The calculus by Dr Allard is not a prediction. Here are some predictions: ********************** Extract ************************ CONFIRMED PREDICTIONS 1 - Heat should be a by product of the production of gravity and contributes to the core heating of the earth. A correlation of core heat rising to the surface of the earth vs the gravity field intensity at the surface point were observed by NASA 1964. 2 - A "Gravity Shadow" should be found in relation to other massive bodies coupled by gravity. A shadow is now known to exist and no other theory of gravity satisfactorily explains it. The Geodetic Institute in Frankfurt, Germany measured a 4.28E-9 deviation in gravity during a Lunar eclipse in Norway in 1954. A mechanical view via UniKEF yields results of 4.2E-9 deviation predicted. The Institute granted permission for publication of UniKEF including their work as Chapter 7 - See "History", "Permission to Publish". 3 - It predicted that the expansion of the universe would be found to be accelerating. That is now considered fact. 4 - It predicted that v = c limit imposed by Relativity was invalid and is not a velocity limit for an independent inertial system. That objects would be found that exceeded the speed of light. Many such objects have been found. NASA/MIT in collaboration have found over 60 such objects. These objects are all moving traverse or orthogonal to us and it is not v=>c relative motion to us. This fact is supported in the UniKEF view. ************************************************************** DISCUSSION Purely as an academic exercise, we calculate the transverse velocities required for the four quasars PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 on the cosmological red shift hypothesis. We take the smallest value of proper motion within the uncertainty range and assume the Hubble Constant to be 50 km/s/Mpc and q0=0. Then we find that in terms of the velocity of light c, the transverse velocities would correspond to Vt = 760, 1000, 5200 and 2300 times the speed of light ! for PHL 1033, TON 202, LB 8956 and LB 8991 respectively. Needless to say these values are without physical significance and clearly indicate that the cosmological red shift hypothesis is completely untenable. http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1982/NewMotion.html ****************************************************************Science is still looking for some other explanation and has refused to acknowledge the flaws in Relativity. 5 - It predicted that we could find objects in the universe that were older than the universe itself. Such objects have been found but science is still trying to figure out why or how. 6 - UniKEF state that we each are at the center of our own unique Universe. See "UniKEF Theory"/"Documents"/Abstract"/"Vol_1", Line 1627 - 1632. UniKEF. Data now agrees with that view. *************************************************************** IS THE EARTH THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE ? Varshni,Y.P.: 1976, Astrophys.Space Sci., 43, 3. <HTTP: adsabs.harvard.edu cgi-bin bib_query?1976Ap&SS..43....3V> Abstract. It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: Namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Consequences of this result are examined. http://home.achilles.net/%7Ejtalbot/V1976a/index.html> To get to the "Earth at the Center of the Universe Data", scroll down on the above link to "Related Papers", No. 18. ******************************************************** 7 - The very foundation of UniKEF requires that there be a homogeneous, omni-directional source of kinetic energy flowing into and throughout the universe. It is now believed that what we call the "Vacuum or Void" of space is actually not empty at all but is an unimaginably dense, high energy field called the "Chiral Condensate". Space is actually a super solid but exists in a form not yet understood. This energy can also explain the universal expansion. We are witnessing the on going creation of space. The Big Bang was merely the rip in dimension releasing the Klien Bottle of creation. See "Addendums" under "Documents" OTHER PREDICTIONS a - Our universe is FINITE bounded by "Quantitative" and "Qualitative" Time-Energy Domain limits. b - Teleportation may be possible. c - There are multiple FINITE universes. (This explains the "Older objects in #5 above where finite universes domain boundaries overlap). d - We live in a DYNAMIC PRESENT in STATIC TIME, and to move your spatial ordinate you simultaneously enter the PAST and FUTURE. e - That distance is not a fixed number but varies as a function of the mass of the observer. i.e. - 4.3 light years to Alpha Centuri is only 4.3 light years for a photon traveling at the speed of light but for a bowling ball it is less. See "UniKEF Theory"/"Documents"/"Abstract"/Vol_1, lines 1650-1710 and Vol_3, lines 3545-3600, 3609-3635. ********************************************************* Correct. However, I was not refering to UniKEF being a surface force. I was responding to Billy T's repeated (false) arguement about squeezing jello. Point being if you squeeze it uniformily it stays sphereical.
