UniKEF analysis

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

  1. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    (regarding my remark concerning the validity of the sites you post)
    I consider that done by James, many others and even myself. We have pointed you out to obvious mistakes in the articles and sites. Sorry, but the authors show not to comprehend even the basic concepts of what they try to debunk or refute, then I consider the discussion closed. You cannot talk about stuff you don't know.

    To be completely honest, I have no opinion on this matter since it is a situation that requires the use of acceleration in a relativistic context. I do not know how to handle this scientifically and mathematically, so I keep my mouth shut.

    However, that does not change the fact that others did explain the problem and the solution to you in (more or less) plain words. And I remember vividly the entire discussion because you did not agree. Eventually everyone with scientific background on the problem backed out and you claimed victory. I do not call that victory, I call that boring away people

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You DO that the universe is expanding ? You do know that this causes a redshift and not a blueshift ? Then are you complaining about the lack of blueshift data ?

    Hrm, partially true. Ever thought why most of your issues do not get properly resolved ? Are you always right and we always wrong ? It appears that you are saying that here.

    *sigh* ... This is funny. You first present a calculation which is obviously not complete, which you have said yourself not to completely understand. Now you are saying "hey, if you want to prove this wrong, then you better do the math yourself and show me where I was wrong"...

    Sorry Dan, I am not going to do your homework. If you want to have a discussion here, then YOU do the math, we'll go through it on the forums here and then we'll say it went wrong... But then you need to have calculations that you can explain, since just a bunch of formulas on paper are no good.

    Why won't you say ? I am not influential enough to stop its publication. No-one except the editor-in-chief or both the referees is. Surely there must be some kind of preprint available somewhere, can't you check with him ?

    Oh please... You pretend to do science and then you say that you are making claims without knowing if the basis is valid or not. Doesn't that make it a guess by definition ? How can you claim your "priori" if it is simple guess ?

    Let me make a guess to: "there once was life on mars". If they discover it somewhere in the next weeks, then I claimed it! It is my invention! And I have an explanation to get to this claim aswel, by way of example: there is life on earth, so there should also be life on mars. But now we see it is all dried up, so it is gone, but there once was life.

    This is obviously not science! Or are you going to admit that all this claims/prioris of yours are not really scientifically based ?


  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: I'll admit to having posted some links which had questionable content. However, my point and challenge went to the aspect that I had posted information that supported my view but that it didn't. that challenge still remains (alsthoug I would appreciate it placed into another thread and for this thread to get back to the issue at hand). Also not all links you have scoffed at are infact such links, some are by highly recognized scientist that simply disagree with your views and it isn't a strong arguement to simply say "They are stupid and don't know what they are talking about".

    ANS: That is an acceptable response. However, I do believe you did participate in the original topic, further your hesitation shouldn't be a valid reason to bid off taking a position since the whole issue is the fact that it doesn't matter if contraction by SR occurs at the rim and/or if contraction occurs by GR in the radius. The simple fact is whatever contraction may be induced also affects the rulers being used to make the measurements in those axis and the measured distances do not change hence the calculation being made does not change. But you are now off the hook on this one.

    ANS: If you have such a good recollection of tht discussion then you should also recall that each an everyone that said I was wrong wanted to claim other view points (i.e - measured by a person at rest relative to the m-g-r. Those were not the the conditions of the otiginal complaint I had filed. They spent a lot of time trying to jpretend to teach me things that I clearly already knew and distrearded my repeated efforts to get them to address the actual issue which was Brian Greene error in making the presentation and the fact that other such erroneous presentation were shown to having been made when it came to explaining Relativity. Argueing about different geometries (which I already knew about) had nothing to do with the issue and their claims to trying to each me something were false from the start since I already knew about it. It was their short sightedness, stubborness and stupitidy that caused the lengthy debate. Nothing in that discussion was ever mentioned that wasn't already a known issue. But nothing in that debate ever addressed the actual topic of discussion and that was the measurements as being made by those traveling with a moving m-g-r.

