MacM: I'll say more when I have more time, but for now I'd like to correct a repeated error of yours which is irritating me. The word is <b>innuendo</b>, not "enuendo".
MacM: I would like to continue with a few issues which arise from your last reply to me. I asked: You replied: Here you claim "the cause in UniKEF readily can be shown to result in MOND type deviations". So, I ask you: 1. What deviations are you referring to in MOND? 2. Can you please link me to where the same deviations are derived according to UniKEF? 3. Can you explain for me how the MOND deviations differ from the predictions of Newton's laws? These things should not be hard to answer, if the answers can be "readily shown". Further down, you said: Can you please explain what you mean by "elastic process"? And how can an elastic process result in attenuation? Earlier, I compared two expressions: I asked how you derived the UniKEF formula, and you replied as follows: By "tan to the -1" do you mean "inverse tan", or do you mean "1 over tan"? Are you aware that inverse tan is the same as arctan? I don't understand how this is a "natural factor". What is natural about it? Why not 3/pi, or 1/pi, or 2/3, instead? Did you simply adjust this parameter at random until your formula gave similar results to the relativistic formula, or did you actually <b>derive</b> the 2/pi factor somehow? If you derived it, please explain how. Oh, I have no problem believing this. But when you do that, aren't you starting from the wrong end of the problem? You're starting with the result you want to get and then working backwards, adjusting the maths until you get the desired result. That's exactly what you accuse the relativists of doing, isn't it? You are providing mathematics without a "cause". I thought UniKEF was supposed to overcome that problem. [edit to add:] Oh, and while I'm talking about this, I should ask what I consider to be the most important question here, which is: <b>What does the quantity Xu represent in UniKEF?</b> Xr is the relativistic Lorentz factor, which arises naturally from the postulates of relativity. It crops up in the Lorentz transformations (which are the fundamental coordinate transformations of relativity), as well as in the expressions for time dilation and length contraction. As far as I can tell, UniKEF includes some kind of length contraction. Am I right? But it includes no form of time dilation. Is that right? It contains no coordinate transformations that I have seen, so I wonder what Xu actually is. Please explain what it is, and why you would expect it to have the same values as Xr, given that UniKEF is so different from relativity. Thankyou. You also wrote: At this stage, I'm going to leave this until a little later, and go back to the fundamentals of your theory, and your evidential claims, because if the fundamentals don't hold up, neither does anything else which you say follows from them. I have similar issues with the above as ryans, though I will approach it in a somewhat different manner to him when I get back to it.
MacM: I'm now looking at the Introduction to UniKEF. I have some more questions and comments. Which "unreconcilable conflicts" do you have in mind here? So, are they just guesses? It seems to me that the calculus analysis does not actually support most of UniKEF. The most it might do is to show that UniKEF can, in one particular circumstance, reproduce the 1/r<sup>2</sup> force law of Newton. Do you agree? What is time-energy? Is that different from the UniKEF field, or the same thing? If it's the same thing, why use two different words? Are you saying the energy field (UniKEF) creates space? Since UniKEF is supposed to provided causes, can you explain how it creates space? Are you claiming that time is just an illusion? If so, why do we experience time flowing? Which ones are not preserved? True. Do you have a link or other reference to the NASA paper which found this? What exactly is a "gravity shadow"? I am not clear as to what deviated, or why. When you say "a 4.28E-9 deviation in gravity", is this a fractional difference in gravitational <b>force</b>, or field, or something else? How does UniKEF predict the acclerated expansion? (A brief hand-waving explanation will be fine for now.) Which objects are you referring to here? I hope it isn't those quasars we talked about before. If it is, don't you think you should drop this claim? Oh dear. Well, we'll just leave this for now, since it has already been discussed. Since it is an obvious flaw, it weakens your theory to keep it in. Do you have plans to remove this part later? What flaws are you talking about? Can you link me to more information on this, either on your site or elsewhere? Why does the abstract of the paper you refer to here call the result "paradoxical"? How do they resolve the paradox? Lots of claims here. Should I look at the "Addendums" etc. for more information on this? Who believes the vacuum of space is a "chiral condensate"? Do you have any references? What is a super solid? If it isn't understood yet, how do we know it is a super solid? What's the Klein Bottle of creation? I guess I'll need to look at this reference after you've answered my previous questions. Can you give me a few examples?
