Fundamentally Mac, the difference between real physicists and yourself is that you work for the Nobel Prize, they work for the sake of Physics. :m:
Prize GundamWing, Re: This is Fun quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MacM I just love to see people squirm when they are out smarted by a dummy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Much like your theory... saying so doesn't make it true. [[Seems the same applies to Relativity however]] GundamWing quote: ********************* Fundamentally Mac, the difference between real physicists and yourself is that you work for the Nobel Prize, they work for the sake of Physics. ********************* Actually you are also wrong about that. That would be nice since I like money. I was once a millionaire you know. But really I just want to gain a better understanding of the Universe.:bugeye:
Re: Prize So why not just read a good book on Relativity or QM after you learn the math? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Books GundamWing, Re: Prize quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MacM ...But really I just want to gain a better understanding of the Universe. [/B] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So why not just read a good book on Relativity or QM after you learn the math? [[That has an inferior tenant. It assumes they provide the information I am seeking.]]
Well no... there are these things called experiments. People generally do them to prove/disprove ideas. Many of these experiments have been done, and you can read all about them while you are waiting for your April 2003 to come. Problems in your theory have already been pointed out... but you have not pointed out any in Relativity. You can not attack it 'just because'. Point out a contradiction if you wish. Just make sure that it isn't really a contradiction in the problem (like before).
So you think you have the information all physists are seekng (a 'true' theory), but are to busy to go and investigate the existing theories well enough to understand them? What kind of information are you seeking that has to do with physics & math, but isn't found by education?
Information Persok, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That has an inferior tenant. It assumes they provide the information I am seeking. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you think you have the information all physists are seekng (a 'true' theory), but are to busy to go and investigate the existing theories well enough to understand them? What kind of information are you seeking that has to do with physics & math, but isn't found by education? [[Not at all. I have already acknowledged the quality of my work is a primary factor in my not having yet published. But having said that it is disappointing that people that should know theories are subject to change, revision and/or abandonment should resist something new that has very many sigifigant possibilites. I feel very sure there is an underlying truth in UniKEF. I don't have the moxy to pull it all together. But one of you guys could get the "Prize" if there is any substance to the current evidnece for UniKEF. That is the disappointment]]
Re: Books Do you know what you're seeking? Do you know what "relativity" and "quantum mechanics" provide? What do you 'want' to see about reality that isn't covered by these two models presently? Your previous argument about 'energy' being somehow important in gravity is invalid, it simply shows you don't know what energy, mass, time, space, or any of these concepts mean really; let alone more complex theories such as relativity and QM. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Information Originally posted by MacM Not at all. I have already acknowledged the quality of my work is a primary factor in my not having yet published. But having said that it is disappointing that people that should know theories are subject to change, revision and/or abandonment should resist something new that has very many sigifigant possibilites. I feel very sure there is an underlying truth in UniKEF. I don't have the moxy to pull it all together. But one of you guys could get the "Prize" if there is any substance to the current evidnece for UniKEF. That is the disappointment You are missing the point. You are not revising the current theory because you don't know enough too. As for abandonment, you are giving no reason to abandon it. You're theory offers nothing new, and makes easy problems that a highschooler could do into differential equations. You just 'feel' that it is right... which is not a valid way to argue science.
Re: Information Again, you're being vague; because you DONT know what you are seeking; or you DONT know what is currently known. First off, stop using words like "tenat" -- you are faking a semblence of intellectual knoweldge, when really you're just putting words together and making up things as you go based on your feelings. You really don't get what any of the words 'mean'. Your equation doesn't even look like standard math equations look -- its just a random concatenation of letters and things like "trig". That means nothing at all to anyone. If you're gonna use math, use it like it was meant to be used. The scientific community is not 'against' new ideas -- science is all about new ideas, but you MUST show that your new ideas peform BETTER in clear, concise, absolute, no-doubt-about-it, matter-of-fact ways, not random jargon and misconceptions about current theories -- you can't improve a current theory until you KNOW what it is. "If it ain't broke -- don't fix it." Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ps. If you're serious about physics, go get yourself a PhD in it first, then go around coming up with new theories. This isn't the 19th century. And no, Hotmail PhDs don't count. Put yourself through the rigor.
Years GundamWing, Actually I haven't done that bad all these years, considering being a dummy and all. Kinda happy with that.
Re: Years Dear god. Throw away your sensitivity. If you are a real scientist, get yourself a thick skin, pull your balls up, and be ready to face criticism. Stand up for things that you have absolute understanding of. Don't back up things which you don't fully investigate to their core. It's not a question of "dummies" and "smart" people. Get real. :m:
Re: Years A statement like that is just asking for this to become a personal attack... we are just stating that you don't understand relativity and have no basis to disprove it. Knowing relativity is not exactly something that will make your life better so the fact that you "haven't done that bad" doesn't support your understanding of relativity or the benefit of this theory.
Mac I never thought of you as a dummy at all. Some of your ideas are quite ingenious. But, we are without tools to define what we do not understand. Relativity is a well tested set of equations and principles. If you cannot mathematically define gravity through UniKEF, you most certainly cannot define the behavior of light and mass at extremely high speed, or under intense gravity. The further you reach with UniKEF, the less defined physics become. In this light, you are unqualified to challenge any well documented theory, mathematics, or concepts. You will have to do better than use conjecture to disprove or discredit anyone of the caliber of Lorenz, Einstein, or Newton.