    So all the name calling (as we see here) was wasted hot air on their part since they failed to recognize the sillyness of their position. Tell you lwhat I'm going to do. I'm going to one of those "Ask a Physicist" sites and propose a question about Brian Greenes statements and other such analogies and you tell me how much money you want to put on what their answer will be in one or two sentances. If they agree with my statements you owe me. If they don't I owe you. Then you are going to have to explain why it is that this MSB would spend weeks argueing over something this simple and wrongfully claim I am stupid and just don't understand. When they are clarly (for anyone with a grade school education can see Relativity has no bearing on the solution what-so-ever. You up to this challenge?

    [1uoate]You DO that the universe is expanding ? You do know that this causes a redshift and not a blueshift ? Then are you complaining about the lack of blueshift data ?[/quote]

    ANS: Yes but only with respect the the claim that all FTL observations are explained by the relavistic subluminal velocity of object coming directly at us.

    1 - There simply is no evidence showing that is the case, although it is recognized as a viable possibility and that such observation would indeed cause the apparent illusion.

    2 - The failure to see any "Blue Shift" draws into question the very suggestion that such objects are moving relavistically toward us in that fashion. You can't claim the illusion as a cover for the otherwise failure of Relativity when there is no evidence of "Blue Shift" which would mean they were moving toward us not away from us (Red Shift).

    ANS: I know why I receive the treament I do.

    1 - My first night here I made the opening mistake of claiming "Relativity Sucks"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    2 - I offered some alternative concepts wich are far from mathematically supported or worked out in sufficient detail.

    3 - I do agree until I am convienced others are right and if there are alternatives I insist that they all be considered and not favor one over the other without due cause.

    4 - I have stepped on to many toes. Perople, rightfully proud people, don't like being shown up by somebody they have been calling a "Crackpot". It makes retractions of simple errors virtually impossible and the need to find other issue to argue about or to just throw out slander is a defense against having to admit an error.

    No I am not always right but more importantly nor am I always wrong. Actually I am right more than amybody might give credit for since rejecting Relativity as "The" answers doesn't necessarily mean I find relativity wrong. That simply means there are viable alternative views to achieeve the same result but have important advantages to a logical universe. I full well recognize that the universe does not have to be logical but I don't hve to assume it isn't just to favor one theory over others.

    [color-red]ANS: You still misrepresent the facts. The calculus should be complete. If it is not then certainly that makes it more difficult to evaluate. However, the process is complete and it has been explained in sufficient detail that any mathematician should be able to verify the conclusion.

    ANS: You aren't doing my homework. I did that most likely before you were born or at least were still in diapers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My point was that it had been the arguement since day one that there was no math to check. The fact is that there is. NOw it has beccome well we aren't going to do that math. Doesn't really add up to me but then that is OK. I do intend to have it re-done with step by step explanation and I will post it here. Lets see how many will actually bother to verify the conclusion.

    ANS: Yes, I will ask about pre-print copies. But it simply isn't my jplace to step in and start distributing his work or making specific references to his work. He as I have spent years doing what we do. He however is a qualified person and has done his own mathematics. I really can't wait until he is jpublished and I can post here what he has achieved. It is fascinating. but I know that recommendation will not likely cause him to achieve Best Seller. At least not here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    . However, (4) Physicist have unamimously agreed to the publication.

    ANS: As I have said before. The basic concept and idea that gravity is like I claim can be rightfully called a guess. But it was based on logical crieteria. However, once the correct curve was sown to be present, what followed, while supposition, are not guesses. They are ramifications or consequences of the assumption of the UniKEF field based on the apparent viability of the gravity concept it provides.

    The Priori's are not based on simple guesses. They were based on consequences of such a field. It is therefore why I calim the subsequent findins suggest the basic concept while admittedly in its enfancy and incomplete may indeed bear some underlying truth.

    ANS: Why is it they persons here find they must distort issues in an effort ot discredit them.? Clearly your priori above is not based on any aspect of Martian history, chemistry or such. You have made a simple statment (which I also happen to believe, that the ws once life on Mars)

    My priori's are not like that. They follow from lengthy considerations of the basic UniKEF premis.

    ANS: I only claim I made these Priori's and that they were based on the UniKEF concept. It remains to be seenif any of UniKEF has been or can even become scientific in technical terms. But it damn sure isn't BINGO.