James R., ANS: You are absolutely right. That was not a typo, I have been miss-spelling that one for years. Thanks. PS: I have scanned your subsequent posts and find them quite good. I think we will have an actual discussion here for the first time since my becoming a member. Also I had already responded to about 50% of your next post and accidently hit "review" while trying to close out an intruder alert and when I truied to go back to complete the message it was gone. I now don't have time to finish before going to work and will have to do it this evening. Is this "review" a flaw in the updated software or what have I missed in using that feature in the future? Also while off topic and that others may also be interested. Have we lost the "Who's on line" feature we used to have?
I'm not sure. I haven't used that feature. No. Go to the home page. Scroll down to the bottom and click on "Currently active users".
ANS: The fact that the inverse square relationship of Newtonian gravity breaks down at galactic and larger levels. ANS: No. They aren't. As you know MOND is fairly recent. Perhaps I should have forseen that but I didn't. At the same time the same principle that prompted the view of "Quantitative Domain Limit", "Self interaction and attenuation of the field over distance" would via scattering account for the loss of the 1/r^2 relationship. ANS: Only in principle. As you know MOND is mathematical and simply adjust certain factors over different ranges of disatance for gravitating bodies. (BTW what is done here is the exact same thing you complained about me writting formulas to fit the result, which is also something I read regarding Einstein and his solution for Mercury's orbit - although others disagree on that issue). ANS: Elastic reactions are simular to two ball bearings colliding. They rebound and their energy transfers momentum but create little or no heat. The attenuation is in the form of reduced vector density. That is as it scatters it no longer follows the flux lines in the Cones of Sources and does not get applied to the secondary body. That leaves even less seperation push on the other body and results in a greater net "apparent" attraction. ANS: As you can see in the formula you are dividing degrees angle by 90 degrees, so you want the angle form, not the tangent value. It is atan, arctan, inverse tan or tan to -1 . ANS: Yes. But I have also been challenged before for using atan, arctan instead of the more standard form tan to -1 which I can't write properly in this text. ANS: Not the magnitude but pi and dealing with circles. ANS: It was choosen as a best fit solution. Not derived. ANS: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ANS: You would mean of course like they have done in MOND or the FTL illulsion case. Find a mathematical solution that describes the observation. ANS: No. They predict an "Affect" without a "Cause" ANS: Hardly a case of predicting an "Affect" without a "Cause". Producing an algorithum by arbitrary mathematics describing an "Affect" of a "Cause" is completely valid and standard. ANS: Those terms were arbitrarily assigned to represent the Relatistic function (1 - v^2/c^2)^.5 i.e. Xr and the same function from the formula we just discussed in UniKEF as Xu. You are correct in that I see a length contraction but no time dilation. Why would I expect them to correlate?. Well if they didn't the UniKEF concept would be in trouble since it must fit observation and data. I expect it to be consistant just as the finding of the inverse square function by UniKEF means was consistant. The Xu function is also based on geometry and trig. See Fig's 6 & 7. It incorperates a "Cause" for the Relavistic finding of such mathematical functions.
