UniKEF analysis

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

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

    Messages:
    30,379
    MacM:

    Ok, I think I understand now. This is certainly a lot more complicated than Newton's laws. The question is: does it produce results which are more accurate? It seems you don't know yet.

    So, is your UniKEF field is something we should be able to detect directly, or something we would only expect to see because of its affects on objects?

    This makes things much clearer.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,



    ANS: Not a biggie and I'll pass without going back and argueing over it but your post made linkages between the original work and the testing which had the cart before the horse.

    It also mis-stated the nature of the tests.

    Your statement here that not determining U and ~ the test had no purpose.

    That is no different than saying computing gas milage on your new car has no purpose unless you can describe how the engine works in detail.

    The test was to show gravity as a dynamic externally generated force with a cause vs some mysterious internal one without a cause. It had nothing to do with determining the ratio between the field and absorbtion or attenuation.

    But like you say you don't care and that is your perogative but I would like to at least keep comments valid here.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,


    Ok, I think I understand now. This is certainly a lot more complicated than Newton's laws. The question is: does it produce results which are more accurate? It seems you don't know yet.

    ANS: I think accuracy in this case becomes more favorable to UniKEF. While it appears that the results are the same and we know Newton is not valid over the scale (galactic) requiring a theoretical Dark Energy or MOND, the cause in UniKEF readily can be shown to result in MOND type deviations. That is the basic concept will easily adjustable (with cause) to accomadate any actual deviation in such results and more precise future findings.

    ANS: I would hope so but perhaps not. But certainly its affect can be detected and analized.

    ANS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    K



    ANS: I can only answer for the hand work that I did which resulted in the maximum 0.7 deviation from the 1/r^2 curve out of totals of about 248. That is within the range of 0.5%. Further that Dr Allard said his work verified the correct curve. If I hear back from him I will be trying to clarify exactly what he wanted to show.

    ANS: I would be interested in seeing your results.

    ANS: I fail to see your reason to conclude this.

    1 - Gravity is shape and size as well as density sensative, as has been noted in the thread where the testing results were discussed. Infact I believe it was you that stated the results we got testing our unique geometries would also have been found using refined Newtonian gravity concepts.

    If you recall the tests they measured the change in gravity response to a geometry that kept mass and COM constant but due to geometry produced a variation in gravitational force (i.e - regulating gravity like going through a ball valve).

    2 - Just a reminder that the term absorbtion here also includes attenuation by an elastic process. That is not at issue here but I just wanted to refresh that point.


    ANS: If ~ were 0.1 it would appear to be difficult to account for the range of gravities for those we see for common material up through and including Black Holes.

    The strength of gravity is tremendous in a black hole which means the field must be intense. One way to broaden the range of gravities experienced is to have a minor interaction with such a field intensity so as to not cause melting of gravitating bodies, etc.


    ANS: Yes. But the amount is very minimal in that it turns out that the bulk of the field interactions is elastic and transfers momentum without heating. Such heat correlation was detected by NASA in 1964. But since the earth has numerous source for heat the exact amount of heat has not been determined (that I am aware of). But there is a correlation between the local gravity field at earths surface and heat flowing to it.

    ANS: OK.

    ANS: First let me point out the arctan term is not actually arctan. It is tan to the -1. I don't have the capacity to write formulas in their correct format and I noted this in the text.

    The formula is based primarily on the trigonometry functions seen in Fig 6 and Fig 7. Which is the changing angle of penetration of UniKEF Flux (assuming "c" bands of existance - Qualitative Domain Limits) due to relative velocites to "c". The (2/pi) exponent was derived not only as a best fit choice but as a natural factor. that is I could possibly bring the data into closer agreement by adjusting it to some finite number after several decimal places. I have kept the (2/pi) in that it appears (since I am not a mathematician) that it is also logical since we are evaluating the affect on circles).

    I am poor as you know on formal mathematics but I have always been good at writting formulas that work or generate desired curves or functions. Wierd but true.


    Quote:

    ANS: OK. I suspect you are attempting to do your own calculation. If so I used rounded numbers. The moon was 3,000 mile diameter and the orbit was 240,000 miles.

    ANS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    K.



    ANS

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    K. As I have stated I suspect that has more to do with the fact that this was a casual presentation to me of verifying that one aspect of my work and was not jprepared in a form that he would normally have done for a paper. He most likely expected that I would enhance the presentation not realizing the dupe I am on mathematics.


