UniKEF analysis

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

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Halloween,

    If your statements were true your comments would be appropriate. Since they are untrue it is either grossly in error or deliberate efforts to make a put down. I won't try to determine which it is but only respond to the facts.

    Nobody said anything about mathematics in the "Addendums". The mathematics I did have been explained but are not included in the "Abstract" itself, only in the original manuscript. However there are (8) pages of calculus available and James R., has been looking at them. That calculus was done by a highly recognized and qualified physicists, so the fact that my work consisted merely of a long hand integration which came within 0.5% of the correct curve, in no way speaks to the issue of mathematical validity. My findings were suggestive. Dr Allards, according to him were definitive. So unless somebody actually reviews his work and finds an error, their objection is hollow at best and slanderous at worst.

    With respect to the following: "You haven't either! Have you ever read a technical paper? Have you ever written one?"

    Yes I have and Yes I have. I have written and made a presentation to NASA. The simple fact is you know nothing aobut my experience and capabilities and are basing your opinion strictly on an "Abstract" which lacks much of the original detail of a theory formed 50 years ago when I was just a youth. While some of your comments may be valid in terms of those writtigs, they have little meaning today.




    The fact is there is no parallel between myself and your Mr Morris and I personally resent your comparison to a "Creationist". If you had gotten past the title and read the first paragraph of the Introduction to the "Abstract" you would have seen I make no bones about presenting something that is thought to be a spefically correct theory but only that it appears to have merit in a most general sense. I in no way attempt to "Hood Wink" people into believing what I say bears any scientific crediability. So your comparision and personal assualt are unjustified.

    I will only note your selfesteem clouds your own view of your own worth. Fortunately I do not have that opinion of myself or my work. Your comments would be more applicable should you offer an explanation of how such a preposterous theory from such a dummy as I supposedly am, could have made (8) rather bizzar (at the time) Priori Predictions" about the universe. Your assaults on me do nothing to address the real issues here and is so being noted. The only thing coming from sombody's ass is your statements which are without any basis and are substanitally flawed.

    Now tell us something that we all don't already know. I state clearly in the introduction that the theory is devoid any actual research and or mathematics. So what is your point?. It damn sure isn't a "I gottcha".

    So you think that explains why I took exception to mainstream scientific thoughts 50 years ago and propsed UniKEF, because I relied on the brain power of physicists and mathematicians.? Make up your mind I either duplicated existing thoughts, in which case your arguement might make sense, or I didn't and I disagreed with conventional thought and predicted many things that were thought to be rediculus at the time (which is the true state of affairs). You can't have it both ways.

    Your comments show your lack of knowledge concerning the claims and history of this work. It clearly has not been reduced to a level of submitting to a journal. But it has been reviewed by several physicists, Dr Allard, that did the calculus verification and two Physics Professors at Purdue University, Scientist at the US Army Research and Development Command, NASA, and others. While they and I know the work is far from complete, without exception they all encouraged me to continue with the work and none ever said "This or this is wrong or can't be". You can claim they were all being gracious but that would simply be untrue. The US Army went to the specific trouble and expense of having a German document (19 pages) translated into English and forwarded to me of material they felt coincided with my findings. This wasn't just a document they happened to have in English but according to their own letter, states that as soon as they could have it translated it would be forwarded and it ultimately was. A note between the Purdue Professors was left in the manuscript as they discussed having read the work. The comments were not directed to me but a discussion of the work between them. So your comments are way off track here.

    I do not disagree that in general those skilled in given areas excell in those areas but such education can also at times be an encumberance and discoveries are in fact made by outsiders in that they look at something without the tinted glasses of knowing what current thoughts on some issue are. This is frankly where I am afraid Physicsts (particularily Relativists) are. They are stuck in a rut assuming absolute faith in Relativity and fail to recognize alternative explanations for observations and data and are limiting real progress in many areas because of it.



    Well to me your comments are true to the belief that far to many physicists are being blind sided by their own education. Your comments are for the most part totally inappropriate and false.

