UniKEF analysis

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by James R, Jan 3, 2004.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    27,073
    One of the regular posters to the Physics forum, MacM, has a theory he calls "UniKEF", short for Universal Kinetic Energy Field. The available material related to his theory can be found here:

    http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

    MacM says that his theory is not complete, but improves on "conventional" physics in a number of respects. He also claims that he has made a number of predictions over the years which have only been recently confirmed (though differently explained) by conventional physicists.

    He claims that Einstein's theory of relativity is deeply flawed.

    He also claims that people on this forum are unwilling to give his ideas a fair hearing, presumably because they are too "closed minded".

    So, I have started this thread for concrete discussion of the details of his theory.

    Some guidelines if you wish to post to this thread:

    * This is for discussion of his theory (see the above link). That means that if you wish to claim he is wrong about something, you will need to refer to the specific part of his theory (or posts to this thread) which is wrong, and give an appropriate explanation.

    * Posts claiming that MacM is a "crackpot", without suitable justification, will be deleted from this thread, as will complaints that this thread has no place in the Physics forum. (My aim here is partially to keep further discussion of UniKEF to one place, rather than have it scattered over many different threads in the Physics forum).

    * The aim of this thread is not to "develop" MacM's theory for him. It is to examine the current state of the theory with a view to determining if it has any merit as legitimate science. This is not the place to make suggestions for new things MacM might like to explore, or ways he might improve his theory. If you wish to do that, please do so at MacM's site, linked above.
     
  2. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    27,073
    MacM says that the following material relates to his theory, and is the work of a physicist. This post is an examination of the material, which is here:

    http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/unikefassociatedgraphics.msnw?Page=1

    My initial comment is that the material is difficult to read as scanned, especially the mathematical equations. It also seems to lack a coherent structure. It is also difficult to see where the starting point is in terms of fundamental principles of UniKEF; I am unclear even what those might be.

    This material looks like it was put together in an attempt to bamboozle people with no mathematical knowledge. To a person with such knowledge, it seems to be essentially mathematical gibberish.

    Here are my page-by-page comments:

    Calculus-1

    * This is headed "Chapter 5". Where are the earlier chapters?

    * For a physicist, Dr Allard seems to use some terminology strangely. He talks about the attraction of two "circles", when by the equations he clearly means "spheres". One would expect a physicist, especially one with a doctorate, to appreciate the important difference between these things and use the terms correctly. I wonder what Dr Allard's qualifications are (?)

    * It is not at all clear why the angle is introduced in Fig.25, or where this is supposed to lead.

    Calculus-2

    * This is concerned with finding the area of a circle, apparently. But which circle, and why?

    Calculus-3

    There is more mathematics here, whose purpose is equally unclear.

    Calculus-4

    * From a calculation of area, we now seem to have progressed to a statement about (gravitational?) potentials and forces. How did that happen? Where's the connection?

    * Dr Allard notes that this is only the "geometrical portion". He says "field" and "absorbtion" terms are needed to get a real force between the two "circles". What are these terms? How are we supposed to calculate them? Where do they come from?

    Calculus-5

    This page looks like a lot of cut-and-pasted snippets of mathematics with no connection to anything which has gone previously.

    Calculus-6

    More of the same. What is being calculated here? Terms are undefined, and operations are unclear.

    Calculus-7

    Ditto.

    Calculus-8

    This is the last page of the section, but it just trails off. What conclusions are we supposed to draw?

    UFig1-3

    No explanation is given here, so these diagrams are meaningless.

    UFig4-5

    There's a mention of "acceleration [sic] universal expansion" here. Could this be the basis of MacM's claim to priority in the discovery that our universe's expansion appears to be accelerating? No explanation is given with the diagram.

    UFig6-ab

    This one has an intriguing title "inertial vs. relativistic mass", but again no explanation, rhyme or reason, apparently.

    UFig7a-c

    Lots of nice pictures, but do they meaning anything?

    UFig8a-b1

    We seem to have graphs involving "time" here, which again don't connect with any of the previous material.
    --------

    So, what am I to make of all this? Am I missing something? Is this as far as the mathematics of UniKEF has progressed? Is this all the mathematical material there is which is said to relate to UniKEF?

    I hope you can repond to this, MacM. If there's any more existing mathematics of UniKEF, please link me to it. Otherwise, I'll consider my mathematical analysis of UniKEF complete and start on the written, non-mathematical material.

    At this point, it would be good if you could suggest an order in which I should read the material on the web-site, so I can start at the start and get a proper understanding of the theory. I don't want to go off half-cocked here.
     
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Changed the URL to UniKEF Gravity

    James R.,

    The following link will take you to a dedicated site for UniKEF Gravity:

    http://www.unikef-gravity.com/


    DO TO THE VANISHING ATTACHMENTS IN THIS STRING I HAVE CONSOLIDATED THE PRIMARY GRAPHICS INTO THE FOLLOWING LINK:

    http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/unikefpaper.msnw

    READERS:This thread has run its gamot and come to a conclusion. Due to its length I am posting this here anticipating you might not read the entire file and miss the conclusion.

    Since James R., has not yet responded to my request to lock this thread and there are those that are determined to bury the confirmation of UniKEF Gravity Calculus in the middle of this ongoing diatribe, I will re-post this message each time this thread goes another page.

    The confirmation that UniKEF Gravity Calculus verifies my initial conclusion and was generally verified by Dr Edward Allard, Physicist begins on Page 20, Feb 29, 04 at 6:35 PM.

    I then provide a closure string starting on Page 24, March 13, 04 at 10:35 AM.

    Also there is now copies of actual data, correspondance and graphs of the UniKEF Testing and Sun/Moon Tracking at the top of Page 26.

    Gravity may or may not be UniKEF in origin but mathematically I was correct and it is a viable model which has been shown correct twice now by calculus evaluation.

    The model is currently being addressed by a Phd for a paper on the subject for peer review and hopefully publication as another concept of gravity.

    That was the purpose of this thread. To either falsify or verify my claim of the UniKEF calculus integration for the inverse square function.

    My claim has been verified. So take the rest of these posts for what they are - Sour Grapes.

    I have choosen to wait for publication before addressing other UniKEF issues on this MSB. Any persons interested can have a closer look by going to my web site listed under member information by clicking on my user name and then clicking on the URL.

    Thanks for following.


    Let me begin by saying I think this just might be a useful post in spite of its clear intent. By that I mean your instructions that under no circumstances is anything helpful to be posted here. I find that part of your thread concerning. Not that I would expect anyone to say "WOW" look here is the answer. But you have clearly stated nobody can do that. The only posts that will be allowed are those that are critical. Not even suggestions on improvement.

    I do find that rather strange . I in no way want people to think I am drawing a corillary because I am not but reading your instructions the thought crossed my mind had the internet existed 100 years ealier and Einstien tried kicking his ideas around, I can see you standing there telling people "Feel free to say he is wrong but if you agree with him or have improvment suggestions, don't post them here. We are not to be helpful or even give a fair asessment we are to insure this appears as maximum critical.

    Now to your first post.