    My only complaint about your jpost is that it is in approptiate to the analysis and is only an effort to stop any such analysis.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Acually James I think this thread needs to be moved to the philosphy forum as the issue here is more about INTEGRITY and not science.
    Clearly the posts in the main have denigrated down to this issue. MacM is defending his integrity and so are others.

    It is not a question of science as this question has already been answered.
    It is one merely of integrity and motivation and thus contravenes the rules of this thread.
    I get the impression that if one wants to rely on integrity as an answer to a question then the answer is obviously flawed. From what I understand proof of fact is not dependent on the integrity of the postulator. Proof is dependent upon the proof and not the prover.

    MacM I think it should have finished then, as to argue credibility issues are both demeaning to yourself, those on the offensive and those that read this thread.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Quantum Quack,

    ANS: I don't agree but I do think posts after the one you site should be deleted. Helloween, not finding the calculus, started the thread down hill by attacking me. I actually PM'd James R., at that point and told him I expected things were going to slide since ryans had jumped on board with Helloween's challenge.

    Why James didn't continue to monitor and enforce his rule for this thread is a question but he hasn't and this is the result.

    AS: We agree.

    ANS: On this we agree. However, the subsequent diatribe should be removed and not remove the primary thread which had stayed on topic to that point. The issue remains open pending verification of the calculus. Which because of how this thread progressed, and the apparent unwillingness of those that complained about the lack of mathematics to verify, seem not to want to actually do any verification, I plan to get a second calculus presentation done which is more formal. The original was done informally for my edification and not as a presentation.
  8. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    You are the only person on this forum whose threads have to be constantly babysat. Consider that there might be a reason your threads always fall to this level.

    Making no comments on how valid your theory actually is, what you have presented on this board is not scientific and does not appear to be valid. Yet you claim that it is, link to incorrect sources (still claiming that you know the science), and usually resort to attacking relativity with strawmen.
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: This is clearly off topic but as long as James R., allows such posts, I am going to continue to defend against them. Hopefully he will restore the intent of this thread.

    ANS: LOL

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You start with the statement "Making no comments on how valid your theory actually is..." and then proceed to attack it by innuendo and speculation rather than by actual evaluation such as verifying or invalidating the calculus. That is the primary reason threads are repeatedly sent off course.

    Not that I have not from time to time been prompted to stir the pot by issuing a hostile post in response, just as QQ has indicated. But the primary cause of this is made abundantly clear by ryans openly admitted soul purpose of doing so is to derail any topic I post. Others either do the same or rapidly join in the kill once somebody has. This is not a complaint but merely stating the facts.
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    You are completely missing the point. How are we supposed to verify or invalidate calculus when you can't even tell us what it does, and what you think it says we don't see there. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here in that it is only your presentation that sucks. If you wish to take that as an attack on your theory then so be it. You said it best yourself:
    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.

    You do not seem to understand that 'those writings' are all that you have presented us... so yes, they do have meaning. They are the only place where your much flaunted theory is actually found, and you yourself accept that it is not formulated well. Hell, it is your theory and you have problems explaining some of the comments on the site. Everything you have provided us was 'formed 50 years ago' and 'lacks much of the original detail'... yet you claim that it is better. You haven't shown us anything in any detail at all.

    Noting that, I don't see how you disagree with:
    what you have presented on this board is not scientific and does not appear to be valid
    you link to incorrect sources often
    you almost always end up attacking relativity with a non-issue

    These are clearly issues with your presentation. And while they are some of the main reasons I think your theory is bunk, my point was that you do this in most of your threads... and this is why jamesr is forced to babysit you.
  11. Crisp Gone 4ever Registered Senior Member

    I would like to get quoted on that. With reference.

    I did, but in a side-discussion that took place in that thread (regarding SR if I remember correctly). If otherwise, I would like to get quoted on that. With reference.

    Oh, I can immediatelly respond to that. Because there is no discussion there, they explain your question from a scientific point of view, and then there is no response to that anymore. You'll notice how the first posts by scientificly educated people to your threads are always quite brief (unless your original post was very very long, you do have that tendency). Everything that happens afterwards is usually your "I disagree, this is not true, ..." circle of arguments.

