52K20 GDW, quote: *************** Finally, do you think that being a 52K20 "nuclear reactor operator" means that you understand "relativity"? Homer Simpson was a "nuclear reactor operator", I don't buy his theory of relativity either. *************** Being a 52K20 has no bearing on anything. I can tell you this, I graduated 2nd by 0.1 point average. But that doesn't say anything either. You could suppose that the entire group were dummies. But of course your presumption would be grossly in error. You seem hell bent on avoiding the embarassing question by merely going on the attack. The question is, not my qualifications, it is: "IF YOU ASSUME RELATIVITY IS VALID YOU CAN PROVE IT IS INVALID" , Why? Now address the question.
Mac Tom VF and the Army are only being polite. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The members here are giving you the appropriate feedback pointing out the flaws of your pet theory. In other words, they are sacrificing politesse for intelligence. Which do you prefer?
Re: Diatribe Nonsense Now call me stupid (I'm sure you will) but that seemed like a very good analogy. This has been the events so far: You present your UniKEF theory It was attacked on a scientific basis You responded by attacking Relativity, and in doing so demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Relativity You stubbornly refused to accept that your problem was malformed You accused other people of distorting the problem (which had to be done as it was incomplete) Someone made a personal jab at you You got offended [/list=a] If you want to start a productive discussion, gather your materials, organize them, and start a new thread to explain (from first principles) your conclusions. If you want to argue about relativity, formulate a problem you think has no solution, and attempt to find a solution. If you can not post it in a new thread and ask for how it is solved. This thread is accomplishing nothing because you are just accusing us, and we are accusing back. Hence this is my last post to this thread. If you have something worthwhile which can be discussed, and has some semblance of proof, start a new thread.
MacM, All joking aside, here is your main problem. You seem to have some romanticized view of how research is done and theories are formulated -- most likely from watching too many movies, or simply reading too many biographies of famous physicists. I can relate to that completely. I've seen many movies where we see Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and their group of 'cronies' sit around a blackboard and toss words around like "E=mc^2", and "what about the momentum?", "but... spacetime must be curved", or "no no... things are quantized!!!", or "but we can never really know a particles momentum and position simultaneously", etc. But, you must understand the relationship between these movies and what real physicists go through to derive things is about as good as the difference between Homer Simpson when he's operating his power plant, and you when you are operating yours. There's a huge difference and level of complexity in "real life" that is absent in the "movies". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! However, what you fail to understand is the fundamental reason WHY people are not 'receiving' your theory. Why? You provide no derivations, your understanding of basic concepts seems quite wrong, and you offer no experimental evidence (...yeah, "April"). :bugeye: For example, here are examples of what a derivation 'should' look like. derivation of Pv=nRT >>http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2041_f97/kin_thr/kin_thr.html derivation of Thermodynamic equations >> http://www.life.uiuc.edu/crofts/bioph354/thermo_eq.htm derivation of mass energy equivalence principle >> http://www.ams.org/bull/2000-37-01/S0273-0979-99-00805-8/S0273-0979-99-00805-8.pdf conservation of charge and the continuity equation >> http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~mattison/Courses/Phys401/lecture6.pdf Do you see a difference in those examples and your method of presenting your 'theory'? You have taken the concept of "Gedanken Experiment" and used flawed conceptions of well-defined physical concepts, claimed it as proof of concept, with no derivations to support anything you state, and no experiments to verify your claims. ...therein lies the whole of your problem. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! peace. :m:
Issue Gentlemen, I want you to know that I appreciate what appears to me to be a change in tone. That doesn't mean I accept every remark and I will respond in follow up posts. I am posting an extract of the conversation to which you made prior reference. I do so with no intention of speaking for some other person. He is a physicist of some standing. He can speak for himself. But I post it for three reasons, which I will elaborate afterwords: quote: ***************** I am no fan of special relativity (SR), and my co-authored paper last summer in Foundations of Physics purports to falsify SR in favor of Lorentzian relativity (LR). However, if we are going to discuss SR, then you must accept the premises of SR for purposes of the discussion, even if you don't like or believe them. ***************** 1 - He is qualified to hold an opinion and it qppears to differ with yours and is more in line with mine. So the issue of my qualification is not and should have never been at issue. That should only occur if I state something that is not already within the scientific community. Rather than address the issue, you choose to attack my qualifications. 2 - He makes the point that SR should be challenged on the basis of SR. That is quite simular to what I stated earlier in that UniKEF should be challenged on the basis of UniKEF. Now there I understand there is a problem in that UniKEF is not complete. It is a very loosely bound series of "what if's" at best. 3 - He is also a believer in "Pushing Gravity". That is why I joined that site. I don't agree with all his views and I'm very sure he would not agree with mine. But we do have some common vision with regards to what gravity is or may be. So I'm not some loney from mars as some have tried to portray. I don't really mind such nonsense,except that it detracts from discussion of the basic issues. I am now going to respond to each of your posts and if you would hold your comments until I do, that may set the tone for further discussions.
