Almost Missed Out Gee. I almost missed this post and based on the topic, specifically that of 1119, I get the uneasy feeling that I may have been the straw that broke the camels back. First I want to say that I can see why James R is a moderator (or Administrator). Good sensible post. I did feel your 4th option was a bit weak but I haven't read a lot of posts that I hope are included here other than just mine. I mean I only posted one night guys Second referance comments by 1119: I appreciate what you intended to say and I want to make sure that my comments were't mis-consconstrued. I am not over turning Newton, Einstien and Quantum Theory. I do have test data that voids those theories views reference gravity. This isn't theory and while the testing has been prompted by UniKEF, the results must be explained by some other view than the grand three above. UniKEF is at a very lay level and I would not expect much of it to prevail and even that which seems validated at this time may have other answers other than UniKEF but that is where the testing was derived from and it does explain it, indeed predicted it. I can't say more because there is no more. Once that data is published, it'll be up to Warren to explain why. If he doesn't like my view so be it, I don't like his. He can go look for his own explanation. I have no problem with that. And finally. I can underestand the frustration of trying to talk with wackos. I can also underestand the frustration of trying to talk with bonified "Educated" physicists. Guys that want to teach and preach and are unwilling to look beyond the covers of work done by others before them. Rest our soul if science stops looking. How does one filter out wackos from the 1 in a 100 that James R mentioned. Usually that is easy because of the extreme and clearly left field idea being presented but sometimes new ideas have merit. If that were not the case then science would be finished and there would be no need for a forum or for laboratories or for physicists for that matter. Regarding my own efforts, they stem from 1954. they have been reviewed by Physicists from Purdue University, NC University, the R&D Command of the US Army and by the Geodetic Institute in Franfurt, Germany; plus one chapter of the original manuscript has been written for me by a physicist that read my work and found interest. None of the above called me "Uneducated", a "Crackpot" or the like. They have all suggested I push forward to one day publish. But I am not satisfied yet with the quality and state of the work. Unless you view this MSB as a teaching forum, I find the resistance to the discussion of new views to be counter productive. I find the arguements of the Relativity thumpers to be less than pursuasive. You attempt to support the theory using the theory as the basis. You throw out tests and observations that confirm the theory but you refuse to consider that the results of such tests and observations may have alternative explanations. There are no known set of physics "Laws". There are only theories. These have changed yer after year and will continue to change but making matters more complex is only creating mathematical algorithums, it is not necessarily describing reality. There are most of the time alternative explanations that are not only more simple (C Razor Principle) but provide the same observation without the conflicts posed by the three clock problem; which none of yu have fully addressed. You have discussed frames of reference, etc., but you have declined to address that Relativity and Lorentz creates the requirement that clocks under such test and by Relativity must return to Earth displaying TWO different time losses simultaneously. Most of you have been quite fair. Warren however, seems to think Relativity is the only answer and attempts to drive off anyone that disagrees with that view. My disagreement IS NOT based on not understanding, my disagreement is infact understanding what Relativity claims is reality. There is a major difference between reality and observation or illusion. I agree to hold down my tone as soon as other hold down their. I was attacked immediately and continuously and nothing in those attacks bore any merits to the principle issues at hand. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
i am on to all you scientist types by the way! see here Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
no. and i specifically said i wasn't going to be mentioning any names here. i'm trying not to stoop to the level of feeling the need to use harsh language just to get my point across. sometimes it's necessary when someone else starts something highly disrespectful with me, but i'd rather not go there please.
Comments I have just read all the comments posted here and since my name got mentioned specifically, I feel I should respond. Gundamwing: I hope you didn't see my posts as claiming "sliced bread". That is not my view and not my demeanor. But Warren attacked me without the first question and then dodges valid questions playing word games and trying to give the appearance that he knows all and that therefore all persons that don't agree with Relativty should butt out. He is a teacher, preacher but certainly no thinker. That doesnot make him wrong in the final analysis, only time will do that but the term "Not cast in stone" has been used above and it is my point as well. Things will change. I may or may not effect some change but if nobody questions the status quo then there is no longer need for physicists. RDT2: Most are indeed crackpot ideas and indeed the good shall survive. But one cannot know if an idea is valid or not unless one considers the idea in its fullest meaning. A new theory may have a hole in it but that would not invalidate the entire theory. Warren: I too thnik you should stay for you appear to represent a useful reservoir of knowledge regarding the current view. But you attitude needs to be tempored somewhat for surely you know what you have learned will not stand the test of time. No theory has and you are missing out on the opportunity to learn new views. Views that may one day be told to you are more correct than your recious Relativity. BTW Relativity that is taught today is not the Relativity that Einsiein proposed. And finally guys most of my ideas are already in the mainstream by other scientist (not calling my self one). I don't think you have the where with all to challenge CERN or other major facilities that are seriously studying the Chiral Condensate. I need do nothing. In short order those efforts are going to up root current understanding of our universe. When I post I am clear that these are alternative views.