    ANS: The original manuscript had 22 Chapters. The core of the concept has been reduced to the abstract and is no longer broken into chapters but Chapter 5 is left as a component part of the abstract in that I would have no way of changing that other than to remove the Chapter 5 heading. I see this as a meaningless question.

    ANS: I find this very misleading. I can't give Dr Allards qualifications other than he was a physicist at ERDL at Ft Belvoir, Va's Research Command and worked in the explosives development program. 1966. You might be able to trace his career if you are actually interested.

    Further I cannot comment on his word usage but I would say two things:

    1 - I have seen a number of things in physics which have been discussed in terms of properties of 2D objects. That always confused me a bit in that anything in true 2D from my perspective doesn't exist. Even a circle on a piece of paper has depth due to the thickness of the lead or ink. Without it the circle is only hypothetical in the mind and non-existant in physical reality.

    2 -Suggesting that Dr Allard has used non-physicists language is a deliberate attempt to suggest he either wasn't really a physicist or that I have made him up. That is unwarranted misleading BS.


    ANS: Actually if one read the theory and description of how gravity is thought to be produced, the angle is immediately obvious. The problem here is not the presentation but the taking of the calculus out of context of the theory and expecting it to make sense. That is he didn't recite the underlying concept for UniKEF gravity, he merely is addressing the concept.

    The angle will vary with the seperation between two objects. The angle is one that is the maximum angle that still allows flux to penetrate both masses (a requirement to be efficive to gravitation between two objects,

    ANS: I do find your questions unduly strange. If you were minimally informed of the UniKEF concept the circles are idealized forms for analysis. They represent two objects being gravitated.

    ANS: Unfortunately I can be of no help here and can't even criticize your criticisim. I can only say that when he gave me these papers he said the UniKEF view of gravity was viable mathematically. That is not the same as sayng it is so but that it is not excluded by mathematical evaluation.

    ANS: Again I may not be overly helpful here but I can state that the analysis is to simulate the accumulative volume of mass being penetrated by the energy flux; including its gravitation component trigometrically. That is the field must pass through both objects to be effective at causing gravitation and the momentum transfer of interactons between the flux and mass is not only related to mass densities, field strength, absorbtion coefficient (or barns cross section), the total mass penetration and angle of momentum transfer relative to the line of gravity, which passes through the COM of each object.

    ANS: That is incorrect. While I now agree it can be misinterpreted. I added that comment when his work was put into the manuscript and the "author" mentioned was me.

    ANS: I can't comment on this other than to say these may be notes or crib sheets he used in putting together his presentation. I would think for anyone actually interested in understanding this that had mathematics would be able to put it into proper context. Not wanting to do so makes it easy to lodge a complaint.

    ANS: Same response.

    ANS: Ditto.

    ANS: The conclusion, just as he said to me when he finished this work and handed it to me for my use is "The calculus shows the proper inverse square relationship based on "Cones of Sources" of UniKEF energy flowing through objects to be the source of gravity.

    I'll skip over the following comments in that one does not look at the Figures in a stand alone way. One must read the text that relates to these Figures and actually have interest in understanding their signifigance. Otherwise they make easy targets for negtive comment.
    ****************************************************

    UFig1-3

    No explanation is given here, so these diagrams are meaningless.

    UFig4-5

    There's a mention of "acceleration [sic] universal expansion" here. Could this be the basis of MacM's claim to priority in the discovery that our universe's expansion appears to be accelerating? No explanation is given with the diagram.

    UFig6-ab

    This one has an intriguing title "inertial vs. relativistic mass", but again no explanation, rhyme or reason, apparently.

    UFig7a-c

    Lots of nice pictures, but do they meaning anything?

    UFig8a-b1

    We seem to have graphs involving "time" here, which again don't connect with any of the previous material.
    --------


    ANS: Basically yes. Other formulas and calculations are by example and are not deemed ultimate answers but even some of these seem to have some merit but only time will tell how valid or invalid they may be.

    ANS: As stated there is no further formal mathematics. What remains is supposition at best.

    ANS: LOL. Actually based on the way you approached this your commentary wasn't all that bad, although incorrect.

    How to proceed? Normally I suggest people view the Introduction then the "Summaries" topics to get a general view without having to read the entire abstract. However, in your case I am not sure that will work. The reason being you want specific, direct answers where most of UniKEF is by innuendo. Not actually sure you can handle something that hasn't been disected and laid out mathematically for you. (That is not meant to be deragatory but pragmatic).


    (((Must go to the Airport, will clean up typo'c later))).
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2005
  4. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,948
     
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

     
  6. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    27,073
    MacM:

    <i>The only posts that will be allowed are those that are critical. Not even suggestions on improvement.</i>

    Suggestions for improvement will inevitable arise when flaws are pointed out. Also, I did not say that only critical posts would be allowed, if you mean "critical" only in terms of negative criticism. There is such a thing as positive criticism, too. What I aim to do in this thread is to consider the viability of UniKEF as a candidate for a scientific theory. Obviously, I personally do not believe it has any value, so I will endeavour to point out exactly why I have come to that conclusion.

    <i>...[T]he thought crossed my mind had the internet existed 100 years ealier and Einstien tried kicking his ideas around, I can see you standing there telling people "Feel free to say he is wrong but if you agree with him or have improvment suggestions, don't post them here. We are not to be helpful or even give a fair asessment we are to insure this appears as maximum critical.</i>

    If Einstein had posted his ideas, he would have passed my little test with flying colours. Even disregarding any evidence, his theory was self-consistent and clearly formulated - a fewature which is greatly lacking in your ideas.

    I will comment on your response to my previous comments, then on your response to Persol.

    <i>I can't give Dr Allards qualifications other than he was a physicist t ERDL at Ft Belvoir, Va's Research Command and worked in the explosives development program. 1966. You might be able to trace his career if you are actually interested.</i>

    I did a quick search. It appears he is now an expert in infrared analysis. He worked for the Department of Defense. Most of the material on the internet which mentions him is concerned with his analysis of video footage from the Waco incident involving David Koresh.

    <i>2 -Suggesting that Dr Allard has used non-physicists language is a deliberate attempt to suggest he either wasn't really a physicist or that I have made him up. That is unwarranted misleading BS.</i>

    I have suggested no such thing. I merely comment that it is strange that he used the terminology so loosely. Given one of your other comments, I wonder whether he wrote the sentence about the "circles", or whether you did, seeing as you inserted his work into your manuscript. It seems to me most likely that you wrote it, and interspersed your own material with his mathematics. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    <i>ANS: Actually if one read the theory and description of how graivty is thought to be produced the angle is immediately obvious. The problem here is not the jpresentation but the taking of the calculus our of context of the theory and expecting it to make sense.</i>

    Ok, so explain where the angle comes from then. It's your theory.

    I don't understand why an angle offset from the line joining the centres of the two spheres is necessary, or how it follows from UniKEF principles. Can you explain it? Also, please explain how I can calculate the appropriate angle given any two arbitrary masses.

    <i>The angle will vary with the seperation between two object. The angle is one that is the maximum angle that still allows flux to penetrate both masses (a requirement to be efficive to grvitation between two objects,</i>

    Please explain to me <b>exactly</b> how the angle relates to the separation. An equation would be nice, if such a thing exists.