    Have a nice day in your self-errected ivory tower
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Helloween Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    First, you grossly categorize physicists. I doubt that very many physicists have any sort of emotional attachment to the theory of relativity as you so strongly suggest. Perhaps it is you who is "blinded" by his eagerness for academic approval and greatness.

    Secondly, in order for new theories to be formed, old ones must first be proved incorrect. Yes, I see that you say objects have been found which travel in excess of the speed of light, but I see no references......to anything. I don't think anyone here is satisfied with your claim; so basically the need to ditch relativity has not been founded yet in this discussion. The burden of proof is on you to convince me of this. Otherwise I cannot and will not start searching for another explanation. You start with a link to your website which is poorly laid out. There are numerous misspellings such as "existance" and "relavistic". I can't find equations on your website anywhere! Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, which I sincerely concede to be my fault if, in fact you have spelled out your equation processes. The misspellings only tell me that you didn't even make the time to run the text through a spell-checker. How can I take that seriously!? I would understand if I could find more references, or somewhere where someone has taken the time to write a REAL paper on this, and I searched on google for UniKEF, but only found your website.

    I will admit that I lack extensive knowledge of your theory as you say, but to me, it really seems that you don't want people to really understand it. You make up so terms for things and do not properly spell out what they mean. At least with scientific journals I can read reports of what other physicists do and understand about 60%. Your theory as nearly everyone has told you COMES ACROSS AS AN ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE. So I think that you need to recognize this because your writing looks like a bunch of random techno-babble.

    Third, I don't believe you when you say your theory made 8 prior predictions. Again, this is why publication comes in handy. If you had submitted your ideas to a science journal, you would have grounds for this claim. So I guess this is just a 'yes you are no you aren't' argument until you can show me something that indicates you did actually start this theory in the 50's.

    Finally, I would feel left out if I didn't get to conclude with a sarcastic statement like yours.

    So keep quacking daffy.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Here Here!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Halloween,

    Before responding to this crap I just want to draw your attention to the fact that your post is not in keeping with James R., instructions for this topic. So I will respond this one last time but I have no intention of continuing this dialog with what is clearly BS from an over stuffed ego.

    I'll let the responses of the professionals speak for themselves. James R., has been guilty at times but at least he usually comes across with something that is germain to the discussion. There are others here that also generally find something constructive to say (sometimes, if not most times, that is actually a negative comment but constructive criticisim to he point) but there are far to many that have nothing worthwhle to say and waste everybody's time with self congratulatory comments about how only they, the educated professionals, can understand physics. That happens to be a crock. You certainly may know more than I or perhaps many others but what you know is only in a degree or depth and the ability to do the associated mathematics.

    General principles, including nuclear physics are well within my education and experience and there is nothing I do not understand about the principles and claims of Relativity.

    The emotional attachment you refer to shines right through most of those type of posts. Rather than address the question they go off on personal attacks of the poster. Frankly to me that shows a weakness in their ability to support their views and attempts to use authority as cover to not address the issue at hand.


    Yea, right. That is why I waited 50 years to post a web site and repursue the concept, I'm so eager. :bugeye: As far as greatness, frankly I have had enough of that for anyone. I'll not bother telling my lifes story here but I happen to have been world recognized in my field. My name and work was openly discussed at a symposium in Norway in the late 70's. So I don't really care if you or any academia snuggle up to my views.

    Now I can't tell if you are ignorant or just think everybodyelse is. That is a completely assinine statement without any merit what-so-ever.

    You clearly have not followed the many topics and discussions that have preceeded James's posting of this string. Nor followed the references James referred to that also appear in my posted information. It is not my statements it is those of mainstream science. Such FTL objects are almost common place anymore. Before you comment further you should understand at what level this discussion has reached. We have passed through and shown the many findings of FTL objects to a discussion on the retrofit mathematical fancy foot work to attempt to explain it away. Unfortunately there is still an issue of physics which hasn't been properly addressed to make that explanation valid. Actually it is such a glaring oversight I find it difficult to not believe the offered solution is a deliberate hoax to conceal the fact that these findings draw Relativity into serious question.

