Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Feb 20, 2003.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Dear Members,

    I thought it appropriate that perhaps since it appears any contributions that I might attempt to make in other discussions are apparently going to spiral into diatribes and over run other members questions, that I would open this topic line.

    Now if that should happen I will be prepared to meet that person here to pursue the discussion to a resolution without cluttering up the board.

    Thanks for those few that have been helpful here, as you can see there is a long road ahead with these guys.

    And to keep this fair.

    1 - Should the person filling what I believe to be a false arguement fail to come here to resolve the issue, I will announce that person defaulted his position to the disagreement.

    Don't want certain people to think they can push me off of the board by just making some off the cuff remark.

    2 - I will also announce that I have yielded or defaulted my position.

    I am infact flexiable but I will not roll over when the arguement for your victory is "I am right because you are wrong" or because "you don't understand".

    Those are self promoting positions and have no resolution.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2003
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Prosoothus Registered Senior Member


    I don't see how this new thread you posted will encourage any kind of discussion.

    I would recommend that you break your UniKEF theory into debatable pieces, and then start a new thread for each piece that is unconventional. That should start a lively debate.

    If after that, you still get no responses to your threads, you can say things like "Einstein was an idiot!!" or "Relativists are nitwits!!". You'll be surprised to see how many people will jump in.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member



    Maybe but I would first like to try this approach.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. lethe Registered Senior Member

    having this in a seperate thread is definitely the right approach.
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member



    Thanks. I think it is appropriate also. I just hope people don't ignore the opportunity.
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    3 Clocks

    I am re-posting here the mathematical conclusions of relavist as a solution of my 3 clock problem. This saves others from having to follow the complexiety of the derivation of the numbers, in that my challenge is not based on the numerical results but the conclusion drawn from them. I agree with the numbers Relativity produces.

    Calculation Results:
    P1 = 10 - 9.798 = 0.202 = 12.12 Minutes LOST time

    P2 = 10 - 9.539 = 0.461 = 27.66 Minutes LOST time

    P4 = 0.259 = delta (P2-P1) = 15.54 Minutes Differential between
    clock A and clock B.

    P3 = Absolute(A - B) = ( 9.539 - 9.491) = 0.048 = 2.88 Minutes time differential between clock A and clock B.

    P5 = P4 - P3 = 15.54 minutes - 2.88 minutes = 12.66 minutes differance in time loss calculations for the same clocks in the same test, under the same specified conditions.

    Conclusion of clock times upon returning the clocks:

    "C":____10 hours
    "A":_9 hours, 47.88 minutes have passed.
    "B":_9 hours, 32.36 minues have passed."


    My objection is that the Conclusion shows only one set of times for the clocks and the calculations give two.

    The arguement is that it is correct because that is viewed from the perspective of "C".

    My arguement is you can't disregard the view computed from " A" and "B".

    CASE 1:

    I can and do state "What is the time loss between two space clocks having a velocity differential of 0.1c. Your answer 2.88 minutes according to Relativity is correct. That is a physical reality per Relativity.

    CASE II:
    Now I had you compute the view of the clocks and their differential as viewed from "C". Again you concluded p4 = 15.54 minutes. That is the lost time between clocks A/B as a Reality for "C"'s view.

    When the clocks are stopped and then returned to earth for a comparision you give me only CASE II physical results and you have disregared CASE I which is also claimed to be reality for two clocks in space with the 0.1 c velocity differential.

    0.1c was also the velocity differential in CASE I. Both cases have the same specified velocity differentials, get two different results, and you disregard CASE I results stating its ok because your answer is for observer "C".

    WHERE DO THE CLOCKS SHOW CASE I RESULTS? That time loss occured simutaneously under the same specified conditions to the same clocks and observers.

    Your answer is only half of the question. It is an incomplete answer and there is absolutely no justification to disregrad pilot "A" and "B"'s reality from their clocks upon return to earth for comparision.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2003
  10. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Just wait, Mac, I'm typing. Sheesh.

    - Warren
  11. Jaxom Tau Zero Registered Senior Member

    MacM, let me just say I support your effort, even though I'm not convinced yet that it's not a mistake in the problem and not relativity.

    Okay, the premise is that the values relativity gives for your 3 clock problem works mathematically, but is not a practical solution (given that it seems to show the moving clocks giving two values after they have been stopped, depending on who looks at them). It does not match reality. Right?