    I have some related questions: where does the flux come from? It seems you are saying it does not come equally from all directions? If not, which direction has the strongest flux, and why? And can you explain how varying the angle alters the flux penetrating both masses? (Again, mathematically, if you can, but in words at least.)

    <i>If you were minimally informed of the UniKEF concept the circles are idealized forms for analysis. They represent two objects being gravitated.</i>

    Yes, but which particular circle is he calculating the area of on page 2? Why is such a complicated integral even necessary? The area of a circle is pi R<sup>2</sup>.

    More on page 3 below, under "General Comments".

    <i>[T]he field must pass through both objects to be effective at causing gravitation and the momentum transfer of interactons between the flux and mass is not only related to mass densities, field strength, absorbtion coefficient (or barns cross section), the total mass penetration and angle of momentum transfer relative to the line of gravity, which passes through the COM of each object.</i>

    Can you explain how all these factors come into play, one by one? For example, I'd like an explanation of how "field strength" comes into the calculation. What field are we talking about? (UniKEF, I presume). How can I calculate the strength of it at a particular location? How does it affect the attractive force between two masses (mathematically)?

    So, you admit to an error which has remained in your theory for over 30 years. Why haven't you corrected it?

    Anyway, please answer my questions, if you have any answers.

    I wouldn't have wasted my time if I wasn't trying to "put it into proper context". What do you think I'm doing here?

    Are you saying that you actually have no idea what any of this material is? Surely you know whether these are just rough notes which could be anything, or something actually important to your theory? Don't you?

    I think you only have Dr Allard's notes on your web-site in order to impress people who don't know any mathematics into thinking that your theory has some mathematical backing.

    <i>ANS: The conclusion, just as he said to me when he finished this work and handed it to me for my use is "The calculus shows the proper inverse square relationship based on "Cones of Sources" of UniKEF energy flowing through objects to be the source of gravity.</i>

    Please explain (or link me to an explanation) of your "cones of sources" concept. I don't understand it yet.

    <i>I'll skip over the following comments in that one does not look at the Figures in a stand alone way. One must read the text that relates to these Figures and actually have interest in understanding their signifigance.</i>

    Ah, so these have nothing to do with Dr Allard, then? Are these your work? Where is the associated text, then?

    Time is telling now, in this very thread, don't you think?

    <i>ANS: As stated there is no further formal mathematics. Wht remains is supposition at best.</i>

    Indeed.

    Well, I think the next step is to examine your claims to having predicted results. It seems to me that you can't <b>derive</b> any results from your theory, since it has no mathematical foundation. Would it be fair to say that all your predictions about the accelerating expansion of the universe are more "educated guesses" based on your principles than derived results, then? That seems to be what you're saying above.

    <i>ANS: LOL. Actually based on the way you approached this your commentary wasn't all that bad, although incorrect.</i>

    What was incorrect about my comments? Please point out my mistakes, since that is the only way I will learn.

    <i>[Y]ou want specific, direct answers where most of UniKEF is by enuendo.</i>

    This seems to back up what I said above.

    <i>Not actually sure you can handle something that hasn't been disected and laid out mathematically for you. (That is not meant to be deragatory but pragmatic).</i>

    Well, since there is no mathematics of any value, it seems we will have to examine the ideas and evidence instead, so I'm happy to call it quits with the maths from here on and concentrate on the ideas. Ok?

    <b>General comments</b>

    It seems that when pushed, MacM, you keep making disclaimers about your own theory. You even deny all knowledge and claim that the work is not yours but somebody else's, so you can't be held responsible for errors. This is a common theme with you, and a paradoxical one, since you want to take credit for the theory, but at the same time you don't want criticism.

    I thought I'd collect a few examples of this just from the past 2 posts you've made. All the following quotes are yours:

    So, is UniKEF your theory or somebody else's, MacM? If there's somebody more knowledgeable about it than you, then please tell me how to contact them so I can get more information. On the other hand, if it <b>is</b> your theory, then perhaps you could start providing some real, detailed explanations from first principles. My guess is you won't do that, so I'll keep wading through your website and see what else I can patch together.
     
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    27,073
    I hope Persol won't mind me making a few comments on your reply to him, MacM.

    <i>[Allard's] calculus appears to do what I had done log hand before him in summing up the "Effective" area bsaed on total penetration at an angle and the angle trig affect. Not knowing calculus I have assumed this is what he has done. I know he addresses the seperation affect and the inverse square relationship of all factors taken collectively.</i>

    Can you show me your calculations and results?

    <i>ANS: Recall also that my complaint has not been the results of such mathematics but the fact that it is unsupported by any "Cause". The UniKEF view reproduces the correct curve but has a cause.</i>

    Which curve does UniKEF correctly reproduce? Please link me to it.

    Also, can you please link me to where I can see how the curve was generated, or give me an explanation.

    <i>ANS: Well I grant you the Firg's aren't labled in great detail and it is difficult to find correlating text for the Fig's but based on this comment it certainly appears you found some that does go with the Fig's.</i>

    Why is this the case, MacM? You have had over 30 years to put your theory into some kind of order. What's so hard about putting the figures with the appropriate text?

    It's almost as if you <b>want</b> nobody to read your work. Why would they want to, when it is so impenetrable?

    <i>"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."

    It is covered in the original, along with some graphics. I'll see if I can verbally draw you a picture. The work of the Geodetic Institute was the actual measurement of the 4.28E-9 deviation in gravity. The calculation that produced the 4.2E-9 value was if you look at a sphere where the earth is at the center and the surface is the orbit of the moon. Cut it into a hemisphere and then calculate the volume of a cylinder with a diameter equal to that of the moon, that projects across the hemisphere (V1). Then also calculate the volume of the hemisphere (V2).

    Finally multiply the volume of the cylinder by itself (square it) likewise square the volume of the hemisphere, then divide the cylinder volume squared by the hemisphere volume squared the resulting value is 4.2E-9. In the original text I indicate that this result isn't obvious as to its meaning and I would have to say that comment still stands. I have no good arguement for why that relationship is found only that it was and that was very interesting. </i>

    I find this totally intriguing. The mind boggles.

    What led you to do this particular calculation? If you have no idea <b>why</b> this procedure gives this result, then what on earth led you to that procedure rather than some other? Or did you just try a whole bunch of calculations at random until one of them gave you the number you wanted? If the latter, then you're not really doing science.

    This actually almost closes the book on UniKEF, don't you think? You admit that what you have essentially been doing is guessing at how the universe might be. Occasionally, one of your guesses turns out to be correct, in a vague way. Or, if you're guessing from a number of possibilities, sometimes you get things right just by chance. For example, either the universe is expanding at a constant rate, or accelerating or slowing down. You guessed it was accelerating, and you were right. That's a 1 in 3 chance, isn't it? It's a lucky guess, but still a guess. Why pretend you're doing science?
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    Suggestions for improvement will inevitable arise when flaws are pointed out. Also, I did not say that only critical posts would be allowed, if you mean "critical" only in terms of negative criticism. There is such a thing as positive criticism, too. What I aim to do in this thread is to consider the viability of UniKEF as a candidate for a scientific theory. Obviously, I personally do not believe it has any value, so I will endeavour to point out exactly why I have come to that conclusion.

