No MacM -- you are leaving because precisely you "can't take the heat". Don't delude yourself further. And as for April, I won't hold my breath. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you wish to fool yourself into thinking that you have proven anything, you are mistaken. You continue to state that you presented a conflict in relativity but I don't see one. Arguing something you do not understand is not physics (and is not science). We are not arguing BS, but your false physics claims. I look forward to April 2003 coming and going without support for your claim.
MacM: I had a look at your web site. The pages on "Calculus" appear to have little to do with the UniKEF theory. In fact, they don't seem to be particularly connected to anything else on your site. I found the letters from Perdue and the Army interesting, though. The Army, back in 1969 or whenever it was, wrote to you, saying: "It is suggested that additional formal education would be of decided advantage in the pursuit of your efforts." Clearly, you did not take their advice. I really wonder what you've been doing for the last 30 years. Unfortunately, in 30 years I'm sure you've accumulated far too much baggage for me or anybody else here to be able to persuade you of any flaws in your theory or any lack of understanding on your part. Therefore, I have decided to stop trying. Good luck in your pursuits. I am glad you get satisfaction from them, and I wish you all the best, but I fear that to attempt further discussion of physics with you would be a wasted effort on my part.
I'm not going back to count, but I believe this was about the seventh time he said he will no longer be posting? MacM: so far you have given no information to validate your claims. In fact, you chose to turn your arguments into personal attacks instead of admitting you were wrong.
Summary Good Morning Gang: Actually I am still here. I posted the withdrawal for the sole purpose of seeing what sort of reactions I would get. Actually, I'm rather satisfied. I don't see much of what I expected. But I do want to re-post a few example of what is wrong with this forum (In my humble opinion). First, as I have already stated at some point in this diatribe, I had no ambition to come over here an "Prove" Relativity flawed. That became necessary because of certain attitudes trying to argue against statements using Relativity as the sole basis of their arguement. The fact is Relativity is problematic, valid or not, and should not be used as the sole basis to test any other concept. This only attempt any and all new concepts to comply with another theory. There is good cause to question the absolute correctness of Relativity. There is good cause to view Relativity as very useful also. But the fact that a theory serves our purpose in most cases one should not turn a blind eye to the problems with that theory and should be interested in anything that might clarify why it is problematic. I lost count of the times that members here extrapolted something said into something entirely different, then attempted to repeatedly refer to the distorted version of what was said in their arguements. Without specific source names I have assembled just a few responses for comment. Summary: ************** 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. ************** [[This is good. But what none of you know, so that is not your fault, is that this is the very problem with current theories of gravity. UniKEF calculus is in fact the process that shows gravity is not "point source" driven. That is it is geometry sensative and the testing to which I have referred deals with this aspect of gravity. It is really very simple and the testing to date has infact confirmed that gravity is geometry sensative. What I have achieved is to prove using specific designs of gravitating components is that the "point source" view is invalid. I will not discuss this further until the work is completed and published, so please don't press that issue. I will not respond. I've probably said more than I should already.]] ******** 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?). ******** [[The term you seek is "Oblate Spheroid". Can you imagine the response and treatment I would have received on this MSB had I used such a term as "Smoohsed"? There are actually numereous such foopaas made by the posters attacking me that have made imprecise statements, or incorrectly phrased statements, that go on to attack each and every word usage that I post. One example was chroot's trying to make an issue about me having used capital letters to emphasize a point. Then he in turn (and others) have used not merely capital letters to highlight but emboldened and enlarged letters. That doesn't bother me what did bother me is the effort to make an issue about something and to call names and not stick to the issues at hand but distort and distract from the primary issues being discussed. This particular subject is very telling. If you have a problem circumvent its discussion by chaning the subject.]] ******************* 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? ******************* [[Here is a perfect example. I do not recall anywhere in my posts or within UniKEF having discussed satellites, which would of course involve some trigonometry. But the fact is I have not and to attack me and ask if I have forgotten trigonometry all together, is a fabricated attack without any basis what-so-ever. I am not going to spend my time defending myself on issues for which there is no basis. If I have screwed up a trigonometry problem somwhere, fine, I have no problem having that pointed out but to fabricate such an issue is not acceptable. Adding to that is this statement in the above paragraph: "Are we revising the "fundamental tenats" of simple vector algebra too?" At one point I had used the term "tenat". I was immediately attacked for having done so. The post in affect ridiculed me for having used words that apparently were above my IQ. That was a non-issue and total BS and is an example of the