    References are many but you can start with searching "TON202".
    Then before you use the excuse given for those fidings you need to be prepared to explain why if something is made appear FLT because it is coming straight at you at relavistic subluminal speeds, there is no finding of a "Blue Shift". This trigometric illusion solution can only be valid if one were to see a "Blue Shift" not a "Red Shift".

    The only equations of any merit may be found under the "Documents" section which you can only access if you are a member but they are also available in the "Pictures". See Calculus Photo Album.

    You are correct I do not use a spell checker. I generally don't need to since I'd have to say I spell one hell of a lot better than most of the wet behind the ears generation that now must rely on spell checkers to get their name correct. I do try to correct mistakes (typo's) but I am not overly worried about it. Those that are need to find something more appropriate to do. I have done a lot of writing in my day and when something was published (I do have a published NASA paper) then I worry about grammer, spelling etc. But on this there is no need.

    I do not believe anybodyelse has used the UniKEF acronymn, although there are and I have made references to them, other theories that have in recent years been advanced in mainstream science which parallels the same theme.


    This is a valid complaint but it is as I have already said on this issue , mainly as a consequence of having tried to reduce a 200 page manuscript down to 40-50 pages and having left out a lot of illustrations and detail discussion. I do create some new terminology but what it means is generally explained. That doesn't make it techno-babble. James couldn't follow the UniKEF integration to yield the inverse square finding. I believe now he at least understands the process because it was discussed. Making false allegations is not the way to understanding. Asking questions and for explanations is.

    This issue has also been raised and addressed in the past. It would be difficult for me to prove (but not impossible assuming certain persons are still alive) but a look at the "Pictures" "Historical Documents" album has news articles, magazine articles and letters which show the existance of the theory as far back as 1969. (35 years). The fact that Dr Allard was a real person or was a Physicists has also been challenged but recently it has been shown that he is not only real but was a world recognized physicist of some stature. So I feel this "I'll call you a liar unless you can prove otherwise is not a strong position and is wholly unwarranted and unAmerican". Here you are innocent until proven guilty - supposedly. The evidence at least in on my side not yours. You have absolutely no basis to make such assertions against my integrity.

    I would be amiss if I didn't suggest that you show where my statement has any comparison to yours. I did make a swipe at your unjustified hollier than though attitude. I take this for what it is a cheap shot and sign of weakness attack.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2004
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: Unfortunately for you, you are one of the posters from the group that rarely has anything on point to offer and just make a lot of noise contributing nothing to a discussion.
     
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,507
    MacM,
    In your opinion are there any positive aspects or truths explained by Einstiens Theories?

    Is there any scientific value in Einstiens work? If so what are they?
     
  10. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    Unfortunately for you, I have given up a long time ago on trying to make valid arguements because you are a smuck. I see all these people here battling away to give valid counter responses that you blatently ignore or misinterpret. I get frustrated by your circular arguements but realise that one day they will give up on you. James R has a lot of patience with you but I do not know why he wastes his time, because there is little chance an old arrogant man like you is really listening. When was the last time Myself, Lethe, Crisp or Canute gave a serious response to one of your threads?

    Persol

    I see Persol is giving up on you too, and will probably turn to the method I have employed which is simply do throw abuse at you and distract the thread discussion as much as possible.

    James Do not delete this post. It applies to this thread as I believe the basis of the UniKEF theory is devoid at reasoning and is an attempt by the author to help him deal with death by believing that he has contributed to the pool of knowledge that humanity has created. He is biased and on the err of religious. You use of words is astounding and his concept of the scientific method is the null set.

    For example

    Why do you refer to Dr. Allard (Physicist) like this when it is someone who supports your theory but refer to Dr. Morris (who also has a doctorate) as Mr. Morris, who is generally seen as a crackpot to whom which you have been compared? Hardly an accident given the context with which the 2 were used. (And I hate the way you put physicist in brackets next to Allard. You tell us of for conforming to authority, but you blatently quote it to boost your arguement. Very inconsistent! Dumbass)
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    QuantumQuack,

    ANS: Absolutely. The primary complaint is really only two issues.

