UniKEF analysis

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

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Typical of chroot bullshit. Give it up you let your candy ass mouth get you in trouble once again.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,350
    What trouble did my "candy ass mouth" get me in, MacM? What are you even talking about? Do you even know?

    - Warren
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are making a fool of yourself.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    chroot is right, of course. Trading insults won't change that.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    The insult is to assert that I was not aware of the differance between the standard 13.7Gly figure and the enlarged universe when expansion during the light travel time is considered. Like I said earlier. I personally posted the 156Gly figure when it came out.

    And yes 2Iq.... is right that figure was in error and should have been 78Glyr.

    But none of this goes to the issue of chroot's false slanderous attacks and your siding with him only shows your own poor judgement. Nothing you or he can say alters the fact that many months ago I posted the very information this asshole asserted I did not know.

    But that is just his style. Arrogant, egotistical asshole.
     
  9. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,390
    This from the man who presumes his own intellect to be greater than that of hundreds of thousands of physicists and mathematicians...
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Another unwarranted comment.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    WOW over 61,000 views.

    Thought I would bring this oldy back up just because Billy T has recently accused me of changing my views. I think this historical file proves that assertion a lie.
     
  12. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Everyone enjoys a good laugh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Yes I have. Here is the documented proof you have:

    The “case” MacM discusses below had clocks a & b at rest together in frame C (also called their Common Rest Frame, CRF, by MacM, who thinks that history is important instead of just the current Relative Velocity which is all that matters to standard SR.) Then later both were in inertial frames, A & B but B is receding faster from their prior launch point in frame C (and for all eternity). In post 93, MacM KNEW HOW to calculate the relative Time Dilation of clock b wrt clock a, (TDba in my compact notation):
    confirm that at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2303345&postcount=93

    Then in post 118 and again in 198 I showed mathematically that this lead to a self contradiction using “MacM approved methodology.” Here is summary from post 118:
    confirm that at:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2304998&postcount=118

    Faced with this mathematical demonstration of self contradiction MacM CHANGE HIS POSITION - No longer KNEW HOW to calculate the relative Time Dilation of clock b wrt clock a I.e. MacM states in post 130:
    confirm that at:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2309117&postcount=130

    The one thing MacM has been consistent and firm in, is his intuitive, but false, belief that there MUST be a “PHYSICAL CHANGE” in the frame which in the past was accelerated to produce what MacM calls “real velocity” instead of just the “illusion of motion.”

    In several posts, I have given the following analogy to show that no Physical Change is required:
    Back in the days when the yard was the distance from the king's nose to his finger tip, if the French king was short and describing his buying of English made rope, He very likely would say: "The English are fools. They sold me 115 yards of rope for the price of only 100 yards!" Point is there does not need to be ANY physical change when your time or length standards are use to describe time or length in another realm or frame.

    But Phyti has given a better proof of this (not an analogy) via a case of time dilation at:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2337299&postcount=734 where I quote the essential part of Phyti ‘s “photon travel time clock” and discuss it further.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2009
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
  15. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Dale, There is an analysis you haven't considered.

    The test mass m0 is located at 0. m1 located at 9 and m2 located at 11. Assume these are the nearest and farthest locations of a spherical mass centered at 10. The nearest fdorce Fn is 1/81 while Ff is 1/121, for G = 1, and m0 = m1 = m2 = 1. The combined forceFt = Fn + Ff = .02061. Ft = 2/x^2 = .02061, hence x = 9.85, which is not at the COM of the sphere. Do the same for the next mass on the sphere and its mirror image closer to the COM from the far side.

    This is just a modified version of the shell theorem which is stated, 'the shell behhaves as if all the mass was concentrated at the COM of the sphere.' This is a physical impossibility as just demonstrated. The difference with the simple calculations above wrt the shell integral is that the shell integral does not compute the location of the force, it merely concludes F = GmM/d^2 whis says only the force on a test mass by a shell located a distance d from the test mass.

    A solid constant density sphere will have similar results.

    A solid sphere with increasing density from surface to COM will have similar results - meaning the center of gravity, taken as the location of the total force on m0, is located off set from the COM of the sphere in the direction of m0.

    The 1/2 shell segment closest to the test mass contributes more force on m0 than the equal 1/2 shell segment located farther from the test mass.

    Should this not be proved from observation alone?
     
  16. CptBork Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,357
    Excuse me Geistkiesel, I already dealt with your Newton's shell theorem issue many months ago, and you never even bothered to respond. Did you do the vector sum? Did you not see how the cancellation of forces in certain directions works to address your perceived dilemma? I'm not happy at all to have gone to all that trouble for you if you didn't bother to even look at my argument.

    And as for the additional "paradox" you mentioned about the garage and giant truck problem in MacM's other thread, I refused to post anything more in that thread but I'll answer you here. It's physically impossible to synchronize two spacially separated clocks in both frames at the same time. If I see two distant clocks and measure them as synchronized, it won't work out that way for other observers moving at some velocity relative to myself. Your proposal was to use some sort of signal in each reference frame so that the clocks could somehow be synchronized in each of these reference frames, all at the same time. The reason you can't do this is because the signal would have to travel faster than light in order to accomplish this effect, and it would violate causality in the process.
     
  17. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    geistkiesel, simply refusing the even bother to learn what the algebraic derivation of the Shell theorem is doesn't mean you're magically right. The Shell theorem does derive the direction which an object would be pulled by the material, because you obtain the potential U(r) for the gravitational field and to then compute the direction in which an object at position x would be pulled you compute \(\nabla U|_{x}\). This is basic calculus. CptBork has been through it with you, JamesR has been through it with you, you've been pointed to Wikipedia and books, yet you've avoided ALL of those resources.

    What do you possibly hope to accomplish by ardently avoiding learning and understanding the basic tools of science, by avoiding any and all information people put infront of you? You claim to grasp calculus but the fact you've just made a number of patently false claims about the Shell Theorem would suggest either you don't know any calculus or you're willing to lie purely to try and further your claims (which you know to be wrong). What's the point? :shrug:
     

Share This Page