    Many before you have done this, and many before you have received very civilized treatment here by most scientists here. I welcome Prosoothus to disagree if this is not true. The difference is that those that came before you showed an intention to learn, and not keep on saying "no, I do not believe that". As I explained in the Hoax thread, we can only give you a translation of what is calculated in words... If you want the full story, study mathematics!

    Count me in. On the condition that I have time to do it (should not be too much of a problem), and that it is indeed with a step-by-step explanation, with all symbols properly defined. If I find ONE symbol that is not defined, I will quit (and I am not going to be childish and say that you have to define π or something).

    Yet you have failed to ever show us a clear derivation of how you can get from one statement to the other. All I recall seeing after you listed your priori's are links to sites with pseudo-science. And by clear derivation I do not mean your usual word voodoomagic.


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

    To all sciforums mathematicians/physicists:

    I need your help here.

    MacM has now said that he will drop his UniKEF ideas if we can show that the kind of calculation done by Dr Allard and referred to earlier in this thread does not reproduce an inverse square law of gravitational attraction.

    I've been thinking about this. Since MacM doesn't actually know enough about his own theory to explain how we might calculate the gravitational force between two objects, I propose to do the kind of calculation that seems to be in snippets of Dr Allard's work. In doing so, I would like to make some assumptions, which I think are reasonable. I hope that MacM will tell us if they are not. I also hope MacM can answer some of my basic questions below.


    To calculate the gravitational force F between two identical spheres of constant density p, with radius R and mass m, separated by distance d (between their centres). At the very least, we wish to know if F is proportional to 1/d<sup>2</sup> or not.


    This is based on Allard's work, and descriptions given by MacM.

    1. There is a field (UniKEF) which is isotropic and pervades the whole of the space.
    Issues: I am not sure whether this field needs to be a vector or scalar field. More on this below. Suggestions?

    2. Each sphere physically "blocks" penetration of part of this field through the other sphere. Let's say that one sphere (the "left sphere") is on the x axis at x=-d/2, and the other (the "right sphere") is centred at x=+d/2. What UniKEF seems to say is that the field strength coming from the left of the left sphere is attenuated as it passes through the left sphere, so that its field strength is diminished when it leaves the left sphere.
    Assumption: Attenuation is directly proportional to the distance the field travels through matter. (MacM - is this assumption correct, because it is very important.)
    Issues: I am imagining the UniKEF "field" (which maybe isn't even a good name for it) to be similar to a fluid, although I don't currently see how we can give it a flow direction if it is supposedly coming from all directions. For this reason, I'm struggling with a field description. Any ideas on this?

    3. This means that when we look at the right sphere, for example, the net field strength to the left of that sphere is slightly weaker than the net field strength to the right of that sphere. This difference in field strength causes a net force on the right sphere, directed towards the left sphere. It is the variation of this force with d that we wish to examine.

    4. I suggest we postulate a constant field strength 1 (in "natural units") in empty space to the left of the left sphere and to the right of the right sphere.

    5. If a UniKEF "field line" travels through distance x of sphere matter, the strength of the field is reduced to (1-ax), where a is the attenuation coefficient (which we will leave as a free parameter). We could assume that if ax is greater than 1, the field strength is zero.
    MacM: Is this a correct description of the attenuation of the UniKEF field by matter?
    Issues: What happens when ax=1 or ax is greater than 1? Do we just assume the field is zero whenever ax is greater than 1? Or maybe some other attentuation expression would be better (ideally, we want one which is calculable. Dr Allard seemed to manage, so I'm guessing this one is ok.)

    6. This is where I'm stuck. Assuming there are "field lines" coming in from all directions, we need to calculate for all directions the attenuation of the field strength between the two spheres as opposed to the strength to the right and left of each sphere, since this is supposed to provide the force. I can't work out how to describe this.

    So, where do we go from here? Remember, we're ONLY interested in the relationship of the force F to the distance d.


    The force F calculated by the above method (to be developed), does NOT vary with the inverse square of d.

    For the proof, it would be enough to show that the above conjecture is true, even if we cannot calculate F completely.

    So, can anybody help me here?
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: False statement. I have told you what it does and how it is calculated. That should make it quite easy for all those math guys to run the calculation.