too bad you coudnt just let it go then. by the way since we are not in a court of law, i feel perfectly free to ...read b/w the lines, pick up on hidden innuendos, thinly veiled references.......blah! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
whoa again, i think its simply chroot's contention that regardless of what you post -- don't make it into more than it is. something about "a grain of salt" works well here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I second that. Same goes for lethe, James, Crisp, thed, Q, RTD2 and others whose name escape me. You guys have a lot to offer and if certain questions irritate you, ignore them and just attend to those you feel are worth your while.
Re: Almost Missed Out Thanks for taking the time to elaborate your position. I appreciate your explanation. Oh...and for what it's worth, welcome to sciforums.
chroot please don't leave,I might not ask any questions,but I sure look for your posts,as well as James R's posts I like to learn all I can. & as well learning I get a good laugh ie Unmeasurable Time Dilation
Crisp: I don't agree with your idea of splitting this forum at the present time. Looking at the amount of traffic we're getting right now, it just isn't warranted. If we were to create a "high-end" physics forum, I suspect there would be almost no posts to it. I doubt that many posters come here for that. sci.physics is probably a better venue for such discussions. Physics Q&A is already an essential part of this forum as it is now, if you ask me. I, for one, am always happy to help people learn more about physics or maths if their questions are asked with a genuine eagerness to learn. I do not agree that maths should be split from Physics into a separate forum. Most of the questions we get here at the moment are physics-related. Again, with the amount of math traffic we're currently getting, a separate forum would stagnate. Also, maths and physics are linked, and most physicists are quite happy to display their maths knowledge. I am still in two minds as to what to do with the crackpot physics. If you look at the front page of sciforums, you'll notice that the subtext under the Physics and Maths forum says "frontier physics". I don't mind encouraging the discussion of "different" ideas here, but we're going to have to draw the line somewhere. At this stage I'm letting most topics go as long as they involve discussion of actual physics. If they're pure fantasy, they get moved elsewhere (usually Pseudoscience). The problem is that I don't want to set myself up as some kind of judge of what is pseudoscience and what isn't. Whilst I think I have enough experience and knowledge to pick pseudoscience when I see it, I don't want to offend people by applying a label to them too hastily - especially if it should turn out that they do not really deserve it. The bottom line is: I don't want this to become a closed forum accessed only by people educated to tertiary level. I want an accessible forum where people can ask questions, challenge existing ideas, and maybe learn a thing or two.
A post can be valid physics, misunderstood physics, a possible idea on physics (right or wrong), or way out there. All these can be discussed here, even if the persistant but invalid ones eventually get moved to pseudoscience. Like I said before, crackpot theories have one good use, they demonstrate good science from bad science. And maybe if they live here a while, get disputed, then get moved to pseudoscience, some of the good stuff will rub off there. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
... interesting statement there. measurement implies a standard of reference; inherently, you're assuming some 'exotic' frame of reference which remains unaffected. The world spins, yet it took us forever and a day to realize that it does -- measurement is a function of finding the right frame of reference, and then choosing which one "didn't change" -- the hypothesis or the standard of comparison. Unmeasurable Time Dilation isn't so silly now is it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
to put it more succinctly, if god suddenly shifted all the fundamental constants in some way that we couldn't detect their change -- we would believe everything was the same as before and not be the wiser. this includes changing our perception of what "was" the former fundamental constant, versus what it is right "now". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! :bugeye:
Hi James, "I don't agree with your idea of splitting this forum at the present time. Looking at the amount of traffic we're getting right now, it just isn't warranted." This is indeed what I was afraid of: further splitting will simply reduce everything to small groups arguing in the same fora... True, and I accept this as a valid counterargument Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. (As a sidenote, it was merely an idea and not something I want to back up with full force and throw everything I got at it). "If we were to create a "high-end" physics forum, I suspect there would be almost no posts to it. I doubt that many posters come here for that. sci.physics is probably a better venue for such discussions." It is true that a "high-end" physics forum would have only a few posts a week, but I don't think that such a forum would ever be intended to be a large traffic forum, no ? "Physics Q&A is already an essential part of this forum as it is now, if you ask me. I, for one, am always happy to help people learn more about physics or maths if their questions are asked with a genuine eagerness to learn." Ofcourse! The same goes here (that is exactly the reason why I did explicitly choose to teach physics and maths Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!)