James R., ANS: We are going to not agree here but that is to be expected. I do not accept for example the concept of relavistic mass. I know you are going to say it is old hat and that you now use relavistic momentum. But that is nothing more than eye wash in that to get an infinite momentum one needs either an infinite mass or an infinite velocity. Since you choose to limit velocity to v = c then it must be based on infinite mass. To generalize and not discuss each and every relavistic function it can be summarized this way. I do not accept infinity as having any physical reality and any mathematical function that predicts an infinite result for some physical affect is flawed. This comes about because Relativity is a Mathematical Model and is not constrained by a Physical Model which would put limits on its applicability. ANS: The mathematics are by way of example but the underlying concept I feel is more than a guess. The initial assumption that gravity might be an externally generated phenomena could be viewed as a guess. But once that concept was shown to be viable, the rest can be extrapolated "assuming" the validity of a field causing gravity. That is not the same thing as making a bunch of disconnected guesses. ANS: This is a valid statement. The calculus is strictly for the production of gravity by an inverse square function. I don't want to read to much between the lines but your response here seems to have softened. If that is so and is because as you indicated you were going to do some mathematics yourself and you have and found that infact the UniKEF form of integration does result in an inverse square response, I think it fair to ask that you say so. If you haven't done the math then that is still recommended. ANS: I see space being created by energy flow, causing events including gravity, and that event information proagation through the space created provides for a sequential flow of events. We percieve that as time. The term is something like time-space in that it is a combined term. But I don't see time as an enity in of itself but more as a property of space and energy flow. ANS: They are the same. Actually I unfortunately also use acronyms tep and teu (time-energy units, etc). I need to unify my terms but I do define them in the text. ANS: Yes, it creates space. But no I cannot describe how that actually occurs. But then neither does Cornell University in their recent paper that has concluded the very same concept. ANS: Yes, I see time as an illusion of energy transfer causing change (events) and the event information propagating through the space forming sequences of events that we interprete as time flow. Now I have to admit this is the most difficult aspect of my concept to visualize and I too struggle with certain questions. i.e. How do I describe power as a function of work/time if time isn't somehow real. But I believe it can be explained and that if not it doesn't invlidate UniKEF. It just becomes a component that I haven't dealt with as being an independant enity. I tend to see it as a property of space not an enity in of itself. ANS: Time, v = c limit, infinity, singularities. ANS: Since you have asked I have started searching and haven't found any references yet. I did find a couple but they are issues still being researched and are looking more at gravity induced or inhanced convection of heat rather than causation of heat. That is it is clear that there is a heat/gravity correlation there may be other reasons than just heat production by gravity. i.e. - variation in the earths mantle could affect both heat transfer and gravity. So there may or may not be good reference to heat production. The article was from Science Today, April 1964 in an interview with Dr Anthony L. Hales, Dallas Southwest Center for Advanced Studies. I have e-mailed UT to see if he is still there or if they have any further information. It may be that this issued still has not been resolved in that there are a number of heat generating causes and alternative reasons for the correlation to occur. If that is the case then it is still an open issue. I have also posted a request for information from another site that has a theory that claims gravity heating occurs to see what information they may have. While not currently accepted in the mainstream it is published and is by a group of qualified scientists. ( edit: I have just received a response and I am being sent some citations and references on the subject). ANS: See "Summaries"/"Gravity Shadow". Also it is involved in the causation of the pertabations of gravity of multiple objects in alignments - i.e. the eclipse data. ANS: It was a measured deviation in gravity by a gravimeter of 4.2 micro Gal/980 Gal = 4.28E-9 ratio of change. ANS: Recall that space is being created by an energy flow. It would be expanding for as long as the energy continues to propogate. However, the visable universe in the form of galaxies etc, would be accelerated apart because the absorbtion of this energy induces a momentum transfer. In the interior regions of the universe where the flux is generally homogeneous and omni-directional the result is gravity as has been explained. But as one moves outward in the universe toward the earliest objects formed there becomes more energy (flux) from the interior pushing out than there is counter flux. So in affect they are free falling toward the edge of the energy sources. They are held in balance by the "Equivelency Principle" where the force of gravity on the interior face to the universe