UniKEF

Stop

Persol,

You seem to have missed several point here. Important points.

chroot made a big deal out of it was impossible to stop all clocks at the same time. If he believes in time dialtion then the clocks do stop at the same time. So it wasn't impossible after all.

More importantly having done so you will find the clocks do not satisfy the requirements of the test.

1 - Observer C: Delta A/B
2 - A: Delta A/B
3 - B: Delta A/B
4 - A: Delta C/B


Tell me the time on each clock relative to that calculated by Relativity for each observer.

Now that I have according to chroot just accomplished the impossible I ask he and you to do the same.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Re: Stop

This is a joke. If you stipulate that the clocks stop at some particular reading, then you no longer have an experiment. The effect you seek to measure, time dilation, will not be measured.

Your assertion that "the clocks stop at the same time" cannot be evaluated, because you still can't know exactly when they stopped. The clocks just say what they were programmed to say. You're now assuming relativity is valid in your quest to prove that relativity is not valid.

Listen, Mac... if you can't come up with a mechanism to MAKE (not INFER) the clocks stop at the same instant, just let it go. Maybe you learned something from this experience.

- Warren

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1 x -5 point starting credit.
10 x 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
14 x 1 point for every time you repost the same exact message
2 x 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful correction.
1 x 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results of a widely accepted real experiment.
8 x 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those with defective keyboards).
1 x 10 points for arguing that while a current well-established theory predicts phenomena correctly
1 x 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
1x 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.
1 x 30 points for claiming to have mathematical support, which is proven wrong or non-existant
1 x 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)
(Terms of Surrender is close enough)
1 x 50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions.
----------
234... not bad... not bad

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Some info about MacM and UniKEF:

1) Claims to have designed a perpetual motion device (US Patent 3292365).
2) Admits that UniKEF is unsupported mathematically, except for some gravity.
3) Claims that UniKEF made numerous predictions, but does not state any basis for these predictions. (A prediction must be made before an event)
4) UniKEF is basically a 'pressure gravity' theory.
(If you are being pushed together by outside pressure, why do people in a building experience gravity)
5) MacM states that time flows from the Chiral Condensate, but can not explain what the Chiral Condensate is.
(flow means motion... motion needs time... so how does time flow?)
6) Claims dimensions are caused by time-energy, which flows back into everything 'flowing' from the Chiral Condensate... which he can not explain

 

IQ Please

Persol,

1 - Patent 3292365 is indeed a perpetual device. It has no useful function. I have already stated that. How many patents have you managed to achieve? I recanted that patent more years ago tha I'm sure you are old.

2 - Big deal. I would be more than satisfied if only gravity were valid. I have already said more than once here that I am not and have not claimed a break through but if you assholes don't care to look at something very interesting then there isn't much hope for you long term. By the way how many theories involving free thought have you succeded in putting together?

3 - UniKEF has been around since 1954. Predictions were in the original manuscript. Physicst professors, The Geodetic Institute, the US Army, News Articles, etc., all dated and available for your edification before you open your mouth commiting slanderous enuendo. You are indeed making yourself look stupid by doing so. predictions have been in advance of discovery by 10 to 40 years. Not bad for a crack pot. HOw many universal discoveries have you been able to have made that have ever been found? "0".

4 - That is reall stupid. Since the field penetrates not only the earth but massive Black Holes, I dare say your view of "Pressure Gravity" is assinine. I have never once used the term pressure. And have only recently compared it to what others call "Pushing Gravity" Learn what it is you are talking about before casting negative comments.

5 - So what. I said "Most likely source, because it is the first and only signifigant energy source discovered that "Might" provide the answer. I could have remained quiet, just as I have for almost 50 years, waiting for such a field to be found and I would not have even gone public if it were not for the results of UniKEF testing thus far. And guess what should it turn out that that is the case I get to claim yet another prediction about the universe, 50+ years before it was discovered - wow weee.

6 - Same as above.
-----------------

Score "0" Not to good jerk.

So go ahead and make yourself look like a jackass. You can join Mr mouth that dug himself a hole he can't wiggle out of.

 

Trapped

chroot,

You are trapped and you know it. You can't have it both ways.


quote:
****************
This is a joke. If you stipulate that the clocks stop at some particular reading, then you no longer have an experiment. The effect you seek to measure, time dilation, will not be measured.
****************

Stop trying to confuse the people. If the clocks didn't stop at those times they would not according to your precious Relativity stop simultaneously. Now you want to object to the use of Relativity to conduct the test. the very theory you say works.

You have already done all the calculations so since you seem to want to resist posting your own results and since I have succeeded in meeting all the terms of the test stipulation, I guess I will have to post the data for you.