    But, let me play devil's advocate here...given that you've set up the problem with certain constraints in mind, is the mind problem not a realistic one in itself? Two points come to mind, the one I touched on before, what method you're using to signal all clocks to be stopped at the same "universal" point in time. The second, related, is whether or not the clocks are being started at the real same time. In other words, is the problem making assumptions that are not allowed about the stop/start points, because they are not realistic, that is, they are not what you're assuming them to be? In that case, the resulting numbers aren't ones you'd find in reality, because they aren't tested in realistic environments.

    Disclaimer: I only know the basics, and the math beyond the intro formulas I haven't really touched on yet. I'm trying to look at it from an overall picture at this point, before I even attempt to look at the hard math.
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    3 Clocks

    Let me start by saying I really appreciate the new tone. And I am flexiable to accept a solution that addresses all the required specified parameters of the case(s).


    Yes. You have stated the problem.

    The issue of start and stops is actually a mute one. It could be a problem if one specified an incorrect start stop relationship. But is is acceptable for the purpose of testing Relativity's validity to specify that all clocks are synchronized to clock C per universal time. that is all three start and stop at the same physical time in reality.

    To attempt to create a signalling system to do so can actually create problems were they aren't part of the inherent conflict in Relativity. The same would be true to try and incorporate acceleration and deceleration periods as part of the test. Even though that complication doesn't solve the problem, I have had those that have tried to confuse the issue by including that as the answer.

    Computing a test over acceleration and deceleration for a round trip test does change the results but does not cause the clocks to merge to one time loss.

    The problem simply put is why upon return to earth where all participants are at the same velocity, the specified time loss for all participants, in the same test, with the same differential velocities stated for both observers during the test, does not fullfill all participants computed time loss realities?
    Last edited: Feb 20, 2003
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member



    Thanks for coming over. I was afraid you would declare self victory and cease to work on this issue.
  14. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Actually this thread has nothing to do with UniKEF -- it's about the three clock problem. I've already answered this, in the thread where the three clock problem was presented. You seem to have ignored it.

    So why do we need this additional thread? I'd appreciate it if you could keep the discussion in the same place, rather than splitting it into two pieces. Do you just want me to copy and paste my responses into this thread, as well?

    - Warren
  15. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    JamesR: I'd consider closing this thread, since it is not about UniKEF -- we don't need two threads about his three-clock problem.

    - Warren
  16. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    Re: 3 Clocks

    Sorry, while I suggest that this thread adds nothing but clutter and should be closed, I have to point out the following:

    This is not a moot point. In fact, it is the central point that you do not understand. There is no such thing as "universal time."

    - Warren
  17. MacM Registered Senior Member


    I posted under the topic UniKEF for the obvious reason that there are many relavistic links involved in UniKEF and disagreements on issues can be aired here and not clutter the MSB either for the original posters question and/or having several threads on a variety of issues which are difference between UniKEF and Relativity.

    UniKEF is a common point to focus such issues out of the main stream.

    Plus for me to answer questions regarding UniKEF.

    I just realized why you object. You are afraid not as many people will see your diatribes and attacks and you will not be able to aggravate others by harping on non-issues.

    Get it straight guy. I am here do serious business. If your goal is to frustrate the process then post elsewhere. This area will be for those that would like to explore some very interesting ideas.

    I, unlike you, am not here to teach or preach. I will offer my views and logic and will consider every valid response but I will not participate in the continued irrelevant distractions.
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2003
  18. chroot Crackpot killer Registered Senior Member

    For the nineteenth time, crackpot:

    Show us how your theory can determine the time it takes a tennis ball to fall one meter in the earth's gravitational field -- from first principles. Show your work.

    Put up or shut up, kid.

    - Warren
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member



    I have posted this response on the end of each topic which you try to keep me covering. I will only respond here from now on.

    I was asked to provide an example of (One) prediction and how I had derived it.

    I have done that but you want toinclude the entire theory as support. I am not going to play your silly games. I will offer more indepth information and descriptions of other predictions should people show an actual interest.

    Things like vectors for force is an assine arguement. Even if I screwed up by saying Cross Product instead of product, you and every other person that saw the discussion understood the intent in light of the overall content and application of the point.

    I am more than willing to go through UniKEF and explore its weak areas - Hell I conceed that it may be entirely wrong but I tell you this, you are going to be forced to come up with some other view of gravity because I have aready proven the primary three as being false.

    The predictions stand for themselves or am I just that lucky or a forseer of the future that such things would be discovered.


    Resign not until you have resolved the 3 clock problem. Talk is cheap.

    Conditions of the test:

    One clock on earth v = 0; clock C

    One clock at v = 0.2c in space; clock A

    Once clock at v = 0.3c in space; clock B

    Only linear velocity is tested for 10 hours time C.

