Persol, ANS: Actually you are wrong. I have already produced the inverse square to within 0.5% integrating long hand just from drawing. Dr Allard confirmed it by his work. The fact that the presentation is not formalized to assist those like yourself that just want to complain and exagerate is irrelavant to the issues it having been already shown. ANS: I will resist telling you what you are and only say: 1 - I interpreted your statment to mean that the field as described in UniKEF cannot not exist. 2 - Your sketch is not in keeping with the correct view for integration. 3 - [moderator: deleted irrelevant point about Persol's qualifications.] [deleted] For the last time in absence of the field U & ~ specifications, the calculation shows the inverse square mass penetrations and trig functions which result in the ultimate force. We are not calculating the force. Before opening your big mouth let me suggest you at least know what is being calculated.
[Moderator: deleted irrelevant discussion of Persol's computing qualifications.] For the last time in absence of the field U & ~ specifications, the calculation shows the inverse square mass penetrations and trig functions which result in the ultimate force. We are not calculating the force. Before opening your big mouth let me suggest you at least know what is being calculated.
Persol, [moderator: deleted irrelevant personal argument regarding qualifications and work ethic] ANS: You [deleted]. I did calculate it multidirectional. Don't you read PS: It is spelled "force", I only mention this since you have seen fit to attack my spelling and typo's in the past. [deleted personal insults]
[moderator: post extensively edited to delete ongoing personal insults and irrelevant discussion.] [deleted] I did calculate it multidirectional. Don't you read PS: It is spelled "force", I only mention this since you have seen fit to attack my spelling and typo's in the past. No, you calculated it through a limited number of angles, from a limited number of directions. If you do not agree that multiple lines of force intersect the same point, then it isn't multidirectional. If you do agree, then you also agree that it isn't what you calculated. To sum it up: You seem to think that nuclear physics has anything to do with your theory You seem to not understand the meaning of the term 'multidirectional'.
[moderator note: post extensively edited to remove personal insults and related irrelevant personal discussion.] Persol, ANS: [deleted] Show us where I have ever said any such thing. ANS:And you seem to not understand that your view is not what is being calculated, so [deleted]
[moderator note: post extensively edited for same reasons as above] [deleted] You keep refereing to 'method of integration', like that's what I was commenting on. If you do not understand 'multidirectional' then you shouldn't use the word in your theory. Funny, that you accuse me of 'wholly invalid assaults' when my post was centered around "The 'nature of the field' is needed to determine the force generated."
[moderator note: post extensively edited for same reasons as above] Persol, ANS: Oh, I understand alright but I also understand that you clearly do not. ANS: What about "We are not calculating the absolute force but the inverse square function do you not understand. [deleted]
Lol, you post an email of the opinion of someone, and we have no clue who they are. I can get a letter from my 6 year old nephew that agrees with me... if that is what now consitutes a reasonable argument.
[moderator note: post extensively edited as above] Dear Readers, For all readers above 6 years old "Please note that the signature not only has a name but has an address. It is clickable. We may not know this person, however, what we do know is that he is a representative of an "Ask a Physicist" site with the University of Texas, Dallas." [deleted personal attacks] ASK A PHYSICIST:Joe Izen, joe@utdallas.edu Go ahead if you are unsure who here knows what he is talking about or who is blowing smoke, check with an independant scientist. Just remember Persol has just by his failure to address the issue confirmed he is in total disagreement with a key issue regarding SR and GR in Relativity. Lets issue a quiz and see if he dare post a proper response: [Moderator note: deleted irrelevant material. Please start a new thread.] PS: Please note one further thing. It used to be that I was called a liar and that I made up Dr Allard or that he (like our 6 year old physicist above) was an unqualified person. Now that James found that Dr Allard was indeed a world recognized physicist, Persol now ignores that Dr Allard also found my inverse square integration to be correct. [deleted]
Ok, I'm not taking sides in any of this stuff here, but seriously guys, why don't you cut Mac some slack. Sure, over the last year you may have gotten into it with him a few times and maybe he tried to push his pet theory too much- all of that is neither here nor there. Let's look at what is happening now. Once and for all Mac has laid it all out so that he can prove to himself and everyone else the truth about his theory. That's right, now it's the time when his entire theory can be shut down or given a push up the ladder. I'm not saying that the calculus will prove that his theory is correct. He still has a long way to go if his idea of gravity obeys the inverse-square law. The point is that Mac is willing to accept, in a very scientific way, that if his theory disagrees with reality then it should be discarded. I know for most scientists, proving a theory either way can be just as satisfying. So, really, do you need to keep harranging him and hashing it out across the forum? Let the issue resolve itself. And anyway, is it really screwing up your life that much that someone else is excited about something and trying to do something productive? So, at least for now, how about everyone just relaxes and tries to be mature and scientific about all this. Reading through the array of posts like this makes me question the "intelligent Community" notion in this message board.
