). Finally, if you haven't checked your units -- how the heck did you derive your equation. If you can show a complete derivation of this from first principles at least someone could say (geez, he has a point) or (geez, he has no clue). Being vague like you are doing, almost implies that you don't know what you are talking about. Vagueness is an obvious sign of pseudo-science or half-baked science. I suggest you ask yourself how honest you are being in these posts of yours. I am annoyed when people post pseudo-science and make all people who come up with 'new' or 'interesting' ideas look bad because they are too arrogant to properly investigate what they've done in a manner consistent with what is already understood by the establishment. You use odd definitions, you phrase things loosely, come up with non-sensical analogies which are blatantly wrong (but only after extended and wasteful examination of your vocabulary juggling), and then claim that somehow you've corrected for an oversight in the annals of physics. It's fine to rebel against what is known, but there is a difference between intelligent rebellion, and rebellion for the sake of it. Consider where you stand and if you are serious, please address why the current views are wrong, before you propose all these radical theories that supposedly unify evolution, physics, and my grandmother. From what you've explained so far, you don't seem to understand the basics of physics; yet you propose to correct Einstein. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
M1M2 GundamWing, Damn you have a short memory. No wonder you can't grasp something so simple as UniKEF. 1: When I refer to Newtonian gravity I am refering to: Fg = G x (m1*m2/r^2) ********** This formula contains mass squared. Please tell me and the rest of this MSB what is mass squared physically? That is a mathematical expression it is not physical reality. I simply prefer a physical view which is m1+m2 which is a phsical expression and allows proper calculations of gravity via UniKEF Theory. Since I have been around this circle 18 times. I am stopping the 3 clock problem and suggest you and the rest of you pot heads read my last post on the subject over on UniKEF. Mr. Crackpot killer has just lost using his own calculations. Of course he will never admit it but I think most of you are smart enough to see the truth. Have a nice day. Twit - You really think you are smarter than me? I'm not so sure. Until you saddeled Ch's horse you seemed able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Now I'm not so sure. Gentlemen I have no intention of perpetual arguments and I have no particular ambition to be here other than to share knowledge and learn but if you are not subject to learning then so be it. I'm here on serious business. You can joke and bullshit all you want. But I'm telling you current UniKEF Gravity testing has already overturned Newton, Einstein and Quantum gravity. And damnit I'm not bragging, it just happens to be fact and if you aren't interested then you can kiss my ass.
Re: M1M2 The problem isn't in my short memory -- I was asking you to fully explain why m1*m2 is such a conceptual problem for you? The formula relates the force (gravitational) experienced between two bodies. That's all. Just because you cannot conceptualize what two scalars multiplied together means, doesn't mean the theory is wrong -- it means you need to either (1) spend more time thinking, (2) invest in a good book on scalar multiplication (I'd start with "the idiots guide" series, or (3) give up. You have not once throughout this entire discussion shown how to calculate the force between two bodies. You made random statements about energy being related to gravity and how no other theory before this has ever done this. Mr Crackpot killer does not need to do the calculations; you do -- it's your damn theory. You have it all wrong my friend -- you think you are smarter than Newton, Einstein, Bohr, and all the physicists of the past 3-400 years. That is what I see. Your entire theory IS a perpetual argument. According to UniKEF theory, the gravitational bullets are piercing your ass producing lots of heat and combustible gas leading to nuclear fusions which convert the exiting mass into light, heat and wasteful dark matter which could never be brought into the light of day. And because the "Chiral Condensate" seems to be plugging your ass -- shit keeps pouring out of your other end with an unknown rate of flux, and attenuation coefficient proportional to the size of the two ass cheeks who's radial distance varies as a sinusoidal function of the logarithm of the amount of bullshit you can conjure up. Personally, my theory at least accounts for all that hot air you spew forth so freely. The truth should not depend on the messiah.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: M1M2 Originally posted by MacM No wonder you can't grasp something so simple as UniKEF. So simple that nobody understands. This formula contains mass squared. Please tell me and the rest of this MSB what is mass squared physically? That is a mathematical expression it is not physical reality. Well, the equation works... in reality. I simply prefer a physical view which is m1+m2 which is a phsical expression and allows proper calculations of gravity via UniKEF Theory. In order to do ANYTHING useful with your theory you would have to use calc/diff eq. You'll endup with a similar answer after more work. But I'm telling you current UniKEF Gravity testing has already overturned Newton, Einstein and Quantum gravity. What testing? Also, this is worth 40 points on the crackpot scale. And damnit I'm not bragging, it just happens to be fact and if you aren't interested then you can kiss my ass. *smooch*
