UniKEF analysis

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

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

    Messages:
    995
    This has nothing to do with you or your theory, it is just proper etiquette. The view outlined in the paper is not the view of the university and everyone therein, but of the author of the paper. Are you saying that if the president of the U.S.A. said that all arabs are troglodytes, that would represent your opinion as well?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    Quote:
    I will only say at this point I happen to agree with Cornell University regarding energy/space/gravity and time.


    This has nothing to do with you or your theory, it is just proper etiquette. The view outlined in the paper is not the view of the university and everyone therein, but of the author of the paper. Are you saying that if the president of the U.S.A. said that all arabs are troglodytes, that would represent your opinion as well?

    ANS: Point accepted regarding the author and not the university put out the paper. The rest of my comments stand.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    995
    That's fine.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    ryans,

    FYI: I have e-mailed him to see if I can get more information. I do want to clarify that my comments regarding his paper were limited to the topics I cited and their relationship. I haven't read all parts regarding entrophy etc.
     
  8. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Hehe, that's what his time theory is based on... and does not say anything alone the lines of "So it exists but is an illusion created by energy and information flow."
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ANS:I don't believe you see where i said he made that statement. I said it was my view. I also said I agree with those aspects of his paper that I referenced. The relationship between energy, mass, space, gravity and time.
     
  10. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    And I never said you made that statement. I am pointing out that your link was worthless as it has nothing to do with your claim of 'flowing' time.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ANS: Since this statement clearly shows you haven't read (or understand) the material, I decline to argue with you. Even if you do decide to read the material, I am not going to argue with you as I have indicated. BYE
     
  12. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Well, I'll assume that means you really don't know what the paper actually says. At least the relevance of your links is consistent. BYE
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ANS: You can assume and say anything you want but that certainly has little bearing on the truth. BYE.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2004
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    I have thought about the sphere attraction problem I mentioned above, but I still don't know if I am clear enough on the exact nature of the UniKEF field to do a proper calculation.

    Failing that, at present, I have thought about the problem and come up with the following "back of the envelope" calculation.

    It seems to me that the force between the two spheres must (once all the integration and so on is done) be proportional to the solid angle subtended by a double-cone with its apex at the half-way point between the two spheres, and its sides tangent to each sphere. That solid angle is 8<font face="symbol">q</font>, where <font face="symbol">q</font> is the half-angle at the apex of the cone.

    The solid area blocked is therefore:

    8 arcsin (2R/d)

    where R is the radius of the 2 spheres, and d is the distance between their centres.

    Hence, it seems to me that the UniKEF force must have the form:

    F = U &times; ~ &times; (some mass factor) &times; 8 arcsin(2R/d)

    where 8 arcsin(2R/d) is the trignonometric factor in this case.

    As you can see, according to this argument F is not inversely proportional to the square of d, so this expression for the force does not even vaguely reproduce Newton's law of gravity.

    Now, I am happy to admit that I may have got things wrong. If that is the case, then I will need some kind of explanation from MacM as to how I should do the calculation of the force, and what it actually depends on.
     
  15. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    I don't think that's a full analasis though. It's not only how much matter is 'blocked', but the range of lines which can pass through a point on mass1, and still intersect mass2.

    See the attachement for a very rough picture. Both of those lines could represent a path of the force. Both pass through the same point in mass one. That point then effects a range of points on mass2.

    The only way I can see of doing this is to simulate it numerically... but I'm not spending that much time on this.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R., & Persol,

    Well we seem to have some movement here but the calculation is not mass times some angle. It is the integration of the mass "penetrations" at all angles and includes the trig value of such penetrations.

    All primary angles pass through the vertex of the C.O.S., then you run parallel lines to that line both above and below it as long as such lines penetrate both masses. The cross-sectional area described are areas of a single base (a chord) across the circle, and must be converted into a volume in a 3D sphere instead of just an area as viewed on 2D paper then integrated along with its effective push (trig value along the line of gravity between the C.O.M's.)

    Does this help?
     
  17. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Mac,
    As I pointed out before, that you can not take into account flow from all directions that way.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Persol,

    ANS: I know it hasn't been proven to you yet but since I already know that the integration results in the inverse square function, it suggest that you may well be wrong in your assumption. Your position would not be any different than to claim that two light or EM beams cannot intersect and pass through one another.

    I want to emphasize that we are not considering the nature of the field, as yet but only the generation of the inverse square function assuming such a field.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    James R.,

    I'm really not sure why you are concerned about the field. At this point one merely needs to assume it and see what the results would be. I can see that you may not yet understand the process or integration being done but we can get thorugh that.

    I have gone back to the original manuscript and it appears to me that page (7) of the calculus photo album is some sort of proof. He shows a basic calculation for D and then one for D=2 and and other for D=3. Each are showing going to a value of "0".

    http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/unikefassociatedgraphics.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=8
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2004
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
  21. GundamWing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    367
    Please realize, when a scientist says "critical" or "criticism" (s)he typically welcomes it -- in science, all crticism is constructive in that it points out apparent flaws in one's thinking. If a criticism cannot be sufficiently addressed, a scientist would reject it on that point. In theory, this is how all science is done; although i'm sure journal politics greases this up a bit -- such is real life. Inspite of this, somehow the process works in the end -- either accept it, or accept the fact that you are not doing science. Even papers published in peer-reviewed journals are not the final word -- they are subject to further scrutiny and skepticism until all such criticisms are either refuted or the paper is considered "garbage". Of course, in order for you to consider yourself a valid critique-er you must understand the language of science as it stands, and accepted views which, though may not have been critiqued by yourself, they were priorly critiqued by individuals with the credentials (i.e., background knowledge) to do so.

    Unfortunately, the popular belief is that once a paper is accepted for publication, it must be truth. So MacM, if you have a serious theory, you also are willing and able to deflect serious criticism.

    ps. good to see y'all.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



     
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    GundamWing,

    Been a while. I fully accept your post. However, UniKEF has been reduced to one falsifiable issue, that of the UniKEF inverse square function. If it is falseified then there is nothing to discuss. If it is verified, then it is a matter of how much speculation people want to hear beause nothing (as you know) has been formalized or tested.

    The issue of James instructions has already been clarified and is perfectly acceptable.
     
  23. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    I know it hasn't been proven to you yet but since I already know that the integration results in the inverse square function, it suggest that you may well be wrong in your assumption.
    Actually, you don't know this... or else you'd be able to show it.

    Your position would not be any different than to claim that two light or EM beams cannot intersect and pass through one another.

    Did you read my reasoning? My point was that they DO intersect, and JamesR's soultion didn't take this into account. I should have just kept my mouth shut, because you wouldn't have known any better.

    I want to emphasize that we are not considering the nature of the field, as yet but only the generation of the inverse square function assuming such a field.

    [deleted]. The 'nature of the field' is needed to determine the force generated.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 1, 2004

Share This Page