    1 - It is a mathematical theory devoid any physical restraints which would be present if a Physical Model were one also studied and developed. That is the workings of Relativity are generally accurate and useful but unrestrained by reality checks of a Physical Model the mathematics are leading us down ridiculus if not impossible paths and concepts.

    2 - I do get irritated by all the credit going to Einstien when in fact most of Relativity was developed by others, in particular it bothers me that so many persons refer to Einsteins great discovery of E = mc^2. That was concluded by J.J. Thompson while Einstein was still wearing nickers. I don't begrudge him his rightful due but he is given far to much credit and has wrongfully been turned into an icon based on work and coclusions of others with rarely amention of the errors tht he also made or the fact that much of what is claimed today was not said by Einstein.
     
  12. Helloween Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    40
    I don't see where ignorance comes into play here. I stated that people don't look for new theories to explain things if the current theory has not been shown to be incorrect or incomplete. Hmm... where else is that logic used. Oh yeah, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Gee, I guess I just don't see what's so ignorant about that logic.



    Ok, I've searched for TON 202. Astronomers do not believe that the quasar is moving faster than the speed of light.

    As for that statement, I don't even know what the hell you are talking about. You cannot assume the star is coming at you because you DO NOT KNOW THAT THE STAR OR QUASAR IS COMING AT YOU. What are you going to do, fly out to the star and see that it is moving toward you?

    That is beside the point. The reason TON 202 appears FLT is that as the object rapidly expands, it undergoes population inversion, giving off lower frequency red spectral light. Astronomers previously understood this to be a redshift, but since have realized that it is actually a laser light affect.

    Hey, isn't that interesting. I bet most of the people here can actually understand my post. How refreshing.

    This is no proof that anything is moving FTL.
     
  13. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    995
    You are wrong. If you have a look at the guts of relativity theory, cresit is given where it is due. The group of transformations that leave the space-time coordinates invariant is known as the lorentz group, and the group that leaves invariant the space-time distance invariant is known as the Poincare group.

    This is what it is like. Einstein was the musician, he put all the peices together in a way that no-one else knew how to do in a self-consistant manner. Lorentz and Poincare were the producers, who, within the industry get wide acclaim, but to the dumbass lame outsider look like they do not get the credit they deserve. Further it is questionable whether the producers could have sung the same tunes to the quality of the musician.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I love your style. It has been so consistant for so long. The only discussion that I care to remember is the one where you claimed that Pi changed for a rotating merry-go-round. You nor anyone here ever sasifactorily showed that to be the case. The false claim was being made (Which I pointed out) that a person measuring the circumference by crawling around the m-g-r would get a different measurement if the unit was at rest or rotating. And that meant the value of the relationship we refer to as Pi (diameter vs circumference) of a circle had to change.

    That of course is kindergarden level stupidity since the mans ruler will also change an equal amounts and he will get the same measurement. You never got over that little arguement and you have been pissed ever since. Sorry about that but when I am right, I am right, and when you are wrong, you are wrong.

    As far as Lethe, Crisp or Canute, yes we have our disagreements but frankly they have all from time to time made positive contributions and I have even been able to have civil PM dialog from time to time. James R., has indeed shown more consideration and I hope by his having started this thread can now say that at least it isn't total BS. I do believe that he now at least understand the gravity concept (not saying he agrees with it but that it isn't just pie in the sky and further that there is indeed a Dr Allard and that he is a physicist).

    For you, of all persons, to refer to me as a "Smuck" can be taken as a compliment. When you have gotten out of diapers and reached my age perhaps you will have learned that you aren't quite as smart as you think you are.



    Actually I saw a bit of improvement in Persol's comment. "Almost non-existant" is far better than "Non-existant"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    At least for once you are being honest. Your only purpose of posting is to distract. Not to address issues.


    Actually I would expect James R., to respond a bit differently than you might expect. But I shall wait and see.

    I'll ignore your unwarranted personal attacks and stick to the issues you raise here.