    Clocks are all started and stopped at the same instant. So that doesn't relate to any particular clock view. How that is achieved is of no signifigance. It is done by any means that achieves the goal. It is a stipulated conditions of the test.

    Oh by the way should you actually find a way to Get C and A to agree as to the time loss between A and B; don't forget this time that ALL clocks include B and I want to see B also lose the correct amount of time A/B.

    No return paths, no a/d

    Do the computations and make the clocks all agree with every observers view of reality after the clocks are stopped and returned to earth to read elapsed time during the test.

    When you do that and do that correctly then I will resign, not before.

    When you say the conditions of the test are impossible then I will tell you that is why Relativity is an invalid view of physical reality.

    Please post your respons under the UniKEF topic for I will not continue to rspond under somebodyelse's thread.

    Oh by the way should you by some fluke actually get C and A to agree on a common time loss between a/B, don't forget this time that ALL clocks includes observer of clock B. I expect to see you make B agree on the A/B time loss.

    Nobody has addressed that yet.

    Good luck genius.

    I believe it was you that made reference to an old saying that I should try to remember.

    And you are satisified with Relativity, then I have an old saying for you to remember.

    "Intelligence is knowing to believe only half of what you hear. Genius is knowing which half".

    Edited by MacM on 02-20-03 at 07:15 PM
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    One at a time


    I will only address one at a time. Right now the shoe is on your foot.

    KID. I wish, I suspect I am considerably your senior, junior.

    Further I will not respond to further verbal assualts or put downs.
    It is act like an intelligent adult or get ignored.

    If you don't have the umph to resolve the 3 clock problem, that is not my problem.
  21. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Why the hell are you flooding the board with this crap...
    I have seen your last post on numerous threads... get's kinda annoying.
  22. Fluidity Registered Senior Member

    The Discreditation of MacM's Clock Test

    <i>CASE 1:

    I can and do state "What is the time loss between two space clocks having a velocity differential of 0.1c. Your answer 2.88 minutes according to Relativity is correct. That is a physical reality per Relativity.

    CASE II:
    Now I had you compute the view of the clocks and their differential as viewed from "C". Again you concluded p4 = 15.54 minutes. That is the lost time between clocks A/B as a Reality for "C"'s view. </i>

    Mac, no body is playing hide the coin. For the last time, it's really very simple why the differential in Clock A and Clock B do not show a .1c differential. I will prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt, why this is a flawed mathematical test. It is a farce, because of one simple rule you ignore. <b>You cannot subtract the integrated results of exponential functions.</b>

    For lack of a better analogy, I will use money. We have three accounts, each start on the same day, with $10,000. We will compound that interest at the following <b>rates</b>, for 5 years.

    I am using an applet at a reputable firm, to make it easy for you to access the data on your own.

    They will not reflect the same differences. If you expect Account C to be only 1% different than Account B, or any other manipulation of simple subtraction, you are wrong.

    Account A = 5%
    Account B = 6%
    Account C = 7%

    Account B - A = $619
    Account C - B = $644

    Note, the above figures are different, because rates develop exponentially over time. The same is true in the Lorenz Transforms.

    Account A, Actual Gain = 2.763% @ $12,763
    Account B, Actual Gain = 3.382% @ $13,382
    Account C, Actual Gain = 4.026% @ $14,026

    Note, these are the actual gains in interest over only 5 years.
    They do not reflect a 1% differential between them. After ten years the difference is more profound.

    Account A, Actual Gain = 6.289% @ $16,289
    Account B, Actual Gain = 7.908% @ $17,908
    Account C, Actual Gain = 9.672% @ $19,672

    Now, you see a profound difference. After 25 Years:

    Account A = $33,864
    Account C = $54,274

    Now the difference between A and C is almost 50%, Almost Fifty-Percent, when the accounts are only 2% different in rate. RATE.
    I tried to tell you, you would not listen. Rate, Mac...Rate. The clocks are running at different Rates. They cannot be added and subtracted like pocket change.

    The formula for the Lorenz Transforms is exponential. It produces a diffferent rate in each clock. Rate..Rate..Rate...

    Summary: Your Four clock test (let's get it right), is flawed because you try to subtract the compounded rate of the Lorentz transforms from clocks traveling at different RATES.

    This is absurd. I'm surprised you haven't been fighting with your loan officer.
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member


    I agree. The reason you see it is because certain persons are refusing to pull it over here where I suggested it would not clutter the board.

    But the fact is he wants to keep it over there so he can play cute games and get laughs. I'm not laughing. I was hoping to get some serious discussion but if nobody is interested then so be it.

    Sorry for the intrusion.

Share This Page