Polite Q, quote: *********** Mac Tom VF and the Army are only being polite. Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The members here are giving you the appropriate feedback pointing out the flaws of your pet theory. In other words, they are sacrificing politesse for intelligence. Which do you prefer? *********************** Unfortunately you only gave two choices. Of the two I prefer frankness. And may I suggest that I doubt the Army had to translate a 40 page document and send me just to be polite. Like wise the Geodetic Institute certainly wouldn't have given me permission to publish including their work, since my evaluation came to some different conclusions. However, the third choice is frankness with some politeness. I just got a phone call and must run out and take care of some park business. But I will return shortly.
Diatribe Persol, quote: ****************** Now call me stupid (I'm sure you will) but that seemed like a very good analogy. [[I will not. But your analogy I believe is much to extreme as a comparison in this case]] This has been the events so far: You present your UniKEF theory [[Not so. I at the request of James R., present One of the many predictions that I had made as a consequence of developing the UniKEF view. That was of gravitating bodies being heated by gravity. That really never got discussed. We were to busy commenting about my qualification. If the predictions were made before the discovery or after (calling me a liar for no reason or bais), commenting about the use of capital letters to emphasize a point, commenting about saying "Cross Product", which I meant to mean multiplication of the two together. There certainly are polite ways to draw attention to such mis-use of a terms, commenting about the screwup in writing the expression for gravity. James R., pointed out that error and I am fixing it. It doesn't alter the basic concept. The list goes on. But the problem is there has been no real discussion of the primary issue.]] It was attacked on a scientific basis I agree it was attack. I wouldn't call name calling part of being scientific. How can you attack what NASA has verified? YOu weren't attacking UniKEF scientifically. You were attacking me unscientifically]] You responded by attacking Relativity, and in doing so demonstrated your lack of knowledge of Relativity [[ At least you got the first half right. Considering what I did with the 3 Clock Problem, I don't think you are justified to state I am completely uninformed on the subject.]] You stubbornly refused to accept that your problem was malformed. [[Because it wasn't. Efforts to avoid a bonifide comparision of the clocks by refusing to stipulate control of the clocks was a non-issue. The issues was the comparison of the clocks assuming the timing. There are many many things in science that are assumed for the sake of analysis. Using Relativity to synchronize the clocks was a simple way of eliminating the objection and to get to the point of checking the results of 3 Clocks having had uniform relative velocity for a given period of time all reference to a control clock. When that was done (regardless if one can actually provide such control) what it shows is that Relativity is problematic because clocks must posses two different time losses simultaneously. None of you seem to want to address that issue. I can understand why. That result has absolutely nothing to do with my qualifications. I used your dilation calculations and when it became obvious where that was leading you attempted to stop the test by placing artificial arguements in the path of continuing.]] You accused other people of distorting the problem (which had to be done as it was incomplete) [[As you can see it didn't have to be done to complete the test. After 10 hours, each clock should register the times indicated by you (meaning those that supplied answers). In such a case it is completly logical to use such calculation to preset stopping the clocks. Granted it is a subjective way of doing it but either Relativity is valid and the clocks are hence stopped when they should or it isn't and they don't. You would never know if they did stop correctly, that is true and they would read exactly what you preset them to do. The point is by assuming Relatiivty is valid and that the clocks will stop at the correct times (which you calculated) circumvents the road block being presented so as not to proceed. Therefore assuming Relativity was valid, the clocks times will be that which you calculated if Relativity was valid or not. having done that then you are in a position of comparing clocks to determine if Relativity is consistant. It was not. There is no scientific basis for rejecting preseting the clock to circumvent the synchronization problem. I proved my point. You don't have to like it. But I am not the one that said that would be the times on the clocks.]] Someone made a personal jab at you You got offended [[Actually you are wrong. I spent more time wipping tears of laughter from my eyes than anything. I never seen so many grown men squirm so much. I did sling a few arrows back but not nearly as many as I received. And I didn't sling any back until it became obvious that fruitful talks were impossible. What bothered me the most was the inability to get anyone to address the issues and stop the attcks. I'm not here to challenge you individually. I'm sure you each are quite smart, although some of your comments don't show it. Part of the problem was the "Get the CrackPot". Everybody wanted a piece of me and cared less about the issue. I'm still interested in why 3 Clocks don't match when being returned to earth. But lets let that dead horse lay.]] If you want to start a productive discussion, gather your materials, organize them, and start a new thread to explain (from first principles) your conclusions. [[Iwould indeed. However, I'm not sure that is possible since everyone seems to think the general subject matter cannot be discussed. That before making any comments one must have perfectly finished arguement. As I believe is clear both from my statements on the issue and the language of the Introduction, UniKEF is very loosely bound. It is virtually devoid of experimental or mathematical foundation. At the same time I find it courious that the number of predictions it lead to that have been found doesn't make you at least courious about the overall concept.]] If you want to argue about relativity, formulate a problem you think has no solution, and attempt to find a solution. If you can not post it in a new thread and ask for how it is solved. [[I have no ambition to do that. I was forced to do that by the slander and attacks leveled at me. I was determined that you find I was not a "Crackpot Pushover" that you could drive of this MSB and then all chuckle about the wonderful deed you had done science. It "ain't gonna happen guys. we'll have fruitful discussions or we won't have discussions. That is up to the members]] This thread is accomplishing nothing because you are just accusing us, and we are accusing back. Hence this is my last post to this thread. If you have something worthwhile which can be discussed, and has some semblance of proof, start a new thread. [[You make my point. The condition of "Proof". I know you don't believe it and that is fine. I wouldn't expect you to take my word but the only "Proof" will be the release of the test data shortly. Having said that I don't understand the resistance to general discussion of alternative and their implications without proof. That sort of discussion could become very enlightening and ultimately result in sombody finding such proof. To resist such notions merely surpresses such work.]]