    I'm sure you recall that more than once I have been called a liar here. It was said that Dr Allard wasn't a real person. That I made him up. It has been said that Dr Allard, if he existed wasn't a Physicist qualified to make any judgements. (Which is typical BS since any person knowing calculus could make such a judgement) but further it turns out Dr Allard is not only real, not only a Physicist but a world recognized Physicists in his area or field.

    Dr Morris as it was pointed out was a specialist in hydraulics or hydrodynamics but of more import was the stipulation that he is a "Creationist" that had advanced what was claimed as clearly falseiviable theories. If there is anything worse than the dogma of Relativitist it is the dogma of "Creationist".

    Each to their own but I personally detest "Creationists". It would be strange indeed for me to not respond to the above innuendo and false allegations by emphasizing Dr Allards qualifications and role.

    There is indeed considerable difference to appealing to authority (which you love to do) and simply clarifying the truth that the man not only exists but was a qualified Physicist. I at no point have claimed he believed in UniKEF or supported it. I presented his work just as he presented it to me with the stipulation that it showed UniKEF gravity to be a viable concept mathematically but that it did not mean it was so.

    BIG difference. Shame you are to thick to understand that. You really should try to return to school and learn some manners and communications skills.


    PS: I heard from Dave last night. He is the one I have mentioned here that became a member on UniKEF because he saw simularities in our views and has written extensively mathematically supported views that do encompass some of the concepts of UniKEF. His work has passed (4) out of (4) by Physicists to be printed in a Journal in the next 3 - 6 months. So you can take your jilted ego and stuff it.

    Once he is published I aim to get his permission to post his an my correspondance and link you to his work and then you can set on it and rotate.
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2004
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Helloween,

    ANS: Nothing wrong with the logic. It just happens to be in error. I find it difficult to believe that you actually believe your own statement. Theories are, as has been said here a dime a dozen, and there is no shortage of theories, none of which are based on having overturned Relativity. They are based on alternative views of the observations and data relied on by Relativity to claim its case. You can't really suggest that there are no other theories or research going on out there and that the world is unanimous behind Relativity?. You can assert they are all quacks or don't have the knowledge or understanding to challenge Relativity but that too would be false. This is not saying that a lot of the theories are defective for sure but many are by very notable scientists. Does Relativity support "Creation ex nihilo"? Funny Prof Tryon does, S. Hawkins does as do a dozen other highly qualified people. So the fact that UniKEF (me) does, doesn't make me a crackpot as has been asserted. It is a view within the main stream. I find you are simply mistaken on your view of theories.

    Now I would agree the acceptance of new theories is not likely to occur unless it shows current theory flawed or that it provides something not provided by current theory but that is titally different than claiming new theories wait for the failure of current theory.

    The fact is current theory would not likely ever be over turned if other theories were not in competition with it.


    ANS: Nobody said they did. What they said was that the ejecta from the Quasar was substantially FTL. Of the top four such objects the measurements were as high as 5,200 c. They were trying to blame "red Shift" as being a false concept.

    ANS: Good then you agree with me that the supposed solution proposed by the relativists is BS nonsense at worst and unproven at best. The fact is their solution is mathematically valid but only if such objects were to be coming directly at you a relavistic but subluminal speeds. The problem is how can you prove that is the case and further how can it be the case if there is no "Blue Shift" in the data?

    ANS: We happen to agree here. But that hasn't been the point. The arguement has been that All the FTL observations were caused by this relavistic illusion; which simply didn't hold water and was an AD HOC patch
    to salvage Relativity. Those argueing that position and calling me to stupid to understand were just making noise since I very much understood. I just didn't agree with that solution and even if it were to supply the answer to some observations, if it didn't (and it doesn't) explain them all then FTL observatons were still there to be explained and simply claiming they aren't real because Relativity says so is not an acceptable answer.


    ANS: Agreed. There is no proof but there is unexplained observations and no proof that the current interpretation of Relativity isn't actually flawed and FTL is possible. My position has been that it is long past time that such issues be taken seriously and investigated, not on how to explain it keeping it consistant with Relativity using trick mathematics as assumptions but to explore the Physical Model and either verify Relativity, amended it or scrap it as is warranted by the findings. What is wrong with that logic?
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2004
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    ANS: Bold reply. Shame it is simply in error.