**************************************:Hours
1 - Stipulated test time by clock C************:10.000
2 - C's view of Clock A:**********************9.798
3 - C's view of Clock ************************9.539
4 - Differential predicted by C for (A-B)**********0.259
5 - Differential predictied by A for (A- B):*********0.048

Since #4 and #5 are not in agreement your physical clock must be capable of possessing two different time losses simultaneously.

Seems to me you lose. And I don't even need to resort to the other impossible conclusions where even more clock errors exist by looking at what B predicts.

quote:
****************
Listen, Mac... if you can't come up with a mechanism to MAKE (not INFER) the clocks stop at the same instant, just let it go. Maybe you learned something from this experience.
***************

So you refuse to trust Relativity to stop the clocks? That is strange indeed.

I think it is you that learned something from this experience. At least I would hope so.

Personally I thought using Relativity to prove Relativity has conflicts was pretty damn neat.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I thought making you deny Relativity or accept clock timing was also not bad for a crackpot. Especially since you mouthed off so loudly that timing the clocks was impossible.

You know what your problem really is? You think memorizing what others have figured out before you makes you smart but you have never learned to think for yourself.

That is the difference between being educated and intelligent.

 

I think c hroot said something like "you cant use relativy to disprove relativity"

 

Re: IQ Please

Originally posted by MacM
Patent 3292365 is indeed a perpetual device. It has no useful function.
Then why the hell patent it?

I would be more than satisfied if only gravity were valid. I have already said more than once here that I am not and have not claimed a break through but if you assholes don't care to look at something very interesting then there isn't much hope for you long term.
If it gives the same exact results with more work there isn't any benefit in it.

By the way how many theories involving free thought have you succeded in putting together?
Depends what you consider free thought... if design counts, then plenty... if it's physics theories that have no experimental/mathematical backing then none

3 - UniKEF has been around since 1954. Predictions were in the original manuscript. Physicst professors, The Geodetic Institute, the US Army, News Articles, etc., all dated and available for your edification before you open your mouth commiting slanderous enuendo.
I would really like to see a dated reference...

Since the field penetrates not only the earth but massive Black Holes,
So if the field goes through the earth, it would seem the pressure above and below me would be the same. Let's assume you go the extra step where this 'pressure' steadily decreases as it goes through matter. This has also been proven not to work out. Now you could add in that this 'pressure' steadily decrease when going through a vacuum as well, but this leads to a very convoluted theory when you could calculate gravity very simply.

I dare say your view of "Pressure Gravity" is assinine.
Smack my ass and call me Shirley.

I have never once used the term pressure. And have only recently compared it to what others call "Pushing Gravity"
So you have said so recently, but have never said it.

I said "Most likely source, because it is the first and only signifigant energy source discovered that "Might" provide the answer.
You admit yourself that you don't understand it, so you have no basis for saying that it is a likely source.

So go ahead and make yourself look like a jackass.
hee-haw

You can join Mr mouth that dug himself a hole he can't wiggle out of.
I'll let him answer that... but I think it'll be along the lines of undefined problem. If I ask you to calculate 3 using 3 what's the answer? 0,1,3,6,9,27?

 

Reply

Persol,

Re: IQ Please
Originally posted by MacM
Patent 3292365 is indeed a perpetual device. It has no useful function.
Then why the hell patent it?

[[ Academic and back then I was dumber than you seem to think I am now - fooled the Patent Office though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

]]

I would be more than satisfied if only gravity were valid. I have already said more than once here that I am not and have not claimed a break through but if you assholes don't care to look at something very interesting then there isn't much hope for you long term.
If it gives the same exact results with more work there isn't any benefit in it.

[[I believe I have already stated that in my reply to James R - It offers a physical understanding of the process, m^2 does not. I wouldn't use it I don't think but it certainly helps to have a mental picture of the physical world and its processes]]

By the way how many theories involving free thought have you succeded in putting together?
Depends what you consider free thought... if design counts, then plenty... if it's physics theories that have no experimental/mathematical backing then none

[[Wrong. Not nearly enough but there is mathematical support, physical testing and predictions that have born out that say you missed this one. Design, done plenty of that myself.]]

3 - UniKEF has been around since 1954. Predictions were in the original manuscript. Physicst professors, The Geodetic Institute, the US Army, News Articles, etc., all dated and available for your edification before you open your mouth commiting slanderous enuendo.
I would really like to see a dated reference...

[[Take a stroll to my home page. The photo album has 37 photos. Plenty of Documents. Knock yourself out.]]

Since the field penetrates not only the earth but massive Black Holes,
So if the field goes through the earth, it would seem the pressure above and below me would be the same. Let's assume you go the extra step where this 'pressure' steadily decreases as it goes through matter. This has also been proven not to work out. Now you could add in that this 'pressure' steadily decrease when going through a vacuum as well, but this leads to a very convoluted theory when you could calculate gravity very simply.