distractions you seem to want to create. Using "Cross Product" however, instead of "Product" was however a valid complaint but it should have been pointed out without making it a major issue because frankly as I have said you guys have also made several foopaas as well. I haven't wanted to spin off the issue and waste time argueing such matters.]] ///////////////////////:To: James R. The follow are from your post. I appreciate you having taken the time to look. *************** MacM: I had a look at your web site. The pages on "Calculus" appear to have little to do with the UniKEF theory. In fact, they don't seem to be particularly connected to anything else on your site. **************** [[The calculus is a substitute for 1/r^2. Before you laugh and say why replace 1/r^2 with (8) pages of calculus, you should consider that the answer is that it is a more correct view of how gravity works. For circles (spheres) it also reduces to the equivelent of a point source. The value is and my testing has proven, that for other geometries point source calculations may not work. The calculue does work. So I suggest you hold your breath a few weeks on this one.]] ***************** I found the letters from Perdue and the Army interesting, though. The Army, back in 1969 or whenever it was, wrote to you, saying: "It is suggested that additional formal education would be of decided advantage in the pursuit of your efforts." Clearly, you did not take their advice. I really wonder what you've been doing for the last 30 years. ************** [[Glad you found something interestingPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I agree I should have advanced my education. I was in a position in fact to have gotten my degree had I went for one year to have taken some English, History, Social Studies and other subject for which I had little interest. The one letter which you failed to site ws from the Geodetic Institute. You and the others, I should think would have found that of most interest. They granted me permission to publish UniKEF where their work was Chapter 7, and my critique of their work was Chapter 8. Now I may have screwed some things up along the way re-writing and re-structuring and abbreviating from around 200 pages down to the abstract. I have also left out a lot of material and have tried to reduce the concept for length. I not only need to clean up my screw ups but perhaps will have to expand again, in that is seems obvious to me at this juncture, I cannot take for granted that everyone or anyone for that matter is going to assume anything. It is going to have to be spoon fed all the way. And finally, I have tried to make it clear that I was not proposing a complete, finalized view of UniKEF. So many of the attacks have been unjustified. Further there were numerous attacks implying, even stating by enuendo that I was a liar, a prefabricator. and that UniKEF had not been around and that my purported predictions were infact false claims. These documents and news articles clearly show that is not the case. Why should I have to spend my time defending against false claims, which would never had been posted had the poster simply look at the information before having made such assinine statements? What I have done for 30years is support myself, my family, some friends and at the peak about 20 other families by owning and operating my own research companies. I have had major clients and international clients and NASA contracts. So the lable that some have wanted to stick on me are wholly unjustified]] ******************* Unfortunately, in 30 years I'm sure you've accumulated far too much baggage for me or anybody else here to be able to persuade you of any flaws in your theory or any lack of understanding on your part. Therefore, I have decided to stop trying. ******************* [[Not so. You have infact been the only one that has posted a legitimate flaw and that was where I screwed up the m1+m2 issue. In fact even my reply was incorrect in that I didn't move the (cone of sources*trig) integration into the denominator. That is not to say others haven't raised legitimate issues, many have but they merely raised the issue and didn't present proper corrections. I don't expect for the MSB to assist in a re-write, nor do I expect the MSB to do nothing but attack for the sake of a few laughs - Most of which were unwarranted. I am not infact hard headed (don't laugh damnit) but you can't win by saying "I'm right because you are wrong" or "I'm right becaue you don't understand". Those attitudes assume the poster is right in the outset and that is not a proper debate of an issue. While all the distractions and arguements over non-issues extend the matter way beyond where it should have gone and the fact that the MSB doesn't want to acknowledge the truth. I won the debate over Relativity. That does not mean Relativity isn't correct. It does mean it is problematic. I showed without any arguement that if you assume Relativity correct you can prove it is invalid. And rather than attacking me for this untenable result, it would be interesting indeed to see this MSB with all the educated resources it has, to address that issue. I would love to see adiscussion about that. That is why I am here. I really don't have an axe to grind here. I am seeking the truth and to assume what I did there isn't a problem, is the problem . Nobody wants to challenge Relativity. Would you not rather know the truth. I would. We might not be able to unravel the truth but we should certainly have an interest in doing so and not just accept the fact: "If you hold that Relativity is valid, you can prove it is invalid". Solve it guys and I will applaude you as "You" are received in Oslo.]] ********** Good luck in your pursuits. I am glad you get satisfaction from them, and I wish you all the best, but I fear that to attempt further discussion of physics with you would be a wasted effort on my part. __________________ JR "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle. ******************* [[Not so. But as they say you can