    ANS: No disagreement here. Einstien should get credit for having compiled these other works into a mathematically consistant package. But that is not what is done. Einstien is credited for having discovered Relativity. He didn't. He is credited for having discovered E = mc^2, he didn't". Those are the simple facts. Others are mentioned but only in passing.

    ANS: Your repeated habit of reducing your arguements to such statements clearly shows who the dumbass really is.

    ANS: We happen to agree on this point, but only that it is questionable. I think it would have been likely in time that others might have also made the connections and put it together. The only difference is that had Einstein not done so when he did, in all likelyhood the inconclusive but evidence that had been generated by subsequent testing of the ether concept would likely have preceeded that outcome and today we would be working with Lorentz Relativity instead of Einstiens Relativity.

    BTW: Since others have choosen to not answer this question, let me give you the opportunity to shirk it as well.

    QUESTION: What is your explanation for the announcement at the November 1977, American Astronomical Society Convention that testing data showed that the Earth was moving at 700,000 Mph through the CMBR. How do you reconcile that information with the "No ether, no absolute reference claims of Relativity?"
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2004
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Then who did?
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    ANS: You might try Lorentz. He developed both Beta and Gamma terms and his mathematics are the underpinnings of Relativity's mathematics. See the following extract from the link given.

    **************** Extract ***************************

    Independently of this, in 1904 Lorentz proposed a much more comprehensive theory which, if valid, not only explained the null effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment but provided a supplement to Maxwell's theory. It implied that any experiment with material systems, carried out on bodies moving uniformly with respect to each other, would give exactly the same result; so that it would be impossible to tell, from an experiment confined to a body, whether the body was at rest or moving uniformly through the ether. Lorentz proposed that the movement of a material body through the ether produced a contraction in the direction of motion and a slowing down of all rhythmical processes by a factor of:



    ß = (1 - v²c²)½


    ß (alternatively µ) is used to denote the relative velocity coefficient between the two coordinate systems, where v is the velocity of a body and c the speed of light. Conventionally,


    L = L'ß


    where L and L' are the length of fixed and moving measuring rods in the two coordinate systems referred to below. Lorentz showed that if these physical effects were a reality the relationship between the coordinates (x,t) of an event referred to one coordinate system, and the coordinates (x',t') of the same event in a second coordinate system moving uniformly in the x direction relative to the first is given in terms of relative motion by:


    x' = x - vt

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

    (1 - v²c²)½


    t' = t - vx/c²

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

    (1 - v²/c²)½




    These expressions became known as the Lorentz Transformations, and are as important in mathematical terms as Maxwell-Lorentz's electromagnetic theory is invariant to them; i.e. the Maxwell-Lorentz function remains unchanged when the Lorentz Transformation is applied. If, for x and t in these equations, we substitute the values given in the Lorentz Transformation, we obtain identical equations with x' and t' taking the place of x and t and with v changing to -v. This guaranteed that all measurements made on the two bodies, in uniform relative motion with velocity v or -v, when interpreted in terms of the theory, would be related in the same way so that no physical observations confined to one body could distinguish the motion of one body from the other. It would still be possible, by comparing observations on the two bodies, to detect their relative motion. This proposal became known as Lorentz's Relativity Theory.

    Lorentz entitled his paper ‘Michelson's Interference Experiment: Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity less than that of light’ implying that, unlike the later theory of Einstein, his proposal did not prohibit velocities greater than the speed of light. Like Maxwell, Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, postulated a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and ether. Einstein had no qualms about abolishing the ether and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae meaningless without it; he was the first to discard verifiable physical laws altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory. A more recent example of such a scheme was that proposed by Hugh Everett, who used Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of 1927 to argue that with every laboratory experiment, and also with every decision a person makes, the universe splits into additional universes.

    http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Obviously, that site is worthless, too, given the above uninformed drivel.
     