    ANS: I'm fine with positive criticisim. Perhaps I read to much into your instructions. (Not that I think you would have warded off a rash of positive comments. :D

    If Einstein had posted his ideas, he would have passed my little test with flying colours. Even disregarding any evidence, his theory was self-consistent and clearly formulated - a fewature which is greatly lacking in your ideas.

    ANS: I accept that based on your reliance on mathematical continuity and not logic. Although you seem to accept Relativity without the same questions of "How", "Why" and "Cause" that you have historically leveled at UniKEF. Perhaps had UniKEF had more formal math things could have been different - But I doubt it.

    I will comment on your response to my previous comments, then on your response to Persol.

    I did a quick search. It appears he is now an expert in infrared analysis. He worked for the Department of Defense. Most of the material on the internet which mentions him is concerned with his analysis of video footage from the Waco incident involving David Koresh.

    ANS: Fantastic. You actually located him. I am going to make an effort to recontact him myself. In particular with regard to his calculus contribution. When I knew him he was studying how to improve Piric Acid Explosives.


    I have suggested no such thing. I merely comment that it is strange that he used the terminology so loosely. Given one of your other comments, I wonder whether he wrote the sentence about the "circles", or whether you did, seeing as you inserted his work into your manuscript. It seems to me most likely that you wrote it, and interspersed your own material with his mathematics. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    ANS: Your are wrong. The only insertion I made to his papers was at the end with the "Author's note".

    Ok, so explain where the angle comes from then. It's your theory.

    ANS: For any dynamic field or energy to be effective at producing gravity by the UniKEF method it must pass through two (or more) masses. The Fig's shows two circles (spheres) at different seperations. The angles shown is the maximum angle that such energy sources may come from in the universe and cause gravitation of the jpenetrated masses. It forms "Cones of Sources" or as Persol called them "Gravity Cones". Any energy from outside that cone creates gravity jpotential around the surface of the mass but is not effective at gravitating the two bodies. That cone angle increases as the bodies grow closer together.

    I don't understand why an angle offset from the line joining the centres of the two spheres is necessary, or how it follows from UniKEF principles. Can you explain it? Also, please explain how I can calculate the appropriate angle given any two arbitrary masses.

    ANS: If you look at Dr. Allards first sketch and my figures, what they show is the volume of energy source in the universe that will penetrate both masses. As that angle is increased the volume of mass penetrated decreases as well as does the amount of mass penetrated as one moves radially across the masses. The tangent line to the surface of a sphere has no penetration of mass regardless of angle to the line of gravitation. Did that answer your question?

    It isn't just "AN" angle. It is the range of angles which must be integrated. That is looking at the line of gravity (a line through the COM's of two identical bodies (for simplicity) is the maximum penetration of mass, going through the diameters of both masses. As you move out radially but parallel to that line each increment outward penetrates less total mass in each sphere, until you reach the surface tangents where the is no longer mass penetration.

    If you now start to angle with a line the bisects the center of the line of gravity between the two masses you will find that such a line penetrates less total mass than the line of gravitation. You will also note the the ability to expand parallel lines to this line is narrower before reaching the tangent point of the surface of one sphere and any further extension of jparallel lines is not part of the gravitating field. Further in addition to the reduced mass penetration of such angled lines the force produce has a trigometric function and that must be converted to determine its "X" component or the amount of force experience as gravity between the COM's.



    Please explain to me exactly how the angle relates to the separation. An equation would be nice, if such a thing exists.

    ANS: I have never written such an equation but I do believe I can. So here goes. Placing the vertex of the "Cones of Sources" midway between the COM's and on the line joining them; where "r" is the radius of the spheres and "d" = D/2 where D is the distance between COM's:

    The vertex angle is 2 times (r/d) sin^ -1; now this is the MAXIMUM angle. One must integrate from zero degrees to that angle to get the answer.


    I have some related questions: where does the flux come from? It seems you are saying it does not come equally from all directions? If not, which direction has the strongest flux, and why? And can you explain how varying the angle alters the flux penetrating both masses? (Again, mathematically, if you can, but in words at least.)

    ANS: In the original manuscript I suggest that the "flux" might be coming from nuclear active bodies (stars) but neutrinos were insufficent, so it was an unknown energy flux. A bit later I began to favor a homogeneous flow of energy wich came from space itself. Yet it had never been detcted and this was (and still to a lesser degree) is a big question. As I have said from my perspective the finding of the activity in the vacuum energy encourages me to believe it indeed does come fromthere but I certainly have no specific information on that issue.

    I think I could given some time write an expression showing the change in mass penetration of angled lines but that doesn't integrate those parallel lines at that angle that still penetrate both masses. So I have not done that. I may if this continues, in a few days provide such a formula but for now lets try this:

    1 - Draw two circles of equal diameter horizontally seperated and with one circle diameter between their surfaces.

    2 - Draw a line (A) through the two circle centers.

    3 - Now draw a line (B) starting toward the top (but tangent to the circle (of the circle on your left) and down through a point midway between the circle centers on line (A). Continue that line down until it contacts the lower tangent oint of the circle on your right.

    Line A represents the greatest mass penetration and a trig function of 1.0. If you draw parallel lines to line A you can see that as you move out radially each line penetrates less and less total mass, but still has a trig function of 1.0, until you reach the point that the parallel line is tangent to both circles which has a mass penetration of "Zero".

    Line B is the maximum angle that penetrates both masses. and is tangent to both circles. You cannot draw parallel lines to this line that will penetrate both masses. Above misses the circles on the left and below will miss the circle on the right. So this line represents a flux angle with the worst trig function and also no mass penetration.

    Now draw a line (C) that bisects the angle between line A and line B.

    Line C can be seen to penetrate less mass than line A. that is it strikes a chord across the circles that is less than their diameter. This line has a trig function less than 1.0 but greater than that of line B. Also you will see that you can draw parallel lines both above and below line C. However the total number of parallel lines (assuming equal spacing) is fewer than for line A.

    It is the itegration of all possible angles of flux, their total mass penetration and their trigometeric function that in a 3D cone that results in the 1/r^2 function. Does this prove UniKEF gravity?. No. Is it suggestive? Yes. I actually made numerous, precise as I could drawings of circles at different seperations and drew one degree angles and evenly spaced parallel lines and hand computed these functions with an algorithum to convert the 2D data into 3D results and showed that it followed 1/r^2 to within .01. That is what encouraged Dr Allaed to take a look at this in more detail. I would add that Dr Allard did this out of personal interst and wasn't doing something that he was presenting as a paper, wich I suspect is why you find it a bit casual or less than properly scripted. In this case both he an I knew what we were looking at. It could be presented better I am sure.



    Yes, but which particular circle is he calculating the area of on page 2? Why is such a complicated integral even necessary? The area of a circle is pi R2.