    ANS: Your benefit of the doubt is appreciated. It is a fact that what has been posted is not clear to newbies. I could not fit the entire manuscript and all the sketches, etc on site. So I cut it to the bone (25%) of the original content with the expectation that it could be discussed and from there be made to make sense. I have since purchased 30MB of added memory and will be re-doing the presentation to include all graphics and text that flows from point A to point B. This frankly is a legitimate complaint on your part and I have no objection to that being noted.

    ANS: I almost accept this. I have attempted, particularily in this thread to make some presentation however.

    I only note the following. My personal objections to Relativity are primarily that it lack restraints that surely belong there if one imposes a Physical Model based on physical realities. Not that what is done using Beta and Gamma is entirely wrong but that they lack appropriate limits and result in absurdities if not actual impossibilities. Many of the links that I have posted do challenge Relativity and some have been by less than qualified sources but those aren't mine. It should be easy for you (this board) to indicate where such information is flawed. Unfortunately there is a tendancy to simply say these people don't know what they are talking about and to start personal attacks rather than actually address the errors or show corrections. It is as though you (meaning the board) is tired of defeding Relativity and want it accepted on simple faith and to discuss only text book examples of its application without any challenges. I think it needs to be challenged. If it survives so be it, if it doesn't then we are making progress.

    ANS: Nobody has to babysit. Addressing the issues raised in a professional manner (which James R., tends to do most of the time but others don't) is the function of this board. I recall comments James R., has made months back on this issue and it goes to the teaching of others that may be onlooking. Once he actually said it was good for the board in that respect. HOwever, all the unwarranted personal attacks achieve nothing. A lot of times I have posted information whch I too do not fully accept but that there is one or two interesting points that should be addressed. They don't get addressed, the board looks at the flaws and stop reading without comment on the content and start the attacks.

    Actually, I want to take this rare opportunity to tell you this is a good post by you. I have no problem with what you have said here.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2004
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: My example would be the FTL link I provided. It was by recognized scientists. We both differ with their interpretation of the findings but differ as to the correct interpretation. I fully understand the "Illusion" explanation and don't disagree with the actual mathematics. HOwever, I do argue that such a solution is only a possibility and without any evidence that such illusion is the case it can't rule out FTL as being reality. After all Lorentz Relativity is very simular to Einstiens Relativity but lacks the FTL prohibition. So it is a matter of holding open the possibility that we are following the wrong relativity concept. My position is butressed by the fact that there is a complete lack of "Blue Shift" data, indeed even a consideration of that requirement for the illusion to be possible at all. So it is not a matter of rejecting the illusion perse' but holding that it is not conslusive and refusing to acknowledge the possibility of FTL is inappropriate. To do that is to not look beyond relativity and to simply assume its validity. In most cases that might be acceptable but not in the face of such evidence which suggest that there may in fact be a problem. I hope this clarifies my position.

    ANS: By virtue of the fact that you now at least are stepping aside and not stating something which I do not accept, I don't have any particular reason to go back and challenge your claim of neutrality.

    ANS: Well we shall see what type of resoonse I get. I have already sent the question to two such sites. I very carefully laid out the arguement. I will post the results of the inquiry.

    ANS: I don't really follow you here because I have never challenged mathematics. I have and do challenge certain conclusions about observations and data because there are alternative explanations for them other than the standard ones given by Relativity.

    ANS: This is a refreshing change in posts. I do believe James R's efforts here are paying off.

    ANS: I don't agree with your choice of adjectives. I haven't failed to link the Prori's to some basis. I have not been allowed to link them. Back in the beginning James R., asked that I post one Priori. I did. It was the heat correlation between gravity and and Earth (large gravitating masses). Before any real answer could be given I was attacked repeatedly and asked questions which have nt been answered, such as the mathematics and details of where the field comes from and specific for which there is not yet an answer. But the predictions was made from a simple logical conclusion as to how UniKEF gravity was thought to be generated. That explanation never reached this board since at the time "Crackpot Buster" was in full swing here and the thread turned into name calling. All members jumped on the band wagon and there was never a serious attempt to understand the basis for the prediction.