    ANS: I think you are asking good questions and generally are being quite fair. that is not to say if you have a question you still tend to assume the worst.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    ANS:Good for you will see whereever anybodyelse has contributed they are given credit.

    ANS: I can understand that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ANS: Indeed an object traveling at a velocity "V" for a given amount of time "t" should (and does) go a distance "D".

    However, it is the distance that an object experiences between points that is different. This is not as strange as it sound and is infact even suggested in Relativity. It is related to curved space. Space in UniKEF is created by energy (also in the papers I posted earlier by mainstream scientist. That is this is not a totally unique UniKEF concept).

    What we refer to distance then is actually a measure (Quantitative) of an energy seperation between two points. Since mass absorbes this energy resulting in gravity, the fact that the field between two points (quanitative energy seperation) is a function of mass and gravity. So a measurement of the distance to A.C. using a photon at v = c as being 4.3 ly is only for a photon and in the line of the COG's of the earth and A.C.

    This line of gravity along the COG's is not inverse square. It is a fixed quantity because we are not looking at the integration of the Cones of Sources and trigonometry affects. Only the energy seperation along a single line with a trig function = 1.0.

    This suggested that if one moves out of the region of massive objects such as the earth and/or the bulk of the solar system that in absence of the gravity absorbtion the energy seperation increases and hence distance increases.

    This is basically what appears to be happening to our deep spacecraft. They are not where they should be by our view of D = V*t. that is because we see a different D than they do.

    As an example of what this means draw a line a few feet wide in space away from earth or any other gravitating object. Now place a bowling ball centered on one end of the line and a ping pong ball centered on the other end. Now go one mile along a line perpencicular and from the center of the line out into space (this is hypothetical since you must ask what is the mass of the obeserver measuring out this mile) and at the end place a golf ball.

    Now by fixed measures that we normally assume when it comes to distance and trigonometry, the COM's of the bowling ball to the golf ball is exactly equal to the COM's between the ping pong ball and the golf ball.

    But the fact that the mass of the bowling ball is greater as reflected by its gravity, than that of the ping pong ball, the energy seperation between these points along their COG's (what we call distance) to the golf ball is not the same. Gravity is such a week force because the masses and densities that we see on a day to day basis has little affect on the quanity % wise of the energy seperation of things and it therefore requires vast distances for the affect to become noticed.

    Start playing with black holes ans now that becomes much more obvious. But we really don't even know what % of absorbtion a Black Hole represents.

    All of this is very important because it is testable and from such test data we could extrapolate using a 1/m type curve what the ultimate UniKEF field is in terms of strength.

    It is also important because it is linked at the hip to Lorentz Contraction and Relavistic Mass issues. In UniKEF the "Quantitative" energy seperation (distance) is subject to "Qualitative" energy change (relative velocity). If you have 1,000 units of energy seperation and you apply 1,000 units of energy relavistically to an object the sepertion between the two goes to "Zero". This may explain tunneling, electron orbit jumping, etc.

    To observers not in the dimensional system of such objects (line of flux) we see the electron vanish from one orbit and instantly (FTL) appear in another orbit without existing inbetween. What is happening is an energy transistion equal to the sepertion and from the electrons view it hasn't moved and hence required no time.

    Hope this sheds some light on the subject because to me it is very important and opens the door to many experiments and the opportunity to learn a great deal in physics of our universe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2004
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Your statement here that not determining U and ~ the test had no purpose.

    That is no different than saying computing gas milage on your new car has no purpose unless you can describe how the engine works in detail.

    The test was to show gravity as a dynamic externally generated force with a cause vs some mysterious internal one without a cause. It had nothing to do with determining the ratio between the field and absorbtion or attenuation.

    Well no. Without showing a value for U and ~ (even a rough value), you could not show that they exist. If they don't exist, then there goes your absorbtion and attenuation.

    It is more akin to trying to show the difference between 2 cars, when all you can observe is gal/mile.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ************************************
    Posted by MacM to James R.

    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.
    *************************************

    ANS: One has to assume that you either missed this or it went over your head. "G" is still "G", how much is "U" and how much is "~" is the only unknown.

    Testing had no relationship to this issue as stated.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2004
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    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.
    These are nothing more then guesses, and do nothing to actually show that 2 such components of G exist. Once again, this is nothing more then saying G=A*B where A=1 and B=G. Without your test showing that these actually existed, it had no point.

    One has to assume that you either missed this or it went over your head.