always change channels.]] ********************** On Radioactive Waves 738 posts I'm not going back to count, but I believe this was about the seventh time he said he will no longer be posting? MacM: so far you have given no information to validate your claims. In fact, you chose to turn your arguments into personal attacks instead of admitting you were wrong. *********************** [[Wrong and wrong. I only stated the ONE time that I would no longer post. I did state that I would no longer respond to personal attacks. I never assulted anyone. I did sling back a few arrows slung at me. I don't think that is unreasonable. I let far more arrows fly by. I am not thin skinned. I don't mind justifiable criticisim and I can and do make changes when they are justified. But don't expect me to roll over just because you say I should. If you don't like me and my thoughts, no problem with that. Ignore me but don't start another circle jerk or I will ignore you. Thanks to all that have participated. History was made here: "If you assume Relativity is valid, you can prove it is invalid" That is real real challenge, not me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Summary Originally posted by MacM Actually I am still here. I posted the withdrawal for the sole purpose of seeing what sort of reactions I would get. Um... yeah.... The fact is Relativity is problematic, valid or not, and should not be used as the sole basis to test any other concept. This only attempt any and all new concepts to comply with another theory. The attempt is to get all new concepts to comply with reality. Relativity has been shown to do this, so new concepts should agree with relativity. Summary: ************** 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. ************** This is good. But what none of you know, so that is not your fault, is that this is the very problem with current theories of gravity. UniKEF calculus is in fact the process that shows gravity is not "point source" driven. You're right... UniKEF is actually 'point space' driven. It the same problem from a different angle. We do not see why this different angle allows anything new or easier. That is it is geometry sensative and the testing to which I have referred deals with this aspect of gravity. It is really very simple and the testing to date has infact confirmed that gravity is geometry sensative. What I have achieved is to prove using specific designs of gravitating components is that the "point source" view is invalid. The whole 'point source view' is also geometrically sensitive to, in that it is only used when the distance between the objects is large enough that the lateral pull on an object is negligable. I will not discuss this further until the work is completed and published, so please don't press that issue. I will not respond. I've probably said more than I should already. I am finding it difficult to believe the work will be published in a peer-reviewed journal when you don't take the time to understand what the theory of your 'peers' is. ******************* Because you don't understand velocity. Velocity is a vector.... 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? ******************* [[Here is a perfect example. I do not recall anywhere in my posts or within UniKEF having discussed satellites, which would of course involve some trigonometry. But the fact is I have not and to attack me and ask if I have forgotten trigonometry all together, is a fabricated attack without any basis what-so-ever. I am not going to spend my time defending myself on issues for which there is no basis. Part of the question is that you did not give positions or directions in your experiment. It was assumed that you were using satellites, but that has no real issue. He could have just as easily said objects and the point would have been just as valid. This was also brought on by your mistake with the cross-product. The pages on "Calculus" appear to have little to do with the UniKEF theory. In fact, they don't seem to be particularly connected to anything else on your site. **************** The calculus is a substitute for 1/r^2. Before you laugh and say why replace 1/r^2 with (8) pages of calculus, you should consider that the answer is that it is a more correct view of how gravity works. You claim this is more correct but do not state why. The usual equation used to calculate gravity is a simplification which is derivied using calc. If you need more accuracy you could go back to point mass. The amount of calculus will be less then this 8 pages. For circles (spheres) it also reduces to the equivelent of a point source. The value is and my testing has proven, that for other geometries point source calculations may not work. The calculue does work. So I suggest you hold your breath a few weeks on this one. The existing theory also works for geometries other then spheres which are simplified into a point mass. The one letter which you failed to site ws from the Geodetic Institute. You and the others, I should think would have found that of most interest. They granted me permission to publish UniKEF where their work was Chapter 7, and my critique of their work was Chapter 8. Just because they granted you permission to publish UniKEF does not make it correct. It doesn't even mean they reviewed it. Their letter was just to notify you that you may use their material. Now I may have screwed some things up along the way re-writing and re-structuring and abbreviating from around 200 pages down to the abstract. I have also left out a lot of material and have tried to reduce the concept for length. I not only need to clean up my screw ups but perhaps will have to expand again, in that is seems obvious to me at this juncture, I cannot take for granted that everyone or anyone for that matter is going to assume anything. It is going to have to be spoon fed all the way. Agreed. You have to start from a basic problem and work your way up. At the same time demonstrating that it is consistant with observed experiments and is easier (or more correct) then