I know you are asking what you think is a serious question. However, I must point out that a force moves each particle. That force being of a "Pull" or a "Push" origin is of no consequence. The center of gravity is the center of gravity in Newtonian or UniKEF views. It is the center of the mass distribution. In is found by integration. In Newton it is used to compute gravity and is the point from which distance is computed between mass centers. Geometry plays no role in Newton. However in UniKEF the center of mass is not the sole criteria, geometry is important. In UniKEF the integration is not to find the center of mass but to compute the exposure of the mass to gravity shadows by another mass. The Cones of Sources from which energy can be projected and intersect both masses. Testing has shown that gravity varies even when mass and center of mass do not change and that is inconsistant with Newtons F = G * m1*m2/r<sup>2</sup>. http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm
MacM, I am highly skeptical of any claims of a theory explaining a deviation of 4.2E-9 when it can't even be used to compute the force between arbitrary spherical masses at arbitrary distances. I am not saying that it is unreasonable to expect, I am just saying that you have not done the math yet and so making the claim is still premature. Wait until you have a strong math framework supporting and clarifying your ideas. -Dale
MacM did not do anything but find (Trial and error, I assume as it is totally unjustified) that if the volume of a moon size cylinder of length S, where S is the separation of the Earth and moon, is divided by the volume of a hemisphere of radius S he could get the number he wanted. - It is pure numerology. I did better numerology in that I used a cone, tip touching the Earth and base the size of the moon and only 1/3 of his hemisphere. I say mine is mine is better as MacM´s hemisphere includes space that is S away from the moon / Earth line whereas all the space I include is much closer to the Earth moon line. Mine is also just "pure unjustified nemerology." You could do 4 times better than mine if you made the base of my cone equal to the radius of the moon in that all the space you include as causing the "eclipse effect" would be even closer to the Earth moon line.
As you should be. However, the prediction was made based on the CoS concept involved in lunar eclipse. http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page2.htm Line 045. Also my prediction of a shadow was not as to the specific value. But only that a pertabation should be found. The CoS analysis showwng the specific value was after it was discovered. But that doesn't change the fact that the prediction was made and that the CoS accounts for it. Also I received permission from the Geodetic Research Institute that made the discovery to publish my manuscript with that information regarding their findings. http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=26 So if they didn't object I hardly see why you should. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
by MacM: As you should be. However, the prediction was made based on the CoS concept involved in lunar eclipse. http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page2.htm =============================================================== Mac, I have noticed this before. In both your diagram (Fig. 8) at your link, and in the above post, you are calling it a lunar eclipse when the moon is BETWEEN the Earth and the sun. That is a SOLAR eclipse. A lunar eclipse is when the Earth is between the sun and the moon. The Earth's shadow falls on the moon, blacking out the moon. You might want to correct either your diagram or change the wording from 'lunar eclipse' to 'solar eclipse' at your link.
The fact that they give you permission to cite large portions of their work is not the same as an endorsement of your work. In fact, it would be highly unusual for any scientific group to try to forbid someone from citing their work. That is just part of science. In the scientific community you do not try to stop someone from citing your work even if they cite it expressly to demonstrate a point that is exactly opposite your own beliefs. My criticism is that the entire theory is too mathematically weak and conceptually disorganized to really make any solid claims whatsoever about what it will or will not predict. You are not out of line to think that your theory will eventually explain this measurement, but at this point you cannot really defend your position because you cannot rigorously show that it does explain this measurement. Einstein had lots of ideas about what GR would do, but until he actually got the math fully worked out nobody would claim that it predicted one thing or another. And that was after SR had already become pretty well accepted. You can hardly expect to be better received than Einstein after he had already proved himself with SR. -Dale
I do not disagree. Here we disagree. I am not talkiing about lwhat it may predict but what I predicted, baseless mathematically or not (in your view) I foresaw the affect. Once it was discovered I mathematically demonstrated the principle. It was not first class proof. But your arguement was that no such predictions were made and you stand corrected. Agreed it is not a rigorous proof. That however, was not the issue. The issue was you stated I made no such jpredictions. I did. Why not.? Just kidding. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No I do not expect things to be accepted because I said so but I do expect to recieve credit for having said it.