equals the force of acceleration at the exterior face of the body. That is you would not notice that you were getting gravity from only one side because of the acceleration the imbalance of gravity causes acceleration. The conclusion of that view was that object would not only be found to have higher and higher recession velocity as one moves out but that they would be accelerating as the outward flux increases and the inward flux decrease at the same time. At the very edge one would have a ratio of spherical volume/surface volume or x/0 = infinity (infinite velocity). Your Relativity mathematical Model would say velocity becomes infinite. But my Physical MOdel properly restrains that view to be limited to the "Qualitative Domain LImit" and it ceases to exist in this universe at v = c. There is a secondary feature in UniKEf that also results in the view that we would see such acceleration. The "Quantitative Domain Liimit" where time-space is dimensishing causes objects to become smaller from our perspective because we do not see them in their full energy strength field. This would cause an object that would appear to get smaller and moving with a linear velocity made to appear to be accelerating. PS: This same feature eliminates the need for "Dark Energy" and the correlation to the ideas of MOND eliminates the need for "Dark Matter". Funny how O'ccam's Razor works. ANS: No, I don't. Certainly not until I have seen the issue of the missing "Blue Shift" resolved as part of the illusion explanation. Further should there actually be some "Blue Shift" data it would have to be consistant for each observation otherwise it would only explain those as being of illusionary FTL. FTL observations without such Blue Shift would necessiarly be actual FTL. ANS: If there becomes a suitable explanation. See the Blue Shift arguement above. ANS: That it imposes a v = c limit. I know you disagree but I also have several papers by reputable scientist that also think this limit is in error. Perhaps time will tell. ANS: No. I am going to have to go surfing and see if I can retrieve some information on that. It was another case of having read an article years ago. These articles BTW were all from serious science magazines. That is about all I like to read. ANS: It would seem that the Red Shift data puts us at the center of the Big Bang. I know and understand the ballon analogy, etc but those fall short of solid explanations in a Physical Model view. AND: I don't believe they do. The link and paper are available and I suggest it is more logical to review that directly than it would be for me to try and convey such complex and vast material here. ANS: Yes. There is some discussions there. ANS: This is likely a mis-nomer on my part as has received considerable discussion here. I starting using the term because in surfing for information of vacuum energy, etc, the term was everywhere. But apparently it is a more specific term and I intend to change it the more general term vacuum energy. ANS: I can't believe this is the 4 - 5 time this issue has been raised. Once again. I didn't make up this statement. It was a comment made by the author (a physicist involved in the testing) about what they found in there high energy experiment. He didn't explain exactly what he meant but in that he was also talking about energy densities of 3E139 ergs/cm^3 or something on that order. It seemed obvious he was correlating E = mc^2. In which case energy density that high suggests more mass per cubic centimeter than all the mass known in our current universe. I think that qualifies as being something we might claim as being a Super Solid. Further I think it fair to say we (they) have no idea how such a substance can appear to be totally transparent to us and that we can move so freely about in it. ANS: I mean to convey here the idea that what we see as our universe is the contents of a Klien Bottle geometry of space (a 3D moebius). That is whatever might be inside the dimension at or below planck length is flowing and expanding here because the inside is also the same surface now of being on the outside. The universe then is a planck volume turned inside out. ANS: For one I found myself calculating the number of "pounds of Time" contained in the earth. While I didn't get a figure to compare my calculation to, I did recently see a paper that refered to the "Pounds of Time" containted in matter.
James R., I have started a search looking for information supporting prediction #5, things that don't fit the age estimate of our universe. I have found the following although they aren't discussing it in terms of being older than the universe but that it doesn't fit the age by some unknown process. Based on the initial list I got on this issue I think I am going to find a lot of interesting data here. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/07/10/universe.age/ http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=30255 More on point: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/age.html http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf107/sf107p03.htm
i think this is amazing....the world needs mor MacM's people that think around or throught rules to prove these wild ideas can be true to many people just don't belive in "faster than light travel"
Eggsited, ANS: Thanks but you probably just got yourself black balled. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Not unless he starts posting a couple dozen threads about his own unsupported (mostly non-existant) physical theory.