    ANS: I can't answer regarding the calculus presentation but I do believe the above responses clarify what is being integrated and it isn't pi R^2. :D

    More on page 3 below, under "General Comments".


    Can you explain how all these factors come into play, one by one? For example, I'd like an explanation of how "field strength" comes into the calculation. What field are we talking about? (UniKEF, I presume). How can I calculate the strength of it at a particular location? How does it affect the attractive force between two masses (mathematically)?

    ANS: Unfortunately there is no data regarding field strength and the absorbtion coefficient. Collectively they would represent "G". For example only: If "U" is the UniKEF field and U = 2.2233E60 N.m/sec and "~" is the absorbtion coefficient and ~ is 3E-71 m . sec/Kg^2; then U * ~ = 6.67E-11 N . m^2/Kg^2 = G.

    The only comment I can make on this issue is that the field must be immense and the absorbtion infintesmal to accommadate the range of gravities we see. One other note I use the term absorbtion frequently but I also qualify that as being "attenuation" as well. That is absorbtion is actually minimal and is that part that produces heat as an inelastic reaction. The overwhelming reaction is elastic or a momentum trsfer and scattering phenomena. The ratio is several factors of scattering over absorbtion.


    quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    * Dr Allard notes that this is only the "geometrical portion". He says "field" and "absorbtion" terms are needed to get a real force between the two "circles". What are these terms? How are we supposed to calculate them? Where do they come from?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ANS: That is incorrect. While I now agree it can be misinterpreted. I added that comment when his work was put into the manuscript and the "author" mentioned was me.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    So, you admit to an error which has remained in your theory for over 30 years. Why haven't you corrected it?

    ANS: First I wouldn't classify this as an error. Second you are the first person to mention the misinterpretation as to who placed the note. I will infact clarify that for future readers. Thanks.

    Anyway, please answer my questions, if you have any answers.
    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Calculus-5

    This page looks like a lot of cut-and-pasted snippets of mathematics with no connection to anything which has gone previously.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ANS: I can't comment on this other than to say these may be notes or crib sheets he used in jputting together his presentation. I wouldl think for anyone actaully interested in understanding this that had mathematics would be able to put it into proper context. Not wanting to do so makes it easy to lodge a complaint.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    I wouldn't have wasted my time if I wasn't trying to "put it into proper context". What do you think I'm doing here?

    ANS: Actually I am pleased with the way this is going. Much to my surprise.

    Are you saying that you actually have no idea what any of this material is? Surely you know whether these are just rough notes which could be anything, or something actually important to your theory? Don't you?

    ANS: Actually I only know that he was genuinely excited about his results and he handed me his papers for future reference. I would suspect that he thought I knew more than I did with regard to calculus. But these were his notes and work and all relate to his integration of the UniKEF functions mentioned above. I plan infact to recontact Dr Allard and ask for his help at clarifying those pages. Until I met you guys I assumed they were obvious to those in the know mathematically. But apparently it is not so obvious.

    I think you only have Dr Allard's notes on your web-site in order to impress people who don't know any mathematics into thinking that your theory has some mathematical backing.

    ANS: I have those pages on the web because they were added to the manuscript and were given to me as support for the concept. Which is what I still believe they do. Do they need some clarification. Apparently so. Only a fool would attempt to hood-wink their way through something like this and especially join a group such as Sciforums to put forth the concept if it were not felt legimate. BTW regardless of your personal opinion I am not such a fool.

    Please explain (or link me to an explanation) of your "cones of sources" concept. I don't understand it yet.

    ANS: I hope the above has clarified the "Cones of Sources" issue. If not then let me know and I'll try to find another way of explaining it.


    Ah, so these have nothing to do with Dr Allard, then? Are these your work? Where is the associated text, then?

    ANS: That is correct. Dr Allards work is only the calculus pages. The explanations for the figures are unfortunately scattered in the text of the abstract and . In fact there is more figures and text that remains to be added but I have had a computer problem and am unable to currently edit or post in the documents section. I have activated a section entitled "Graphics" available from the main menu. It has been a hidden file in that it is work in progress but under these circumstances I have taken it out of the hidden file so that you may get information more readily. But remember it is work in progress.
    quote:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So, what am I to make of all this? Am I missing something? Is this as far as the mathematics of UniKEF has progressed? Is this all the mathematical material there is which is said to relate to UniKEF?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ANS: Basically yes. Other formulas and calculation are by example and are not deemed ultimate answers but even some of these seem to have some merit but only time will tell how valid or invalid they may be.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



    Time is telling now, in this very thread, don't you think?

    ANS: Based on the misunderstandings that appear evident thus far, I'm not sure the conclusion you suggest is yet valid. To say the least I think we have established that Dr Allard is real, he performed the calculus and that this hasn't all been some dream. Beyond that I think it is still to early to make declarations.

    Indeed.

    ANS: I don't believe I have ever given grounds to believe that I have claimed any proofs but I have and continue to say I'm either the luckiest guy around or the "Priori's" have some signifigance. At this point it doesn't matter that you don't understand what I saw and why I came to those conclusions. In time I truly believe you will. That is not to say you will agree but at least you will understand the underlying concept.

    Well, I think the next step is to examine your claims to having predicted results. It seems to me that you can't derive any results from your theory, since it has no mathematical foundation. Would it be fair to say that all your predictions about the accelerating expansion of the universe are more "educated guesses" based on your principles than derived results, then? That seems to be what you're saying above.

    ANS: I think we can agree fully on this point. All the predictions were based on the concept and what it should mean and were made with no evidence or data of any kind. Personally, I'm proud of the current record in that regard. Although I regret that I don't have all the skills of the members challenging this concept and could have laid all this in your lap all wrapped up in pretty terms. :D

    What was incorrect about my comments? Please point out my mistakes, since that is the only way I will learn.

    ANS: At this juncture I'm not sure exactly what I was referring to but I think it was to your misunderstandings in general about the concept; which I hope I have been able to calrify in this post.

    This seems to back up what I said above.

    ANS: Can't respod here in that it would depend on which comments you are referring to.

    Well, since there is no mathematics of any value, it seems we will have to examine the ideas and evidence instead, so I'm happy to call it quits with the maths from here on and concentrate on the ideas. Ok?

    ANS: I would agree.

    General comments

    It seems that when pushed, MacM, you keep making disclaimers about your own theory. You even deny all knowledge and claim that the work is not yours but somebody else's, so you can't be held responsible for errors. This is a common theme with you, and a paradoxical one, since you want to take credit for the theory, but at the same time you don't want criticism.

    ANS: I would have to disagree strongly here. Please give an example of claiming anybody has been involved other than Dr Allard to the limited degree of his calculus. I am due the credit and/or admonition however it goes.

    I thought I'd collect a few examples of this just from the past 2 posts you've made. All the following quotes are yours:


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Unfortunately I can be of no help here and can't even criticize your criticisim. I can only say that when he gave me these papers he said the UniKEF view of gravity was viable mathematically."

    "His calculus appears to do what I had done log hand before him in summing up the `Effective' area bsaed on total penetration at an angle and the angle trig affect. Not knowing calculus I have assumed this is what he has done."