Unfortunately as it has been mentioned many many times MacM lacks the ability to formally utilise higher maths in his own defense and has had to rely on some one elses calculations. This weakness seems to make the whole debate almost an abstraction instead of serious physics. So, maybe it should be treated as a high level abstraction looking for mathematical support. I believe this is the approach that James R is or has taken and this I must say is most constructive. The only other alternative is for Dr. Allard to join the debate or MacM goes back to the classroom and learns the mathematics skills he needs to support his theory, which I might add are both unlikely. So the question is again : How should this issue continue? may be we need to redefine the rules of engagement again. Refine the approach a little to make the excersis a little more productive...What do you think James R?
UpQuark, ANS: Your post is most intelligent and appreciated. I only want to add that I have always been willing to recognize any valid science against my own concept. But being called an idiot or told that I don't understand has fallen critically short of being scientific analysis. Now that James R., has taken the proper steps I intend to see it through. Thanks.
Actually MacM just a quick question for you. If you wanted to prove your theory inadequate how would you do it? What areas do you think the theory has it's greatest weaknesses (apart from presentation)? Of all the people reading this thread you are the one who knows the answer to this question.
The problem is that he claims his the field in his theory is multi-directional, and is generated by space itself. This means that the field comes from every direction, and goes in every direction. Because of this, two 'lines of field' can both pass through both object (intersecting at one point). The way MacM wants us to solve this is to ignore that points of mass are can be effecting more then 1 'line of field'... and the calculations which he has on his site also ignore this... and I've pointed it out several times. So either his force is multi-direction and multi-sourced... or it's not. This is a huge difference, yet MacM claims that "I already know that the integration results in the inverse square function" Yet if his source is multi-directional/sourced he didn't actually do the integration... as I've pointed out several times. Then he says "Your position would not be any different than to claim that two light or EM beams cannot intersect and pass through one another." Which is the exact OPPOSITE of what I'm saying. And then the kicker is "I want to emphasize that we are not considering the nature of the field" How are we supposed to determine what force a field produces if the 'nature of the field' is not explained? And that Upquark, is why MacM [deleted personal insult]. I've pointed the same things out to him numerous times... and each time he doesn't respond with a description of how he thinks it should actually work. He just keeps refering to the calc he has already... even though it doesn't actually solve the problem. Hell, his response to JamesR was "I'm really not sure why you are concerned about the field." Perhaps because that is the subject of calculation, and it would be nice if MacM decided how it actually worked. JamesR simply has a much higher [deleted] limit then I have. He sees them as [deleted], I see them as [deleted].