  20. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,339
    Oh dear, this thread is going completely wrong.

    Very amusing to see how MacM tries to clamp onto his claim that Relativity is useless crap, invented by a fraud, even though the entire scientific establishment on this forum is saying otherwise... Even though they have demonstrated to know the theory of relativity, while MacM keeps on coming up with bogus sites that pretend to be scientific (but are not) and on first sight appear to support his claims (but usually turn out not to do that).

    Very amusing to see how MacM keeps confirming to himself that in all threads that we discussed IN LENGTH with him he "won", see the reference to the Pi & rotating frame thread. An unfortunate distortion of the truth, but then again, you don't seem to listen anyway.

    Very amusing to see MacM claiming people are arrogant even though he is quite arrogant in saying that SR has no physical foundation even though he has never opened a book called "Beginners introduction to Special Relativity". We explained most things four times over already, but you don't seem to listen to our explanations anymore, since we are scientists who do not agree with your ideas.

    Very amusing to see how all these misconceptions about physicists are dug up once again. I am pretty sure that by now you feel strengthened in your idea that "the scientific community is a bunch of arrogant Einstein-worshipping close-minded pigs". Funny how fast people can forget the patience that we all showed initially, trying to explain where MacM was wrong in his ideas. Perhaps it has to do with your inability or refusal to learn something from the physics explained to you ? Funny that nobody of us has ever worn a t-shirt saying "Einstein is my personal hero"... face it MacM, even us physicists acknowledge that he did not came up with SR on his own, but that he was the right man at the right place... However, he was the first to put all the pieces together, so he gets the credit. But we already told you this many times, but appearantly you do not seem to listen, or it is exactly you who is too close minded to listen to people who know what they are talking about... quite a change from the websites you read I'd say.

    My proposal is that you, MacM, either come up with something scientific, or get your posts moved to either pseudoscience or philosophy, whichever you prefer. I am seeing that James' patience is running out aswel (about the only reason why you haven't gotten completely banned here), so he will probably do it for you quite soon unless you show that you have learned ANYTHING at all in the last year that you are here. And well, if that doesn't happen, you will get ignored anyway, just spamming this forum with your threads between the more honest and open-minded questions from people who are eager to learn.

    Lovely. What journal has it been submitted to & is there a pre-print available ? How is this Dave related to you ? How is his work related to your ideas ? Is this just something you did not completely understand and that we are going to have to explain to you again once it gets published ? I see you write "encompass some of the concepts of UniKEF"... is this like when some of the HEP papers talk about "chiral condensates", you just copy the words without knowing what they mean and then claim your results have been found by others ? I hope you understand that by now most of us have gone very sceptic about what you refer to as "recommended reading"...

    Oh... and I won't be stuffing my "jilted ego" up anywhere just yet... I'll first wait and see.

    Bye!

    Crisp
     
    Last edited: Jan 23, 2004
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    ANS: Funny how these two quotes seem to say the same thing with regard to ether when one is by Einstein and the other is drivel. The only error in your claimed drivel is to have said it was Einstein that abolished ether. He didn't. He basically believed in an ether, he simply said it is not required for our calculations. Big difference. Unfortunately the academians seem to have lost there senses in that regard.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2004
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Crisp,

    ANS: We agree on that but it is not I that has taken it in that direction.

    ANS: Your assertions appear to be a bit distorted don't you think? From my response above.

    QuantumQuack,

    Quote:
    MacM,
    In your opinion are there any positive aspects or truths explained by Einstiens Theories?

    Is there any scientific value in Einstiens work? If so what are they?


    ANS: Absolutely. The primary complaint is really only two issues.

    1 - It is a mathematical theory devoid any physical restraints which would be present if a Physical Model were one also studied and developed. That is the workings of Relativity are generally accurate and useful but unrestrained by reality checks of a Physical Model the mathematics are leading us down ridiculus if not impossible paths and concepts.