Attacks Persol, And you guys haven't made attacks? Come on. And for my purposes I don't need to know a lot more about a theory that can be made fail so easy. I prefer something a bit more compliant with the reality of observation. I understand that Relativity is based on an observation but mis-interpretation of the observation has been used to distort reality (In my humble oinion). Actually I am in a rather enviable position. You can't really attack much of UniKEF because you can't determine if its concepts are testable until specific detail had been asserted.
You're in a sad position. You don't understand how science works. We don't have secrets here. There is no big 'net of suppression'. There is no orthodox regime. We are not the inquisition. We are however seekers of 'truth' which means we don't hold shit back and we put things out there at face value. Simple as that. There is no individuality here. Nor room for 'personal feelings'. The truth remains the truth whether we like it or not. Geez. :bugeye: And "reality of observation" makes no sense. Who's observing? If you mean what you observe with your plain eyes, then we aren't on the same planet. Again, you make a random statement about how relativity was founded on one observation, which again you don't say specifically what that is. Do you notice your vagueness here? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Attacks You haven't demonstrated how the theory fails... so stop saying this. This thoeyr is compliant with the reality of observation, which is demonstrated by the experiments which have been done. A lunatic could say the same thing, because you can not attack someone elses reality... if you want ANYONE who knows physics to believe your little theory you need a testable theory which has detail. Otherwise, why argue about it.
Alright MacM, let me point out the total incomprehension of relativity (no wait... basic math) that you seem to have: First off, you seem hurt that relativity "limits" us. This isn't a valid reason to attack it. Wrong. They do. Do you know the difference between an "inertial reference frame" and a "non-inertial reference frame"? The earth is not only "round" like a slightly smoohsed sphere, but it spins on its axis. This kinda makes a difference (i.e., acceleration, angular velocity, ... are these terms familiar?). It says nothing of the sort. It says that either perception is valid. Perception of velocity, and absolute velocity are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. There is NO absolute velocity! Because you don't understand velocity. Velocity is a vector. You have not corrected for the fact that you have used the WRONG relative velocity in your second calculation here. The relative velocity between the two clocks cannot be 0.1c obviously -- why? Do you remember any trigonometry? What first of all is the relative 'position' of each of these three satellites? Doesn't the angle make a difference in the corresponding LENGTH of the vector which describes the difference in the two velocities? Are we revising the "fundamental tenats" of simple vector algebra too? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yeah right -- like you'd give up this argument in my lifetime. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your very analysis made no real sense, so obviously the theory of relativity is clearly wrong. I see the big flubber that Einstein made now. :bugeye: No, the "why" was answered well by relativity -- you just failed to think it through and understand the basics of the explanation.
So Long Fluidity, quote: ******************* Mac I never thought of you as a dummy at all. Some of your ideas are quite ingenious. But, we are without tools to define what we do not understand. Relativity is a well tested set of equations and principles. If you cannot mathematically define gravity through UniKEF, you most certainly cannot define the behavior of light and mass at extremely high speed, or under intense gravity. The further you reach with UniKEF, the less defined physics become. In this light, you are unqualified to challenge any well documented theory, mathematics, or concepts. You will have to do better than use conjecture to disprove or discredit anyone of the caliber of Lorenz, Einstein, or Newton. ******************** [[Yours has been one of the better responders, the others venture off into half cocked extrapolations of what has been said and ignore numerous disclaimers that I have made. I didn't come here for the purpose of upsetting Relativity. That has occured because certain people have no common sense and believe they can out dance any body. Over 95% of responses have been in the form of personal attacks and distortions of what has been said and achieved. I am only glad that I stuck with this long enough to bust their bubble. They can wiggle all they want but they were out smarted. They can't handle that and they have no intention of questioning Relativity. That is unfortunatley their loss. I did come here thinking that people here had some courioisity and might find interest in the overall concept. That clearly is not the case. Their soul purpose here is to teach or poke fun at anybody that disagrees with them. I acknowledge in the Inroduction that this concept is incomplete and doesn't represent UniKEF but is "By way of Example". Most of the challenges have take the attitude that I believed I had the all incompassing theory. If they knew how to read anything but their own sarcastic posts they would have seen differently. Personally, I have decided to not post here again until our test data is released, then they can s__k my d___. Being here is a waste of everybodies time; including mine, which I happen to prize, It has been fun though watching them flap in the breeze. I think when I return they just might remember me. I would have been satisified with a simple acknowledgement of a paradox. But they think can simply keep regrinding the same old trash and get green backs. I have better things to do. I won and they lost. They know it and fortunately there a lot of others out there that saw the contest and they know it. These guys don't look quite so smart anymore. Maybe they will tread a little more lightly on the next Crackpot that strolls in here. Trying to be cute is not physics. What a shame. What a waste. I'm not leaving because I can't take the heat. I believe I have shown that. I'm leaving because I'm spending to much time argueing BS and none discussing issues that matter. That isn't my fault that is their fault. I appreciate your post and good luck. (Excluding you and several others) all the names back at you, you have earned them Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "ONE CRACKPOT BUSTER BUSTED - MANY MORE TO GO"