To MacM, relative to the recent “prediction discussion” with Dale: Predictions should be made before the results are known. I have several times asked you to cite one reference that is public to any uniKEF prediction you have made before that facts were known. By "public", I do not mean your web page, etc. because you can go there NOW and insert a copy of a letter you claim to have sent in 1930 that predicts there will be a war with Japan etc. I recognize that your lack the math ability and educational certificates have not given you much chance of getting such unorthodox physics as uniKEF into a journal article, but you might have been able to get in it a letter to the editor of a popular science column of a newspaper. You could have even paid to put a prediction in to a classified ad of a newspaper. I know you are very concerned with establishing dates for your several patent claims. Why have you not done anything to support your claim that your predictions were made before the facts were public? In the only case I can check to see if your "prediction" preceded the known facts, is your "eclipse prediction." It is clear that in this case, your “prediction” was made after the facts were known. You have absolutely no basis in uniKEF theory for taking the ratio of: (1) The volume, V1, of a cylinder with diameter the size of the moon and length equal to the Earth/Moon separation, S. (2) The volume, V2, of a hemisphere of radius S, Other than the numerological fact that {V1 / V2} does equal the effect reported in 1965 or 1964 as I recall. Can you give even one "prediction" now confirmed by observation where the prediction was recorded before the observation in a location you cannot have constructed yesterday? As Dale, and others have observed, the uniKEF hypotheses is in such poor (unclear) state that nothing can be calculated with it. Even if questions like: "How does absorption depend upon density?" etc had an answer, it is not clear that the three-body problem of the eclipse calculation could even be formulated mathematically. I and Aer are having great problems even trying to do a one body problem mathematically correct. Until some one can calculate something with uniKEF, no predictions can be made. The best you can claim is that it may be possible that uniKEF provides a mechanistic way to understand some observations. Unfortunately, for you, it is demonstrably not a self-consistent way to do so as my pendulum vs. collapsing star argument shows.
Correct and they were. Up your ass. Anybody that has gone to the Historical files on my web site can see the correspondance which support the fact that I had predicted the eclipse affect. The US Army specifically states that they had documentation supporting that view and translated the document from German into English and sent it to me. Your assertion that I have phooneyed documents, etc is totally without merit. It makes you an asshole. Once again screw you. My "Current" mathematics is indeed lacking but I have in the past done calculus and have educational certificates.
I asked: "Can you give even one "prediction" now confirmed by observation where the prediction was recorded before the observation in a location you cannot have constructed yesterday? " And you replied: "Pardon my bluntness but fuck you." So I take this as a crude: "No, I can not."
No, it means your repeated insults merit no direct response. Further, I not only can but have and I am not going to waste my time trying to repeatedly respond to your slanders.