    2 - I do get irritated by all the credit going to Einstien when in fact most of Relativity was developed by others, in particular it bothers me that so many persons refer to Einsteins great discovery of E = mc^2. That was concluded by J.J. Thompson while Einstein was still wearing nickers. I don't begrudge him his rightful due but he is given far to much credit and has wrongfully been turned into an icon based on work and coclusions of others with rarely amention of the errors tht he also made or the fact that much of what is claimed today was not said by Einstein.


    ANS: I challenge you to support this statement.

    ANS: Lets keep this in context. I mentioned one topic and it was specifically aimed at ryans that likes to pretend to be so smart when he actually commits major flubs more often than others here.

    I surely hope that you aren't prepared to argue that a person crawling around the circumference taking measurements will see any difference in the measured circumference regarless of the m-g-r being at rest or in motion. If you do then I'll have to reassess my opinion of you.

    Understanding that such arguement is uter nonesense I find it difficult for you or anyone to claim that I was in error and lost. the fact was and remains that I was right and still am right, so this slap is against yourselves not me.


    ANS: More typical unsupported and wholly false BS. The m-g-r arguement in fact started because I pointed out that Brian Greene in his "The Elegant Universe" had made the typical flaw in presenting Relativity that many others had (and some members here did) with the m-g-r analogy.

    ANS: Oh, I listen. But fortunately I know enough to not turn over my senses to have them molded by GIGO. i.e. - like believing that one will measure a change in the m-g-r because it is in motion or like believing in a relavistic illusion as a proper explanation for the FTL findings when "Blue Shift" data is absent and not even mentioned or like "Simultaneity" resolves the 3 Clock Paradox when we are considering only clock rates and not absolute clock accumulated times.

    ANS:There is the other alternative. That is that you refuse to acknowledge the failures here to properly resolve such issues as mentioned above and choose instead to make false allegations against those that point out such short comings and hence the allegations that some academians are indeed pig headed is true.

    ANS: It is strange indeed each time we reach a point where clear negatives can no longer be made regarding my posts, the group here seem to open up all these estraneous issues and start arguements and calling names. You see I was perfectly happy to follow James R.'s, instructions and keep this on topic. It is not I that raised all this supurflous crap. It seems whenever this site gets in a corner it wants to throw stones to get out of its box. Funny how that has always been the case.

    ANS: Let me give you a proposal. Get back to the topic at hand. You might start by giving an actual calculation that shows my view as supported by Dr Allard about the origin of the inverse square force of gravity is in error. Not having done that all your BS about my lack of knowledge, understanding or not having anything scientific of value is utter fabrication and worthless comment, merely to avoid having to admit there may be something there.

    ANS: I would hope James R., isn't getting impatient but if he is he should recognize that it has not been I that started this round of off topic BS in the first place. I would hope that he actually does what he suggested he might do which is run a check on the calculus. Not having done that there is very little more that can be said that has any meaning at all about this string.

    ANS: That does appear to be a tinted view or another way of saying people with less understanding than I that are willing to accept any answer because they were told it is so here.

    I know the Journal but won't say until he is published. I don't know about pre-print availability but I do have some of his work on site.

    ANS: No relation what-so-ever.

    ANS: I could name 3-4 things right off the top of my head but I won't because it is not at issue here and further because I prefer to let him tell you at the appropriate time. (Wouldn't want you claiming I misunderstood his work)

    ANS: Since he came to me with the suggestion that we say things much a like, I really have my doubts don't you?

    ANS: No unfortunately for you it is much deeper than that. PS: I have never made claims of the nature you aledge. I have said many of my predictions have been found true. But that is a fact. Now if my basis for having made those predictions is valid or not is another matter. My point has been that it is suggestive that perhaps there is an underlying reality in the concept but that remains to be determined

    ANS:LOL

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ANS: That is a most fair position to take. Although I never said YOU have a jilted ego that was directed at the poster to which it was in response.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2004
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Note to readers:

    I have inadvertently made comments under another thread "Hoax - FYI", 8:14AM, 23 Jan 04, that are directed at this thread but since it is rather long and also includes other material not appropriate here, rather than post it here also I'll simply note it here for your consideration.
     

Share This Page