    As I just told Persol, I appreciate this post and the lack of the unwarranted name calling. I actually enjoy most of our posts, even when they are critical.
  15. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Here, Crisp, want another cookie? You can have mine.
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    James R.,

    If I assume your 1/d2 is 1/d^2 and d is the distance between centers, then I agree. But it seems to me that one needs to be able to show that the value of the calculation varies by the inverse square of the distance of seperation using the "Cones of Sources" {{C.O.S. for future reference.}} as I have described in this thread.

    ISOTROPIC: A medium whose properties are the same in whatever direction they are measured. Such a medium has only two independent elastic moduli or constants, and only one refractive index, dielectric constant, magnetic susceptibility, etc.

    The definition seems to be workable although it involves specifications not included in the UniKEF field. The only aspect of the field that has been assumed is that it contains energy which may be transferred via interaction with matter by momentum transfer. Mostly by elastic reaction but with a minor inelastic reaction component (which is the cause of the heating conclusion and prediction)

    ANS: You seem to have the correct understanding. From your description of their locations I see the spheres in contact at their surface. Is that correct?

    ANS: I think it helps to think of something like EM waves which can overlap and penetrate through at any traverse angle without substantial interaction with the field it is penetrating. In UniKEF there is a minor "Self-Interaction" which causes the "tired light syndrome" of the UniKEF field and establishes the "Quantitative Domain Limit". That however only becomes noticable over vast seperation across space, resulting in a finite time-space universe. For the current calculation it is adequte to consider it as not interacting within itself. The interaction as has been stated previously may infact be an explanation along the lines of MOND and why the pure Newtonian view inverse square fails over galatic ranges.

    ANS: This seems to be correct, noting however that it is only half of the story and that a simular affect occurs in the left sphere and that it is the combined forces that are inverse square to d. Also that the attenuation must be an integration of the mass (distance) through the sphere the field passes and that it must pass through both spheres. At every angle from the trig function = 1.0 (the line between the centers) to the maximum angle which is the tangent line from the top of the left sphere to the bottom of the right sphere and vice versa, which form the C.O.S..

    In the case of contacting spheres the C.O.S. becomes a vertical line between the two spheres. The angles of penetration range from "0" to "90" degrees and the trig function varies from 1.0 to "0". The volumes of mass penetration go from the volumes of the spheres to zero as the angle increases.

    There is a specific volume of mass being penetrated at each angle. That volume deminishes as the angle increases. It can be seen as parallel lines to the primary angle. Here is where I am concerned that people may miss the affect but I think you came to understand it in the prior description. If you are unclear let me know and I'll try and clarify. Further as the angle increases the actual momentum force transferred has to be translated into the line of gravity between the centers as a function of the angles trig value.

    I'm not sure here if you have the full picture. It isn't just coming from the left and right. It is coming from all steradian angles.

    ANS:It appears correct, except you should not conclude ax as reducing the field to "0". But that it is attenuted by an amount proportional to its mass penetration. Even Black Holes most likely don't reduce the field to zero. The amount of reduction is mass based on distance and density.

    ANS: Same comments as above. I think what he caclulated and what we should calculate is the integrated mass penetrations and their affect at given angles. That would not appear to require a field strength, nor an attenution factor of any particular proportion in relation to a selected field strength.

    I think you are making this more complicated than necessary. Any force produced will be a function of the mass penetrations and their trig (angle) function integrated. What has been done in UniKEF is merely calculate the integration of the mass penetration over the C.O.S. at various d's. Those calculations show the inverse square result. The actual force then becomes the field strength "U" times the attenuation coefficent "~" times the losses due to the sum of the mass penetrations and not the product of masses as is currently being done.

    ANS: And here is where we disagree and I hope you find yourself wrong because if those calculations have not been correct and it is not inverse square then there is no UniKEF theory.

    ANS: Or to show the conjecture false and that it is an inverse square function, even without a complete force calculation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I hope you receive bonafide assistance here. This has been long over due. There are those that say they aren't going to do my work for me. My claim is we have already done the work and the UniKEF claim can be easily verified or falisfied by doing this very calculation.

    For more information on C.O.S. and the integration process see "Graphics" from the main menu on UniKEF Home Page and then Fig 1-3. That text applies to the sketches entitled Fig 1 - 3 which I have moved into that text string or may be viewed by clicking "Pictures" and then selecting the Calculus & Graphics Album. I attempted to post it here but the sketches would not transfer.