the current methods. And finally, I have tried to make it clear that I was not proposing a complete, finalized view of UniKEF. So many of the attacks have been unjustified. People were pointing out logical flaws... Further there were numerous attacks implying, even stating by enuendo that I was a liar, a prefabricator and that UniKEF had not been around and that my purported predictions were infact false claims. These documents and news articles clearly show that is not the case. I reviewed your documentation and did not see these proofs. I saw so and so predicted this and its true, but not the original prediction. What I have done for 30years is support myself, my family, some friends and at the peak about 20 other families by owning and operating my own research companies. I have had major clients and international clients and NASA contracts. So the lable that some have wanted to stick on me are wholly unjustified This comment will cause people to start to attack you. While it is nice that you have support many people for 30 years, it doesn't support your physics work. I am not infact hard headed (don't laugh damnit) but you can't win by saying "I'm right because you are wrong" or "I'm right becaue you don't understand". Those attitudes assume the poster is right in the outset and that is not a proper debate of an issue. Once again you are missing the point. You are trying to explain this thoery which you claim is better. The only proof that you offer is "I'm right". While all the distractions and arguements over non-issues extend the matter way beyond where it should have gone and the fact that the MSB doesn't want to acknowledge the truth. The truth is that you do not have a complete or viable theory. We acknowledge that. I won the debate over Relativity. Once again you repeat this, but provide no evidence of this win. That does not mean Relativity isn't correct. It does mean it is problematic. I showed without any arguement that if you assume Relativity correct you can prove it is invalid. You showed that an ill-defined problem will have an ill-defined answer. And rather than attacking me for this untenable result, it would be interesting indeed to see this MSB with all the educated resources it has, to address that issue. I would too... but I don't see the problem. Nobody wants to challenge Relativity. Perhaps understanding should come before challenging... just a thought. Would you not rather know the truth. I would. We might not be able to unravel the truth but we should certainly have an interest in doing so and not just accept the fact: Well facts are made to be accepted. Relativity is a theory, and a good one. You have not shown any reason for us not to accept it. History was made here: Or not... but nice try
Persol did a good job covering the points, but let me reiterate his point on the whole issue of point sources and 1/r^2, since it was my comment that seems to have sparked this. The formula first taught to students of physics, f=G*m1*m2/r^2, is a formula for ideal situations. In the real world, it's a close answer for far sources. Later in physics a student learns that for near sources, odd shaped sources, or for sources that have varying density, you have to use calculus to determine the overall effect from the mass total. Newton's equations are not defined as point solutions, that's just a simplified special purpose equation. So a point source equation can be used if the amount of error is acceptable. Which it would be in a spherical, long range, even density problem. For real world applications calculus must be used. This is true of any real world application of physics...the world is not a consistant, even place.
Mac From your website: The letter actually states that your ideas appear in other literature but in advanced form. The letter also goes on to state that you should seek a formal education. It seems you may have stolen your ideas from someone else and that the Army is politely telling you so. They go on to infer that you don’t understand what it is you’ve stolen. So far from what I’ve read in your posts, you’re still unable to read between the lines.
Ditto Q, This is a perfect example of what I have said. I don't believe I have ever said they said it was "Consistant". I do believe I said exactly what you said, "That it was found in other scientifc works" Big differance. If you can show me where I have claimed otherwise I will promply opologize and amend such post.
e-mail Group: FYI: For your further consideration. I have just received this message from a well wisher. You have seen me make comments and such comment are also contained in UniKEF, so it is not a subject that I was unaware of. Wish I had thought of using it as well. It should be considered as to what that implication would be in the 3 Clock Debate. **************** Quantum Entanglement Just wanted you to see this link: http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/2/6 What it means is that it may be possible to send signals between the three clocks in the "three clock paradox" instantaneously using quantum entanglement. This invalidates chroot's arguement that the experiment can't physically be performed
Re: e-mail You see one thing and just assume that it supports you, which it doesn't. Chroot stated conditions under which the clocks could be 'syncronized' and you simply ignored them. Then he made the mistake of trying to simplify the problem for you by allowing instantaneous acceleration, which further invalidated the problem. We all agree that you can sync the three clocks under certain circumstances, but the results of the test depend on how you do that syncronization.
Re: Ditto Maybe you said that here: http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/groupphotos.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=28 From the above link:
Consistant Persol, You are absolutely correct and I stand corrected. That will be amended. Having acknowledged that, then please acknowledge that at other statements and postings I have not asserted that incorrect assumption.