I have never insulted you or slandered you but in the ONE post two below this, made at 19 minutes past the hour, I find: In addition you have called me several times: "a sack of shit" "a jerk" "a fool" "incompetent" and many other things of similar nature which I forget, all because you have not physics argument to reply with to, for example: From my post of 11-11-05 in the Co-authors wanted ... thread: Do you think that any push gravity theory can be consistent with (1) & (2) below: "(1) Two pendulum clocks, identical in all geometric details, except the bob at the end of one’s pendulum is a solid Aluminum sphere and that of the other is an equally large, hollow spherical shell of lead with the same mass. By experimental observation, and by Newtonian gravity theory, they both keep the same time. This is true in push gravity theories, only if there is no dependence upon density. (2) Because there is lots of space between the ions, even in the core of an active star, the pressure is well modeled by the ideal gas law or P = ρT, where ρ is the density and T the temperature, until this “empty space” is nearly gone. The external flux intercepted and pushing on the hot star, keeping it from expanding into space, is proportional to R^2 where R is its radius. When the radius is r = R/2 in the first phase of its constant mass collapse towards a neutron star, the pushing flux intercepted is down by a factor of four and the density alone is up by a factor of 8. Thus even if the temperature were not also greatly increased, the only way that more flux can be absorbed is if the absorption depends upon density. If the temperature were also up by a factor of 8 (just as an example) the pressure is 64 times greater and the containing flux is only ¼ as great. From (1): Absorption does not depend upon density. From (2): Absorption strongly depends upon density. How can one theory “have it both ways”?" I am still waiting a reply that at least mixes in a little physics while calling me names. In closing, I note that I have recently posted in the "co-authors wanted..." thread: "Congratulations are certainly due to you {DaleSpam}, and possibly to MacM also (at least for the fact that now a 3D uniKEF calculation in the simplest possible case has been done.)" and: "MacM will be pleased (and perhaps surprised) to see me now state that I think you have proven more generally the inverse square law for uniform density spherical masses, even at points out side the sphere." This last together with my first dozen or so posts in this thread, made when I too had high hopes for uniKEF, will prove that I am only seeking the physical truth or falseness of your uniKEF idea. I admit that now that I have had time to consider various aspects of it, my initial favorable opinion has changed. Because even one contradiction disproves any theory, and I now think uniKEF is probably false, I am now trying to demonstrate one false prediciton, as this is the most efficient way to show uniKEF is nonsense, if it is. Only now, in the last few days thanks to DaleSpam's efforts, one and only one, confirmation of the possible consistency of uniKEF with an observational fact exists. (uniKEF agrees that inside a hollow uniform spherical shell the gravitation field is zero, but Aer is questioning this result still.) My second quote immediately above is trying to extend this result to point outside the shell - hardly something I would do if I were biased against uniKEF, the asshole, sack of shit, etc. you label me as.) But I must again note that even a 1000 confirmed predictions does not prove a theory true, but one false one does prove it false. Back to the main point of this post: I challenge you to reference one instance where I have insulted you - referred to you, as you routinely do to me, by vulgarities.
So true and so well deserved. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I responded to those alegations. You just don't want to acknowledge it. I agree that 1 falsification is all that is needed. However, I still find it amusing that you search so diligently for such a case rather than have admitted in the first instance that what I HAD claimed, the inverse square factor, was valid. You may not find being accused of falsifying documents, or claiming predictions after the fact as being insults. I do.
I acknowledge that you called me vulgar names in a reply, but please if you had any post with some physics in the reply, tell when and where it is. I did not so accuse you. I only said that if you want convincing proof that you predicted an observation before the observation was publicly known, you must site something other than statement in your web page that can have been inserted yesterday. I illustrated the problem to you with the example that you could now insert a copy of a letter sent by you in 1930 predicting war with Japan. Face reality. Your web site is not proof that the prediction was made prior to the event.
I am not responding since you are still harping about density. Denisty has been made clear long ago several times. Your repeated assertions that denisty appeared multiple times in the formula factors was false and I'm tired of responding to that issue. Face reality my web site has a Historical Documents Section. Correspondance therein is more than sufficient to demonstrate that my manuscript preceeded observation of many issues.
READERS: Billy T, has been doing a joint evaluation of "Push Gravity" theories along with DaleSpam and Aer. While Billy T stated it was not about UniKEF, UniKEF was mentioned numerous times. The initial effort was to show "Push Gravity" would be unstable but it appears they have just confirmed that UniKEF and Newton have the same inherent stability. [post=915401]Here and on[/post]
Billy would have much prefered to do a proof about push theories in general, but unfortunately I do not know how to approach the general problem. The result is that the only theory we actually examined on that thread is UniKEF (and Newtonian gravity). -Dale