    Note the change in the UniKEF formula for gravity. I have added an "i" after the m1 and m2 components thanks to James earlier pointing out the confusion of the + vs * operator being taken as a simple sum of masses. Thanks James.

    F = U *~ *[m1i + m2i]* trig, all integrated. (Note: m1i and m2i is the integrated penetrations of the masses at all angles in the "Cones of Sources" and is not simple addition of the masses.

    As we all know my mathematics is somewhat limited to algebra, geometry and trig, although I have done matrix work decades ago. But the above formula, in a mathematically correctly done form which would have to include integrals with limits defining the C.O.S., would replace the Newtonian

    F = G*m1*m2/r^2

    Whatever the outcome of this effort to falisfy (or validate) my claim above, I am more than content to limit future claims to just this aspect of UniKEF and not to suggest it replaces or modifies Relativity (although until shown invalid I believe it may).
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2004
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member

    James R.,

    I just want you and the members here to know that I appreciate what you have done here, and on ryans thread, to hold your ground. In return as I had just said above I will be restraining myself from making references to UniKEF, in particular starting any other UniKEF threads until this issue is resolved.

    I will however, continue to defend myself and UniKEF from baseless assaults.

    I know you have said this mathematical process may take a bit of time and that is fine I will also be working to have another calculus presentation put together which is properly scripted.

    This has been a most useful thread and you are to be commended for your scientific approach.

  18. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member


    Just wanting to know (this is e serious question), Are time and space treated equally in you theory, i.e. how do you link the observed physics in 2 reference frames.
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: Fair question. I am going to limit my response at this point to the following.

    1 - I am inclined to see time as a property of space vs being a 4th dimension. So it exists but is an illusion created by energy and information flow. Now before we start an arguement on this subject, two things:

    a - This view is not totally unique. It is also stated in the recent Cornell paper which I have also referenced on this MSB.

    b - The current topic in this thread is the falsifiable inverse square process envisioned in UniKEF.

    2 - I do not want to pull this thread away from its primary concern into areas that are arguementative and unprovable. We both know where this is going to head.

    I have given James R., my word to not pursue UniKEF other than in this thread pending a determination of the validity of the primary function which is the inverse square issue.

    Should I and Dr Allard be vindicated on this issue, then perhaps we might actually be able to have an intelligent conversaton about some other aspects of the concept. Until then I am afraid I must decline your offer to discuss the matter.
  20. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Yet you haven't explained how information 'flows' without time... even though you've been asked several times.
  21. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: I have to assume you read my response to ryans or you wouldn't be asking this question. You should have gathered that until the inverse square issue has been resolved I will not discuss UniKEF.

    I will only say at this point I happen to agree with Cornell University regarding energy/space/gravity and time. Perhaps in the interim you could read their paper and familiarize yourself with modern thinking on the subject.

    Last edited: Jan 29, 2004
  22. ryans Come to see me about a dog hey Registered Senior Member

    Mac don't reference like that, it is incorrect. You should say

    I agree with Dr. So and So of Cornell university. You should even go as far as refencing what department of the University they are from. As far as we know they may be from the psychology department. And by the way it is not our responsibilty to read the references you quote to support your theory. It is your responsibilty to give us an understanding of those papers, as well as provide a reference. If we disagree with your interpretation of the results from any one reference, then we may go read it ourselves. If I had to read every reference quoted by an author in every paper that I read, I would spend all my time reading other peoples work and not doing any of my own.
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member


    ANS: Not hardly. You see I have done that in the past and ;

    1 - What you like to do is turn around and say I didn't understand what I read.

    2 - You take a statement or something that has been extracted and complain that it is out of context.

    3 - The author, his affiliations nor his credentials are at issue here. My statement that I agree with the paper says it all and there is no need to try and justify it here. I provided the link read the full paper. You have historically complained that I read only the "Summaries" (which wasn't true) and to now suggest that I should post interpretations seems most contridictory.

    4 - To make this as easy as I can let me just make the point for you ambulance chasers that I have no intention of being dragged off topic in this or any other thread ever again.

    James R., has had the good sense and integrity to approach this subject in a scientific manner and I am dedicated to support him in that effort.

    5 - We will talk later when this has been resolved

Share This Page