Re: Summary Good Morning. That's the first statement of fact I've seen. Uh-huh. Your opinion is no where near 'humble', but do go on. Where does the diatribe start and where does it end. No its not; you don't understand it. It isn't being used as the 'sole-basis' to test any other concept. Most of the flaws we pointed out were logical or mathematical errors -- nothing to do with relativity. Which is??? Uh, what do you mean 'point-source' driven? If you used calculus at ALL, you integrated over points. Looks like you need a math lesson more than anything else. So, how does this change anything? You haven't discussed anything to this point either -- just made proclamations of victory. You are probably right about having said more than required. The term may be oblate spheroid but it refers to smooshed spheres. You don't understand what requires 'precision' and what doesn't. You are simply drawing me away from the core of my argument now. Even if it was an ordinary "sphere" my statement still has validity. I never fabricated any issue. Your problem of three clocks implies that they are situated in some kind of triangular form. Trigonometry doesn't care if you are talking about three vertices on a triangle or a satellite orbiting something. If they are not in a straight line, and from your statements this is the case, you must use trigonometry to calculate the proper relative velocities, distances, etc. You miss my point. When you can use simpler words, use them. Don't use words like "tenat" because they are just too fancy. In general scientists don't use 'fancy' words, only 'appropriate' words. Take a class on technical writing. Learn to simplify what you write. JamesR/Chroot have provided several exampels of 'succinct' and 'to the point' answers and posts -- the hallmark of good science. Not a distraction. A necessary requirement if you wish to communicate your ideas to other people so that they understand what you're saying. If we made "foopaas" then that would have been a valid point of argument; instead you chose to 'waste' your time and ours with unjustified 'proclamations of victory over the theory of relativity'. Yeah, and donkeys are substituted for the term 'G' (as Chroot might say). "1/r^2" is a formula or part of an equation, 'calculus' is a general descriptor of a method. Again, what testing? Where are the results? (oh yeah... April... riiiight) Was this through hotmail? It is exactly that attitude with which you have presented UniKEF. There was no 'debate' over relativity. You claimed it was flawed, period, no justification or explanation given. Again, your bloated view of yourself.
Distraction Arguements GDW, I think you make my point. Tht is what most on this MSB has attempted to do. Shift attention to misspelled words, misprinted formulas (meant only as shot cuts to what was assumed understood), etc. ********************** The term may be oblate spheroid but it refers to smooshed spheres. You don't understand what requires 'precision' and what doesn't. You are simply drawing me away from the core of my argument now. Even if it was an ordinary "sphere" my statement still has validity. ********************** My point is and remains, had I used that term there would have no limit to the out cry and slander.
Re: Distraction Arguements There would have been no "outcry" so long as "smooshed spheres" wasn't central to your argument. Again, all flaws and attacks were focused on poor mathematics and poor descriptions (if any) of what you're saying.
Persol Thanks for posting the appropriate link. It appears Mac might need to change his website somewhat. Perhaps a carte-blanche apology is in order. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mac If you wish to work entanglement purification into your pet theory, it might be best to read about it first: http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0012/0012026.pdf
Triangle GDW, Where on earth did you ever come to such a conclusion? Not once was the test ever stated as being clocks moving at high velocity in orbits. I can only assume everybodyelse had the proper view that the clocks were moving away from earth; which the only method to establish relative velocity to clock "C" and each other, with fixed constant magnitude. ************* I never fabricated any issue. Your problem of three clocks implies that they are situated in some kind of triangular form. Trigonometry doesn't care if you are talking about three vertices on a triangle or a satellite orbiting something. If they are not in a straight line, and from your statements this is the case, you must use trigonometry to calculate the proper relative velocities, distances, etc. *****************
Smooshed GDW, So "Smooshed" is more scientific? The problem is you want and have attacked my use of inferior scientific precision AND for being to eloquent. Which is it? The facts are that this MSB launches an attack and picks on anything and everything, blows it out of proportion and avoids discussing the principle issue. All in the name of who can be the cutest poster. ***************** You miss my point. When you can use simpler words, use them. Don't use words like "tenat" because they are just too fancy. In general scientists don't use 'fancy' words, only 'appropriate' words. Take a class on technical writing. Learn to simplify what you write. JamesR/Chroot have provided several exampels of 'succinct' and 'to the point' answers and posts -- the hallmark of good science ******************
Responses Continue GDW, Here is the perfect example of what I have said. ************** [[The calculus is a substitute for 1/r^2. Before you laugh and say why replace 1/r^2 with (8) pages of calculus, you should consider that the answer is that it is a more correct view of how gravity works. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, and donkeys are substituted for the term 'G' (as Chroot might say). "1/r^2" is a formula or part of an equation, 'calculus' is a general descriptor of a method. ******************** Your response about "donkeys", is a non-response. An attck on a fact that you have no knowledge about but will learn of soon.