James R., Ignoring Persol's post and submitting the start of searchs for planetary heating by gravity. Here is planetary heating by gravity wave dissapation. http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~layoung/eprint/juptherm97.pdf Io is heated by tidal forces caused by Juipters gravity. This may be indirect but it is heat caused by the enfluence of gravity. http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/tidal_heating.html The following was extracted from a multipage article other issues but found this interesting. *********************** Extract *********************** There is only one problem with these ideas: the "excess radioactivity theory," and the "cosmic collision model" are both apparently dead wrong. Uranus, with no apparent core concentration of "heavy radioactive elements" (so said Voyager), yet the one solar system planet with an axial "tilt" consistent with a major interplanetary collision -- is barely radiating "over unity" at its distance from the Sun ("over unity"= more energy coming out than is going in); Neptune -- essentially Uranus' twin -- by striking contrast, and with a perfectly "normal" obliquity, is radiating almost three times more energy "out" than it's getting from the Sun. When these two planets are "normalized" (i.e., when their differing distances from the Sun are taken into account), their absolute internal "over unity" energy emissions, in fact, are just about the same. So, based on these "local" solar system observations, there's apparently something drastically wrong with current astrophysical theories relating to "anomalous internal planetary energy resources" ... the same theories that Dr. Susan Terebey and NASA are now relying on to tell them (and us) both the age and mass of her newly-discovered "runaway planet." ******************************************************** ((The thought does come to mind that one correlation for their like excess energy remains in their mass (gravity). Dan K. McCoin))
NOTICE TO ALL READERS: The rating system to these threads is not working correctly. I for the first time attempted to rate not only this thread by James R., but a couple of others. 1 - I did not rate it "Excellent" as the graphics seems to indicate. 2 - The other threads I posted a rating for didn't show up and I went back to vote thinking that it didn't take but it says "you have already voted and cannot change your vote". 3 - I voted this thread not for my own work or participation but for the fact that it appears this is the first and only time SF management has actually opened a thread for the purpose of critiquing a non-mainstream idea. 4 - The rating stands out like a sore thumb. Perhaps management can investigate why the system failed to function properly. 5 - I am posting this explanation before certain others make the rightful claim that I posted the rating in an effort to offset what would otherwise be an embarrassement implying ego, which it is not.
The rating is an average. A certain number of people must vote before a rating is displayed with a thread. That's why the thread rating doesn't instantly show up if you are the first person to vote. Once enough people have voted, the average of the votes is displayed with the thread. (I don't know how many people need to vote for the rating to be displayed.)
James R., I have held back on this link for planetary heating in that I recognize that Tom's theories are not well received in the mainstream. But his "Pushing Gravity" also contains a heating of planetary bodies and resulted in his theory (ow 25 years old) of the "Exploding Planet Hypothesis" to explain our current planetary body system and astroids, etc. http://www.metaresearch.org/solar system/eph/eph2000.asp
James R., The concept of multiverses is wide spread and support by highly qulified scientist of recognized institutions. http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/unikefassociatedgraphics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=17 http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000 http://www.templeton.org/humbleapproach/universe_multiverse/ Guth is another that suggests multiverses.
James R., Participation in this thread seems to be coming to an end. I want to close with the following. 1 - Thanks for having started the thread. Although I am disappointed that nobody has actually taken the opportunity to calculate the UniKEF concept of gravity and its inverse square origins (which is key to the theory having any validity what-so-ever), this string has at least afforded me the opportunity to give a better detail as to its formulation and others may actually at some point in time do their own calculation. That of course (assuming my claim is valid) does not prove UniKEF, but only shows it to be a viable alternative. Failure of the UniKEF integration would however, invalidate the entire concept. Hence it is key to any further discussion. 2 - The following link is one of the best write ups I have seen that encompass my view of Einstein and the Theories of Relativity. It goes without saying tht Relavitists are not going to be swayed but for those that still have an open mind and curiocity to understand our universe at its most basic level this is an excellent presentation. It encompasses all of my views. I intend to post this as a topic in its own right in that it shows the historical distortions about Relativity and Einstien. http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm I want only to note that based on Einstein's own statements I think the term hoax should be clarified as being a hoax more by others than Einstein himself. He seems to have recognized the limits of his work more so than those that artificially placed him on the pedestal and preach falsely his credits and the applicability of the theory to physical reality..