[[You forgot ~ and you must view the graphics and read the material. You won't get it by fighting it]]

I dare say your view of "Pressure Gravity" is assinine.
Smack my ass and call me Shirley.

[[I'll pass]]

I have never once used the term pressure. And have only recently compared it to what others call "Pushing Gravity"
So you have said so recently, but have never said it.

[[Critique time. Your sentance is garbage and doesn't make sense]]

I said "Most likely source, because it is the first and only signifigant energy source discovered that "Might" provide the answer.
You admit yourself that you don't understand it, so you have no basis for saying that it is a likely source.

[[I'll accept that. It would have been more appropriate to have said "potential source" But in the same paragraph I also said "Might"]]

So go ahead and make yourself look like a jackass.
hee-haw

[[

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You can join Mr mouth that dug himself a hole he can't wiggle out of.
I'll let him answer that... but I think it'll be along the lines of undefined problem. If I ask you to calculate 3 using 3 what's the answer? 0,1,3,6,9,27?

[[Fair enough. But it was a valid test and a valid answer]]

 

Mis-Quote

On Radioactive Waves.

quote:
******************
I think c hroot said something like "you cant use relativy to disprove relativity"
******************


I don't know if he as ever said anything like that but in my Introduction to UniKEF I state:

"You cannot use Relavistic Mathematics to Prove Relativity"

Notice I didn't say:

"You cannot use Relavisitc Mathematics to Disprove Relativity"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: Re: Stop

 

Absolutely

On Radioactive Waves,

You bet. ch contended it was impossible to synchronize the clocks in a very loud and pointed voice.

Then he wants to object to using the very theory he is swearing by to accomplish the feat?

Can't have it both ways. The clocks will stop when they are supposed to or Relativity doesn't work.

Argue that it is valid and the clocks stop correctly. And that proves the theory invalid.

Kinda neat trick don't you agree? Espescially for a Crackpot.

The reason it is still a valid approach is that one could have actually stipulated the synchronization and shown the result. For obvious reasons ch didn't want to do that. So rather than expend a lot of time coming up with some cockeyed system that he could argue about for another 3 days and avoid the ultimate issue I choose to lock him in.

By the way, you understand why I have done this don't you?

You see it simply becomes another paradox. Who the hell knows what reality is. But I didn't like chroots smart ass tone and thought he needed a little lesson.

I let him believe in his own view of me, dig a nice big hole and then show him he had misjudged my intelligence.

That doesn't sound good. It isn't what I want to say.

"That I was not the Crackpot and all those other unjustified presumptions he was making"

I even offered him a draw on Terms of Surrender but he was so cock sure of himself he rejected the offer.

But to you and the rest, I have no further interest to argue Relativity is invalid. It is a useful tool but I hope at least I have shown that it is problematic. And that means it should not be used or relied upon to not consider alternatives, if those alternatives stand the test outside the bounds assumed by Relativity.

 

let me say this. I'm retaking mechanics , which I withdrew from a year ago. Well today was the second day of lecture, and discussed how cross products of vectors are vectors. Yes, day 2 of mechanics.

do you know anything about the Hiesenberg uncertainty principle?

 

Uncertainty

On Radioactive Waves,

I know of it and have a general idea but actually have never used it.

I went through Nuclear engineering in 1965. I barely remember what my wife looked like back then.

 

Off the current subject...

MacM, you've stated before that you saw m * m to be a problem? What equation did you see that in, since Newton's equation isn't squaring the same mass, it's m1 * m2, which makes perfect sense. Is it a relativity gravity equation I don't know about?

 

and you never learned calculus?

 

Calculus

ORW,

Just Introductory and some matrix stuff but after school never used either. Do use a lot of algebra, trig and geom.

 

m*m

Jaxom,

You are absolutely correct. I should have put m1*m2 and I believe I have in the many other posts I have made and throughout the UniKEf manuscript where I reference that issue.

However, if you notice I also dropped the 1/r^2. This was a short cut to a point that I didn't think mattered and that everyone understood.

m1*m2 units are still mass squared. That is purely a mathematical concept devoid of any physical meaning.

m1+m2 is used in UniKEF and provides the abiity to get the same force result but has the advantage of being a physical process that one can understand, not a mere mathematical algorithum.

 

I disagree. Each point of a mass will pull on the other points in the second mass. Hence the multiplication of their mass values. 1/r^2 determines just how strong this pull is from the distance. I remember having to integrate problems to prove that the process works with point masses and real dimensional masses, like spheres and disks...that was a while ago.