Quantum Quack, ANS: Actually I tend to see it slightly differently. I have a firm grasp of the principles and I enlisted specialist where specialist were needed. I tend to see this more like running a company. The president of the company may not know how to do every job that personnel in his company perform but he knows his own limitations and fills those by hiring others. I see no real problem with that. As matter of a fact recognizing ones own limitation I find is far better than some that simply talk to hear themselves talk and make unsupported and invalid claims. ANS:From my perspective that was already achieved via Dr Allard. However, having brought the concept forward and posted it, it is clear now that more work needs to be done, and is being done. I am currently waiting for a physicist to return from Germany that will formalize the process with detailed scripting and mathematical proof. The simple fact is these guys seem scared to death that I may be able to show I was right. This thread seems a proper approach although some comehere simply to abuse it rather than to be sceintific. It has been said many time that to be a theory it must be falsifiable. This is falsifiable, that is all anyone can expect and that is to have such a process done in a mature and scientific fashion. ANS: We most certainly agree. ANS: I don't know for a fact but I am afraid that Dr Allard is no longer with us. My letter was returned "Unknown". I fear he has succumbed to the heart condition James's web sites mentioned. That is why I am now looking to replicate (in more detail) his prior efforts. Actually when I retire, which is not that far away, I do intend to return to school to enhance my mathematics. But in the meantime I don't anticipate just sitting on the side lines. ANS: Not sure what you have in mind here but I am willing to listen. The biggest thing at the moment would seem to be to force individuals to speak forthrightly without forked tounge and to cease the personal attacks (which shows weakness in their scientific arguements) and concentrate on the issue at hand. Thanks again for a mature and excellent contribution
Quantum Quack, ANS:Excellent question. The fact is the issue has been reduced to that point. If the inverse square function cannot be shown to be valid then there simply is no UniKEF theory. Should I be able to validate it, which has already been done, but in a more presentable form. Then what lies beyond is still mere speculation and for the most part would not be accepted here. But I have no problem with that either.
UpQuark, ANS: Actually I have seen Persol's point from his "two Lines" sketch. However. 1 - The first step is to falsify or validate the inverse square as it was initially concieved and analyized. 2 - Assuming it validates, then and only then start to question and look for holes. Persol's point would be one of the first ones that needs addressing. My suspicion is that it may be irrelevant. That is it is still going to result in an inverse square calculation but merely changes the absolute number of the integration result. That would alter the conclusion of the U and ~ terms in future analysis but not the underlying principles. If that is the case then it becomes Relativity's response to aether. If we don't need it ignore it for simplicity. ANS: Covered above. ANS: He fails to point out that my statements were directed at his simple statement that "MacM you can't treat a field as being multidirection like you do" (or something like that paraphrased) His text did not properly convey what he actually meant - A consistant problem with many responses here. His subsequent "two line" sketch clarified his point and I happen to agree that it requires further investigation but I certainly don't think it in any way invalidates the work and findings already done and made. It might when fully considered but if it does we truely have a unique situation almost a paradox in fact by virtue of the inverse square being found in the primary C.O.S.'s but not in secondary angles he is considering. But they certainly need to be considered. But seperatedly. ANS: This repeated claim is a red hearing. Certainly analyzing the field should be done but not before determining if the concept produces the correct force function. You do not need to actually produce an absolute force calculation to do that as has been shown. ANS: Another red hearing arguement. The issue is does the integration as invisioned and calculated in UniKEF produce the inverse square. Once that issue is resolved then and only then is the subject open to further challenge and analysis. As I have already pointed out without doing further calculations his point does not show that the inverse square is not still produced. I suspect that it will be. [deleted]
ANS: Another red hearing arguement. The issue is does the integration as invisioned and calculated in UniKEF produce the inverse square. Now, that's not the issue. I can 'invision' tons of methods of generating an inverse square law for two circles. That doesn't make them right. You have a theory which claims the field to be multi-directional and multi-sourced. As such it needs to be treated that way. There is no way of treating such a situation using simple integration. All the 'math' pages you have linked do not take into account the that more then one 'source' passes through each point. The calculations you provided are effectivly 'this line of matter effects this line of matter'. With multi-source/direction EVERY piece of matter in sphere1 effects EVERY piece of matter in sphere2. What you want us to calculate doesn't actually represent your theory, as the calculation you want is basically multiple sources, each with one direction.... which doesn't represent gravity for obvious reasons. So, after explaining this AGAIN... is there any hope of you actually addressing it?