    No. You missed my point. The only difference here is your breaking G into terms. Without showing that these term exist, the experiment had no reason to be.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ANS: You are absolutely right and that is exactly what I said. So what is your point? It happens to be part of the overall concept that G is comprised of these two components. The values were made and stated as "by way of example", pending further research for actual values. You seem to be saying don't write a theory until you have proof. That is indeed a novel approach. :bugeye:

    ANS: Once again the test had nothing to do with this issue. The point was I was answering James R., questions.

    ANS: OK. Fine. You are right. I only wrote all that stuff about what the test was for (BTW you surely haven't forgotten that James R., also commented on the testing back when I posted the data). Do you ever recall seeing "U" and "~" being discussed.

    No.

    So what is your point?. You have none other than trying to pretend to know something about which you clearly either do not or simply want to be obstinate and negative.

    For the last time the test was desigined to show a variation in the response of gravity to an object that had the same mass and COM but different geometry from different views.

    While it ultimately didn't prove the point I saught to prove, we did indeed see the affect we were testing for and it had absolutely nothing to do with "U" or "~".

    You seem lost here. No wonder you don't do basic research.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: Not on your best day.

    1 - James R. started this thread as a means of resolving the issue through valid critique.

    2 - I haven't seen you contribute any such material.

    3 - It suggests to me that if you have no valid contribution to make either for or against UniKEF it is you that should butt out.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 12, 2004
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,379
    The aims of this thread are clearly set out in my first post. I ask posters to keep this in mind in any future replies, and to stay on-topic. If you want to discuss something else, please start a new thread.
     
  14. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Some quotes from your website


    You claim this prediction

    No it does not! The core of the earth is heated due to the decay of radioactive constituents that it is composed of. In this case the mass of the earth is slowly decreasing, and thus gravity is not being "produced" but "destroyed" (I feel like a child having to use this terminology in this way)

    HAHAHAHA!!! What is the difference between a "Quantitative" and "Qualitative" Time-Energy domain limit, what one knows how to calculate its value but the other only believes it can!
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: Bold absolute answer. To bad it is inconsistant with facts.

    ANS: Yes it is. Along with several other causes but none of this addresses the issue and finding by NASA that the heat flow from the earths core shows a correlation to the gravity intensity of the earth at its surface - 1964.

    ANS: This is true but it is not the only aspect of core heating as sated above.

    ANS: Then don't act and talk like a child.

    ANS: How do you propose to contribute anything meaningful +/- if you are unfamiliar with the subject.

    ANS: Unresponsive gibberish and unrelated meaningless babble.
     
  16. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Please Oh Please explain what this means. Have you gone and come up with your own definition of regularly used words again.
     
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: Can't comment on your assertion regarding making my own definitions for regularly used words. You would have to give a few examples.

    However, these are terms I did coin in the original manusctipt to describe what bound our universe making it finite and at the same time not creating a boundry which has a beyond.

    As now in other work such as the paper from Cornell I view space as being created by energy. That is another way of stating that distance is a "Quantitative" amount of energy seperation. That energy flow also created gravity but I also saw the likelyhood that the energy would interact within like energy flowing through the universe such that a type of "tired light" syndrome would produce a deminishing of such energy and create an end to our physical link with anyother existance in creation. That is it causes our universe to be a bubble bounded by the absence of time and space.

    But that more of the same creation such as galaxies, planets , stars,etc may lay out there in creation but for use they do not exist. Our universe consists of only that within the "Quantitative Domain Limit".

    The "Qualitative Domain Limit" is the v = c limit also described by Relativity and the Lorentz Contraction point to zero dimension. That function is calculated in UniKEF based on Physical Modeling and also permits existance beyond that limit but not in our universe.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2004
  18. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Coined these terms, or inserted them as techno babble. They don't even make sense. Why not say that the universe finite in volume but infinite in perimeter or something like that.

    And what is a qualitative amount? You are making up your own language as you have definately not used these words within their context.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: They don't make sense to you because you put forth no effort to understand the consequences of a finite boundry that is formed of the absence of time and space to an observer (#1) but for observers near such a boundry to observer #1 sees a different boundry.

    We are bound to a finite universe but are not constrained to remain in it. We can move our bubble universe by moving in any given vector. The finite boundry moves with you. It limits only the size of your universe not its location in overall creation which extends beyond such boundry.

    ANS: Because that indeed makes no sense. the universe is finite and hence has no infinite perimeter.

    ANS: "Qualitive" means relative energy (Relative Velocity). "Qualitative Domain Limits" track Lorentz Contraction. If you exceed the "Qualitative Domain LImit" you cease to exist in our universe but you don't cease to exist. You exist in a universe that is full of objects all moving in excess of v = c relative to the original point of reference.