    "This is indeed tricky to discuss but I'll only add that I am not the only one that seems to have this view. That is time is in reality an illusion or property of our 3D's and the affect of energy transfer causing events."

    "This information goes back decades. The prediction was made as a consequence of the "Bubble Multiverse" view. ...HOwever, I haven't seen much about it over the years and am not aware of what determinations were made for the purported findings."

    "Actually that is a quote from a paper which has been covered before here. So these aren't my words but those of physicists that wrote the paper."
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ANS: I'll save some space and just comment in general to the collective examples you cite. They are factual statements. Regarding ""Actually that is a quote from a paper which has been covered before here. So these aren't my words but those of physicists that wrote the paper." for example, I'm sure you should recall that statement being challnged before here and I posted the link and paper where those were the words of the physicist that wrote the paper. I have indeed adapted that view but as I said that description was not mine.

    Now please explain to me why you see this as some disclaimer. I stated true facts and I stated it was from others but that I agree with that view. Had I claimed that as my words then it would have been plagerisim and then you would have had a legitimate gripe. Currently I don't see that you have any. Likewise the issue of Dr Allard and my lack of doing calculus has been up front from day one. So where is this disclaimer syndrome you aledge? I take this as an unwarranted attack.


    So, is UniKEF your theory or somebody else's, MacM? If there's somebody more knowledgeable about it than you, then please tell me how to contact them so I can get more information. On the other hand, if it is your theory, then perhaps you could start providing some real, detailed explanations from first principles. My guess is you won't do that, so I'll keep wading through your website and see what else I can patch together.

    ANS: We seemed to have been doing fine up until these last two paragraphs. I resent the enuendo regarding this being my work or that of some others. A quick look through the "Historical Documents" album should resolve any question about whos work this is. Further feel free to contact Dr Allard. With the correct introduction, a refresher about UniKEF Theory and his having done the few pages of calculus, he should remember. You ask my name and I would be very suprised if he remembers but then again he might. He also fabricated a special valve for me for a UniKEF machine. I'm sure he'll remember that. It was plexiglas about 18 inches in diameter with a series or angled holes traverse through a rotating rim on a central hub and was approximatly 3 inches thick. Go ahead. Stop casting enuendo and ask somebody that knows.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2004
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    Let me first state as I did to Persol, that I appreciate the general tone of this thread. This seems much better than calling names.
    ************************************************

    I hope Persol won't mind me making a few comments on your reply to him, MacM.

    Can you show me your calculations and results?

    ANS: I'll try. It is Chapter 4 in the original manuscript and is 8 pages. They are very dim from age and I will have to try and darken them. I'll advance them once that is done. It consists of some text and the sketches with the measurements and tables of data.Squaring the measured results yielded the following totals. 247.9, 247.2 and 247.84.

    I need to correct a number I posted in my response to you. I stated an accuracy of .01 on my hand integration it appears that it was actually 0.7.


    Which curve does UniKEF correctly reproduce? Please link me to it.

    ANS: Certainly. See the text for Fig 6 in the reactivated "Graphics" menu on the Home Page.

    Also, can you please link me to where I can see how the curve was generated, or give me an explanation.

    ANS: It is in the form of tabled data showing the formula used and with a direct comparison of a Relativity calculation and a UniKEF calculation along with the Delta and Ratio of the two. The largest error was <0.007

    Why is this the case, MacM? You have had over 30 years to put your theory into some kind of order. What's so hard about putting the figures with the appropriate text?

    ANS: It has layed dormant for decades until I saw all the things that I had predicted starting to become mainstream. I only recently have reduced the original manuscript down to the current abstract and posting this material on site I had a memory storage problem. I have since purchased 30 megs but have had computer problems that after having posted the Testing Photos I cannot edit or post in the Documents section.

    It's almost as if you want nobody to read your work. Why would they want to, when it is so impenetrable?

    ANS: I am not happy with the current presentation and I will be working on it but between work all week and grand kids on week ends I haven't gotten it done yet. But I will.

    I find this totally intriguing. The mind boggles.

    What led you to do this particular calculation? If you have no idea why this procedure gives this result, then what on earth led you to that procedure rather than some other? Or did you just try a whole bunch of calculations at random until one of them gave you the number you wanted? If the latter, then you're not really doing science.

    ANS: You are asking me to go back many years here. I had to go to the original manuscript for a bit of refresher. This is in Chapter 7. It involves analyzing the "Cones of Sources" in cases other than two symmetrical bodies. i.e. - The moon, the earth and the sun and their respective sizes and seperations. I have sketches of that and they show that during an eclipse there would not be a smooth transition but a flucuating rate of change. The above was a mechanical view of the range of deviation expected based on the gravimeter being very small and on the surface of the earth. In that case the "Cones of Sources" becomes the hemisphere around the earth with a radius equal to the orbit of the moon. (I deliberatly excluded the small portion of the hemisphere that is missing between the surface of the earth and the earths COG because it lies at virtually 90 degrees and the trig function makes it meaningless).

    The transition of the moon (counting only the primary field parallel to the COM's through the gravimeter and not attempting to integrate the small angle that the moon and earth diameter differences made over such distance (forming the cylinder) and its proportion to the balance of the hemispherical "Cones of Sources" resulted in the calculation as to the amount of deviation that could be expected at transition of an eclipse.


    This actually almost closes the book on UniKEF, don't you think? You admit that what you have essentially been doing is guessing at how the universe might be. Occasionally, one of your guesses turns out to be correct, in a vague way. Or, if you're guessing from a number of possibilities, sometimes you get things right just by chance. For example, either the universe is expanding at a constant rate, or accelerating or slowing down. You guessed it was accelerating, and you were right. That's a 1 in 3 chance, isn't it? It's a lucky guess, but still a guess. Why pretend you're doing science?

    :D Oh my!. I wouldn't buy this for a minute. Let me suggest that many, if not most, theories start out as mere ideas and then become formalized via mathematics and testing with data.. My ideas are far more than guesses. They are (you won't like this word) coherent logical evolutions from a basic premis. That premis is that gravity is the consequence of energy transfer of a Universal Kenetic Energy Field. From that assumption one can get to each and every prediction made, only on the assumption that gravity was such a phenomena. I would hope that while maintaining your scientificly critical composure that you are at least intrigued by some of these general "GUESSES" that I have supposedly made.

    I would make one final point. While there are still "GUESSES" made in UniKEF that have yet to be verified, they are listed for future reference but more importantly I am unaware of any findings that void the "GUESSES" that were made. I prefer to call them by their correct lable "Priori Predictions", which according to your own statements elsewhere is the first indication that an idea may be valid.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,



    Assuming that this is my Dr Allard and it appears that it is likely, then I don't think your statements against his work do his credentials justice.


    Dr. Edward Allard, former head of the Defense Department's Night Vision Laboratory,

    Dr. Edward Allard, considered the world authority on infra-red imaging systems

    He also holds several patents and designed the FLIR system - DKM
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,489
    As an observer of this thread can I ask that the parties to it let us observers know what qualifications they possess.

    The reason I ask this is that from this knowledge I and others can gain an understanding of perspectives involved.