I sure hope you wasn't counting on us to do the math for you ? Where do you keep getting these URL's ??? For the last time: do not trust information from the internet. I skipped through the text until I saw the first formula, and it turned out to be ( 1 - (v/c)<sup>2</sup> )<sup>1/2</sup>. Not only does the writer of that text attach the unconventional B symbol to it (which is easily confused with the magnetic field, also very important in special relativity), while the conventional symbol is γ ... but also he incorrectly says that this factor is the Lorentz transformation, which ofcourse it is not. And he seems pretty convinced that this is all there is to the Lorentz transformation, because he keeps on using the wrong name for it... And then there is his proof for FTL travel, saying that the γ-factor becomes imaginary and how it could have a physical significance... Has been a long time since I had such a good laugh. Mac, when somebody does not understand the very basics of SR, then I surely would not trust anything else he has to say on the subject. Bye! Crisp
Crisp, Yea, I don't know why he didn't just use Gamma but then again I didn't either. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As far as "doing the math". I have done it long hand and got exeptional correlation. That prompted Dr Allard (Physicist) to do the calculus, which he said confirmed the viability of the concept. The point would be those that claim there is no validity but yet haven't shown a flaw in the existing mathematics. Thanks for your assessment.
Done the mathematics!? You don't present any calculations! There is a reason no one has done the mathematics. You haven't either! Have you ever read a technical paper? Have you ever written one? There are no equations, no mathematics and no references in any of your addendums! Oddly enough, this is actually a very familiar situation. I know of another person much like yourself who comes up with "theories". His name is Dr. Henry Morris. Dr. Henry Morris is a creationist. He sits back in his church funded "research facility" and puts together these hypothesis in all areas of science including biology, physics, astronomy and chemistry. Well that can't be so bad right? I mean he does have a doctorate degree. Do you know what he has a doctorate in? Hydraulic engineering!!!! His ideas are totally off the wall and he knows he cannot compete with real science so he writes books aimed at people who want to believe what he says, but do not know enough to see his flaws. I have read one of his books, and while I cannot point out the errors in his biology, I find what he says about physics to be blatantly wrong. The parallel between you, MacM, and Mr. Morris is not a perfect one, but quite similar nonetheless. You write with scientific sounding "made up words" so that no one can follow what you write, while skating the mathematics necessary to formulate a proper theory. If you think your ideas are so spectacular, why not submit them to a science journal? Oh, thats right, you have done no math and no research. You are pulling all of this out of you ass! Your education in engineering does not help you to formulate scientific theories because engineering is not science! Your background in engineering only gives you the ability to speak intelligably on scientific topics. What you say? Engineering is not science!? Thats outrageous! but true. Engineering does not follow the scientific method, rather it takes what is known from science and uses it to invent new conveniences. Your theory is strongly reflective of your engineering background. You have not done any science! My intent is not to degrade engineering in any way. Engineering is a very necessary and important part of our society, but engineers often go past their educational limits. If really look at what goes on in the world you'll realize that the physicists and mathematicians are the ones making the discoveries and the engineers are the ones making the inventions. Your theory is just an invention really. As an engineer, you take existing scientific theories and use them to your benefit. In this case you have over-stepped your bounds. You cannot engineer a scientific theory. You need research to first support your new idea and then you need the mathematics to back it up. You have neither. If you actually thought your theory could hold water, you'd submit it to an academic journal. Instead, you seem content to try to trick people with flowery language. Maybe you should collaborate with Mr. Morris. You two could probably exchange some good tips on how to fool people into actually thinking you did science. If you ask me, this whole theory seems more like a psychological experiment.