... The way I see the splitting idea was actually to have most of the forum (if not entirely) as it is now in the Physics Q&A section. "I do not agree that maths should be split from Physics into a separate forum. .... Also, maths and physics are linked, and most physicists are quite happy to display their maths knowledge." Haha, I am suprised that what was intended as a joke has actually been seriously replied to twice already Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!... As a mathematical physicist, there is ofcourse a certain affection from my side towards mathematics. "The problem is that I don't want to set myself up as some kind of judge of what is pseudoscience and what isn't. Whilst I think I have enough experience and knowledge to pick pseudoscience when I see it, I don't want to offend people by applying a label to them too hastily - especially if it should turn out that they do not really deserve it." Exactly the reason why I think there should be an option inbetween "Frontier Physics" (sciforums.com frontpage) and "Pseudoscience"... I have the impression that most people that post their own ideas are eager to learn from the answers they get, so it is indeed unfair to already label their ideas as "pseudoscience" when it hasn't even been discussed... What is pseudoscience anyway ? I can imagine flying saucers being discussed in another forum, but if you like Bohmian Quantum Mechanics, are you a pseudo-scientist aswell ? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!... You'll understand what I am getting at... "The bottom line is: I don't want this to become a closed forum accessed only by people educated to tertiary level. I want an accessible forum where people can ask questions, challenge existing ideas, and maybe learn a thing or two." Excellent summary of what a good forum should look like... I think we're on the good way, but some minor adjustments (see above) could perhaps make it a better place Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Bye! Crisp
Moderator note: I've moved posts on Alan Cresswell's ideas to a thread of their own: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17583
UniKEF Introduction Members: With permission from James R. I have posted the Introduction to UniKEF Theory under "Relativity" for you questions or comments.
Yes, I've beem reading those threads Yes, I have been reading quite a few of the anti-relativity thread and some of the arguments, which really seem to me to start out from a flawed understnading of relativity. I'm new here, but I have anug degree in physics from the early 1980s. (but relativity as a theory certainly hasn;t changed much since then). But, I have to state that the truly strangest comment I've read here was when someone said that "there is too much math in the study of Physics". That statement just blows me away. Physics has no foundation without advanced mathematics, and without them, anyone would be hard-pressed to begin to understand any concept in Physics, and I think that maybe this is where the problem is. Maybe what they don;t understand is that Physics is based on mathematical models. The verbal concepts that we then use to describe those models as simply abstracted analogies that help one to visualize and understand the mathematical model. The general public wants simple analogies with which they can use to understand with a degree of simplicity the concepts of relativity or QM. I guess that since many either cannot understand the math, and/or are unwilling to learn, they seek out simpler analogies and models that they can understand without the math. ( Actually Isaac Asimov was fairly good at this, that's why his books were so popular.) I remember one poster on alt.sci.physics offered an alternative theory of time because he said that the basic time dialation equation t' = t / (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2, contained a circular definition or circular reference. He also tried to say that the units didn't work out, (which is false, of course they do) ! When I asked him where the circular refernece was, he pointed out that there was a "t" in the denominator of the v in 1-v^2/c^2. I quickly pointed out that this is not a circular reference, that v is the velocity of the observed inertial frame relative to the observers frame of reference, and since that ds/dt is measured in the same frame as t there is no circular reference. Anyway, he went into a quandry trying to show that it HAD to be a circular reference and that special relativity just HAD to be wrong. I suspect this was simply because it was so unintuitive to him. He then proceeded to offer an alternative theory that really gave us no new information over SR (interestingly, resulting in the same time SR dialation equation given above, with the same supposedly "circular reference" ??? Go figure ?). Thus, I told him, your theory is simply no more useful than relativity, and further SR is much more elegant mathematically. If any new theory or model gives us no more information than SR did, and does not make any predictions that SR doesn't already, then it is redundant, not very useful to us, and therfore un-necessary. Fortuna