    The other reason is that for some one to support calculus one needs to know calculus. I think this is a fair comment.

    Another reason is that it is obvious that the theory has been presented poorly thus confusing the reader. This in no way implies deliberatness on any ones part just sloppy presentation.

    I think this is also fair comment.

    I have no formal qualificarions of any worth but I know confusion when I see it.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Quantum Quack,

    ANS: HeHe, I like that one. :D

    Mine is mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering with post grad process control system instrumentation, via military training under special act of congress (Nuclear Power Field Office) Ft Belvoir, Va - Which is where I met Dr Allard.

    It was (4) years equivelent college but non-degreed. I would have to had spent one additional year when I got out to get credits for english and a bunch of other subjects for which I detested and so never did it. I am hamstrung mathematically.

    Had I done that I would have finished calculus which the program merely brushed on at an introductory level.

    I at one time could do matrix mathematics but no longer remembr even one rule since I haven't used it in 40 years.
     
  13. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,489
    Actually with all due respect I was referring to the confusion that the theory's presentation was causing.

    Personally I think it needs to be rewritten so that people have half a chance of understanding it before they give up.

    From what I gather the theory in it's present form can not be defended or verified.

    So therefore it needs to be reworked so that it "can be" defended and verified.
     
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,948
    Originally posted by MacM
    ANS: I accept that based on your reliance on mathematical continuity and not logic. Although you seem to accept Relativity without the same questions of "How", "Why" and "Cause" that you have historically leveled at UniKEF.
    You claim that UniKEF is 'better' then relativity because it answers these questions. That is a bold claim which seems to be unsupported.

    ANS: For any dynamic field or energy to be effective at producing gravity by the UniKEF method it must pass through two (or more) masses. The Fig's shows two circles (spheres) at different seperations. The angles shown is the maximum angle that such energy sources may come from in the universe and cause gravitation of the jpenetrated masses.

    You are using confusing language here. In your theory, the angle is forming a cone which 'skirts' the outside of the other sphere. Anything 'flow' that does not pass through the other body will be at 100%, thus canceling itself out when it hits the object in question. This is still just push-gravity theory.

    ANS: In the original manuscript I suggest that the "flux" might be coming from nuclear active bodies (stars) but neutrinos were insufficent, so it was an unknown energy flux.

    You can't claim it is comming from stars, as this replaces the gravity which would hold them together in the first place.


    Yet it had never been detcted and this was (and still to a lesser degree) is a big question. As I have said from my perspective the finding of the activity in the vacuum energy encourages me to believe it indeed does come fromthere but I certainly have no specific information on that issue.

    This would also imply that objects 'explode' as they reach the edge of the universe, since not as much volume (and therefore 'vacuum energy') is present towards the edge. These objects would then be pushed against the edge of the universe, since there would be no gravity to pull them back. What you'd end up with is a shell of matter.... not what we currently see.

    ...their total mass penetration and their trigometeric function that in a 3D cone that results in the 1/r^2 function. Does this prove UniKEF gravity?. No. Is it suggestive? Yes. I actually made numerous, precise as I could drawings of circles at different seperations and drew one degree angles and evenly spaced parallel lines and hand computed these functions with an algorithum to convert the 2D data into 3D results and showed that it followed 1/r^2 to within .01.

    There are hundreds of situations which follow the ~1/r^2 formula. This is not suggestive.

    ANS: Unfortunately there is no data regarding field strength and the absorbtion coefficient. Collectively they would represent "G". For example only: If "U" is the UniKEF field and U = 2.2233E60 N.m/sec and "~" is the absorbtion coefficient and ~ is 3E-71 m . sec/Kg^2; then U * ~ = 6.67E-11 N . m^2/Kg^2 = G.

    Why is this better then standard newtonian gravity?

    One other note I use the term absorbtion frequently but I also qualify that as being "attenuation" as well. That is absorbtion is actually minimal and is that part that produces heat as an inelastic reaction. The overwhelming reaction is elastic or a momentum trsfer and scattering phenomena. The ratio is several factors of scattering over absorbtion.

    Please clarify these statements.

    ANS: First I wouldn't classify this as an error.

    What does 'that is incorrect' mean?

    ANS: Only a fool would attempt to hood-wink their way through something like this and especially join a group such as Sciforums to put forth the concept if it were not felt legimate. BTW regardless of your personal opinion I am not such a fool.

    Classic:)

    ANS: I think we can agree fully on this point. All the predictions were based on the concept and what it should mean and were made with no evidence or data of any kind.

    I disagree here. I see no links between most of your predictions and the actual theory. If there are, it would help if you laid out how the assumptions of your theory (which are still mostly unknown) lead to your predictions. For one reason or another you've made a number of predictions. The ones that are currently being investigated by science are deemed 'right'. The ones which science is not talking about you deem to be 'advanced' or 'future' predictions. This doesn't provide much credibility when all the predicitions appear to be off the top of you head, and based more on what you've read in science magazines.

    (I deliberatly excluded the small portion of the hemisphere that is missing between the surface of the earth and the earths COG because it lies at virtually 90 degrees and the trig function makes it meaningless).

    Look at the VERY small deviation we are talking about. You can not treat this as a cylinder and expect to get result as accurate as the deviation claimed. Even so, I have very little idea what you actually did so I can't put any weight into this prediction.

    I would make one final point. While there are still "GUESSES" made in UniKEF that have yet to be verified, they are listed for future reference but more importantly I am unaware of any findings that void the "GUESSES" that were made. I prefer to call them by their correct lable "Priori Predictions", which according to your own statements elsewhere is the first indication that an idea may be valid.

    Mac, your entire theory seems to be guesses. You have been unable to provide use a logical path from your assumptions to your predictions, let alone the math to back it up. Even the stuff that turns out to be currently being investigated still seems like nothing more than a guess.

    He also holds several patents and designed the FLIR system - DKM

    Interesting. I've bought several of FLIR's products.

    That premis is that gravity is the consequence of energy transfer of a Universal Kenetic Energy Field. From that assumption one can get to each and every prediction made, only on the assumption that gravity was such a phenomena.

    Please demonstrate this.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Quantum Quack,


    ANS: That was my intrepretation as well. I do have the ability to laugh at myself as well as sometimes at others. They usually don't appreciate my humor however.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    I want to thank you for your input regarding Dr Allard. I have managed to locate his address via his patents and it is indeed the same town I recall him residing.

    I have written him a letter to re-establish contact. However the date of the patent was 20 years old but I suspect he still lives there.

    Hopefully if I can re-establish contact he may be able to provide you with a better understanding of what it is I have been trying to say and also assist me in getting my presentation improved.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    You claim that UniKEF is 'better' then relativity because it answers these questions. That is a bold claim which seems to be unsupported.

    ANS: Under current conditions I can accept this response pending clarification and perhaps input from Dr Allard himself should my letter contact be successful.

    You are using confusing language here. In your theory, the angle is forming a cone which 'skirts' the outside of the other sphere. Anything 'flow' that does not pass through the other body will be at 100%, thus canceling itself out when it hits the object in question. This is still just push-gravity theory.