    The universe exists on an energy gradient of which we are bound by a 2c limit. Any motion causes a shift in the objects in you universe by becoming v => c relative to such objects but common object exists in your universe for +c to -c (forward or backward) relative motion. These designations are arbitrary and only signify opposite directions.
     
  20. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    What? Are you going through the dictionary and randomly inserting words, or is this some kind of encrypted message?


    These 2 quotes are contradictory. If a boundary is of a fixed length for 2 different observers, then neither is closer to the boundary.

    Your use of language is appalling. Your use of qualitative and quantitative is worse. Qualitative usually means an understanding of some phenomena without actually knowing numerical values. For example, that like charges repel and unlike charges attract is a qualitative understanding of electrostatics. That 2 electrons 1m appart will feel a repulsive force of 2.3 x10^-28 Newtons is a qualitative understanding.

    No it doesn't. Relative energy means relative energy. I think you just like the sound of the word, sounds a bit scientific you know, to give this crap theory some credibility.



    What about fractals? What if the boundary of the universe behaves like a fractal?

    Yeah right.
     
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: Your complaint is without merit. New concepts often need new words, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Quintessence, MOND, need I go on. I have defined what the terms mean in the theory and that is all that matters. If there exists an appropriate word for the circumstance being conveyed I would use it.

    ANS: Good you finally get the picture. The boundry is for each observer; which is why I claimed we would each be found to be at the center of the universe - Now supported by Red Shift Data.

    It is a boundry for each universe. We each have our own universe and hat universe changes as we move about. It is a distance (generally a sphere around ech of us and while they are substantially common if you move towards your original boundry and reach the last object contained inside that boundry then you will find that your boundry has moved and your universe will consist of generally 50% new objects and 50% of the original objects will have ceased to exist. The original point at your original boundry is now the center of you new universe. Move farther until that object is beyond the boundry trailing your direction of motion and there will be nothing common. You now exist in a totally different universe.

    That is the reason for the terms and there definitions. this is not an egg shell boundry that the term boundry generally conjures up. but it is a boundry making your universe finite.


    ANS: And boundry "usually" means something different than being conveyed - hence the new terminology.

    ANS: Doesn't hurt. But that isn't the basis. MOND also means Modified Newtonian Dynamics but MOND is understood to mean what they infer. These definitons of thw two distinct types of finite boundries are equally defined and described by using these terms in lieu of a paragraph to describe the function on each reference to the. Your complaint is baseless.

    ANS: What if it soesn't. What if it behaves just as I have said it would? You want to write a fractal geometry universe theory have at it. tht is not what I have done.

    ANS: A substantial portion of UniKEF is now in the mainstream by Hawkins, Guth, Tryon, Vilenkin and others. It really doesn't bother me that Rayn's doesn't like it.
     
  22. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    You only think it is, you have not the slightest clue what they really wrote, apart from some popularising text in some magazine somewhere.

    Oh BTW, I would not really too much on spacetime structure articles from the '60's, research *has* advanced in the past 45 years to give us loads of new insights. Unfortunately these are more technical in nature, and not so easy and "nice sounding" when put into words.
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Crisp,

    ANS:This is your personal bias and is not only unfounded but toally in correct. I have read the papers I cited : Tryon, Baez, Vilenkin and Cornell and undesrand completely what they say. regardless of yur unwillingness to recognize it they are saying substantially what I have said.

    1 - Energy creates space (I wrongfully called it time-energy for a lack of any other definiton)

    2 - That the absorbtion of this energy caused gravity.

    3 - That flow of this energy caused the illusion of time flow (UniKEF)
    That flow of this energy (via gravity) causes time. (Cornell)
    (Very simular concepts)

    I'll not continue with the parallels in that it would create a lengthy page, none of which you will give any credence anyhow but that doesn't alter the truth. I have written and they have written. It is a matter of record. Your unfounded assertions do not alter that.

    ANS: You call the papers I posted popular magazines? LOL. You have no idea what I read, nor the fact that I have listened to lectures on cosmology via cyberspace. Yours is biased and unwarrented assualts on my person which aren't particulairly appreciated but tolerated for the sake of getting my word out.

    ANS: Which references do you alledge I use that are dated?


    ANS: So are you saying, the physicists I cited above are dated and no longer in vouge? I don't think so. Not in your dreams. Makes for unsupported slander however to just make false statements, enuendo and correlations without any facts.
     

Share This Page