    ANS: It is indeed push gravity theory but the issue of penetrating both masses also covers flux that penetrates only one mass and doesn't cancle but induces gravity potential (a form of curved space) around the mass. It also results in a slight heating of the mass but is uneffective at gravitating the two bodies.

    You can't claim it is coming from stars, as this replaces the gravity which would hold them together in the first place.

    ANS: As I said that was my original thoughts but that soon gave way to the homogeneous view where I saw no source for the field. Which is why the idea had remained dormant for so long. My reasning for the change however was not for the one you give. Your thoughts are encompassed in #5 of the Introduction:

    ********************** Extract *********************
    5 - Matter will coalesce or clump within a given radius of a active
    tep mass but will become repelled beyond that limit.

    * Verified by the formation of atoms, solar system, galaxies, and glalactic clusters which have tep radiating from their cores.
    ***********************************************************************************************

    That is it can be found that the totality of flux from the universe as a whole is far in excess of the local production and hence the repulsion you speak of is overwhelmed by the push of the balance of the universe.

    My change went more to the homogenous idea and the field creating space. The original thought was in the beginning when I was just looking at gravity. From there I began to expand my vision and concluded the change.


    This would also imply that objects 'explode' as they reach the edge of the universe, since not as much volume (and therefore 'vacuum energy') is present towards the edge. These objects would then be pushed against the edge of the universe, since there would be no gravity to pull them back. What you'd end up with is a shell of matter.... not what we currently see.

    ANS: Not true. If the view is correct the finite universe is simular to tired light. that is the field becomes attenuated over vast sepertions (Quantitative Domain LImit) which causes you to experience your universe as having this no time-space boundry. But to other observers in that region to you they also see themselves as the center of their universe with no loss of such t-me-space within the same "c" band of existance.

    You have mentioned the "bubble Universe" graph, just realize that "Creative Space" means more of the same but not in our universe by exceeding the Qualitative or Quantitative Domain Limit.


    There are hundreds of situations which follow the ~1/r^2 formula. This is not suggestive.

    ANS: I agree that there are a number of inverse square functions but to say it is not suggestive seems to me to deny the signifigance of finding this function in the manner I do. To me that suggests the validity of the concept. To say the least had I integrated these functions and found something totally different it would surely have suggest it was not valid. I don't think one can make this a one way street. It if disagrees you are wrong but if it agrees it means nothing. that seems a bit to severe.

    Why is this better then standard newtonian gravity?

    ANS:

    1 - It provides a "Cause".

    2 - It readily accommadates an explanation for MOND. (self-interferance and scatter resulting in a loss of directionality over vast distances).


    Please clarify these statements.

    ANS: A calculation of the energy involved in gravity would cause extreme heating if it were all "inelastic" by nature (absorbtion). Only a minor amount of the process i inelastic where the overwhelming amount of gravity is by a perfectly "elastic" reaction" or momentum transfer without heating.

    What does 'that is incorrect' mean?

    ANS: I believe we are discusing your statement that my adding the note to Dr Allard's work as being an uncorrected error. I do not consider that an error but an issue lacking clarity as to who posted the note and it will be corrected.

    ANS: Only a fool would attempt to hood-wink their way through something like this and especially join a group such as Sciforums to put forth the concept if it were not felt legimate. BTW regardless of your personal opinion I am not such a fool.
    Classic :) Ditto: :D

    I disagree here. I see no links between most of your predictions and the actual theory. If there are, it would help if you laid out how the assumptions of your theory (which are still mostly unknown) lead to your predictions. For one reason or another you've made a number of predictions. The ones that are currently being investigated by science are deemed 'right'. The ones which science is not talking about you deem to be 'advanced' or 'future' predictions. This doesn't provide much credibility when all the predicitions appear to be off the top of you head, and based more on what you've read in science magazines.

    ANS: This statement requires that science magazines were making such extrapolations in 1954. They weren't Or it assume my predictions are fabricated after the fact. Which they weren't as can be proven. Actually the foundation for how these views evolved are contained in the text of the concept but are not generally spelled out. That will be one of the changes when I rewrite the presentation. The other is going to be to forget the comparison to Relativity and to simply emphasize the basis of the theory and its conclusions. I think the challenge to Relativity puts it on the shit list from the outset.

    Look at the VERY small deviation we are talking about. You can not treat this as a cylinder and expect to get result as accurate as the deviation claimed. Even so, I have very little idea what you actually did so I can't put any weight into this prediction.

    ANS: We have a partial agreement here. I used rounded numbers and ommitted the zone (which would be an oppositional regime) but those ommissions and roundings are small in relation to the overall numbers of the volumes being computed. The results are close because the range of numbers is so large. That is the exponents are very indicative but the actual 4.2 calculation was actually a lucky strike. but it would take a 1.414 error in the figures (squared = 2) of the root numbers used to cause a 2.1 or 8.4 result. I didn't make those large of omissions.

    Mac, your entire theory seems to be guesses. You have been unable to provide use a logical path from your assumptions to your predictions, let alone the math to back it up. Even the stuff that turns out to be currently being investigated still seems like nothing more than a guess.

    ANS: I don't agree but I can accept your seeing it this way.

    Interesting. I've bought several of FLIR's products.

    ANS: I haven't but that doesn't really relate to the issues here.

    Please demonstrate this.

    ANS: I thought I had but it is becoming apparent I have a lot of work to do.

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2004
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    Regardless of how this thread progresses, if it should, I want you to know I appreciate very much all participants input. It has indeed been very helpful.

    I will be rewriting the presentation.

    1 - I aim to leave out all references and discussions of Relativity; except only to show correlations where they exist.

    2 - I aim to concentrate on UniKEF alone and insure a full text to support the thought process from the basic premis to the conclusions and the basis for the predictions, along with a full set of graphics from the original manuscript.

    I have no doubt that you (and others) and I would disagree on the merits of my thoughts. But this thread I feel has not only been good for me to see where I need to make major improvements but I think it has also clarified at least some of the thinking behind UniKEF and dispensed (hopefully) with the historical enuendo concerning Dr. Allard being a real person of good scientific standing and suggestions that I have merely tried to ride coat tails.

    In closing: Should it turn out that I am right and D = V * t is invalid; think you might find rekindled interest? :D
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ANS: I seemed to have missed responding to this exchange.

    Notes:

    1 - The calculus was done in the 1960's.

    2 - The gravity testing you mention was conducted in 2003, 38 years later.

    3 - The gravity testing was not to determine "U" and "~" but was an attempt to show the affect of geometry and streaming of the field showing it was an externally developed force.

    edited to correct 43 years to 38 years.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2004
  20. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,948
    1 - The calculus was done in the 1960's.
    I don't see how this is related to the comment, and don't really care:)

    2 - The gravity testing you mention was conducted in 2003, 43 years later.

    Ditto.

    3 - The gravity testing was not to determine "U" and "~" but was an attempt to show the affect of geometry and streaming of the field showing it was an externally developed force.

    The seperation of U and ~ is the only different observable result between your theory and current gravity calculations. Without finding even a rough estimate of U or ~, your test had no purpose.
     

Share This Page