Research GDW, quote: ****************** MacM, All joking aside, here is your main problem. You seem to have some romanticized view of how research is done and theories are formulated -- most likely from watching too many movies, or simply reading too many biographies of famous physicists. I can relate to that completely. I've seen many movies where we see Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and their group of 'cronies' sit around a blackboard and toss words around like "E=mc^2", and "what about the momentum?", "but... spacetime must be curved", or "no no... things are quantized!!!", or "but we can never really know a particles momentum and position simultaneously", etc. But, you must understand the relationship between these movies and what real physicists go through to derive things is about as good as the difference between Homer Simpson when he's operating his power plant, and you when you are operating yours. There's a huge difference and level of complexity in "real life" that is absent in the "movies". [[This tone is polite but the implication is wholly false. You appear to paint me as mental case that doesn't know movies from reality. What is that?. I not only was a real "Control Room Operator" in real nuclear power plants but I was part of the TMI clean up, Palo Verde (I wrote training manuals for maintenance and operators of the plant), and I was the Start-Up Coordinator at Shoreham Nuclear Plant. Add to that list that for several decades I was self sufficient operating my own Research Corp which had 46 stockholders and 20 employees. Of course I know how to perform research. I have done NASA contracts and may things that required technical writting, precision of presentation, etc. I felt I was up front both in my presentation thus far andin the written Introduction to UniKEF that I was making a disclaimer of having that status with regard to UniKEF. But I don't think that means it can not or should not be discussed.]] However, what you fail to understand is the fundamental reason WHY people are not 'receiving' your theory. Why? You provide no derivations, your understanding of basic concepts seems quite wrong, and you offer no experimental evidence (...yeah, "April"). [[See here is that tone again - April.]] For example, here are examples of what a derivation 'should' look like. derivation of Pv=nRT >>http://www.chem.ufl.edu/~itl/2041_f...hr/kin_thr.html derivation of Thermodynamic equations >> http://www.life.uiuc.edu/crofts/bioph354/thermo_eq.htm derivation of mass energy equivalence principle >> http://www.ams.org/bull/2000-37-01/...-99-00805-8.pdf conservation of charge and the continuity equation >> http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~mattison...01/lecture6.pdf [[I think this issue has been addressed. It is not that I don't know what is involved or how to do it, it is because even after 50 years it simply has not been carried to that level in UniKEF. UniKEF is entirely based on the concept of gravity. From there there are nothing but speculations as to whatelse that could mean. broad unsupported assumptions are made and a failry comprehensive general view is attempted. Those assumption can and most likely are completely wrong but I make the point that this is all "By Way of Example". By discussion such matters those assumptions may be narrowed, eliminated or replaced but not if they are not discussed.]] Do you see a difference in those examples and your method of presenting your 'theory'? You have taken the concept of "Gedanken Experiment" and used flawed conceptions of well-defined physical concepts, claimed it as proof of concept, with no derivations to support anything you state, and no experiments to verify your claims. [[I believe I do and have said so.]] ...therein lies the whole of your problem. [[It is not only my problem it is also a problem with the board. If this board discusses nothing but well tested physics, why don't we just all set down and read what others have written. There is no bases to have free thought and to consider alternative. This forum becomes a classroom to teach what you happen to believe in. There is no growth in that. All you want to do is to get converts to your way of thinking. I don't mind being told if I state a stupid idea. I do not appreciate being called stupid. There is actually a very big difference, and it appears that many on this MSB doesn't know that. The bottom line is this. Either you are interested in exploring some new thoughts or you are not. If you are then you ned to be prepared to being forth your talents and skills in the respective fields that apply to address such concepts from a scientifc point of view. If you have such interest then I have a number of questions for you. If not then so be it we have nothing to discuss and I'll move on. Thanks for your time. I await your responses.
1) You didn't disprove relativity. a) Your three-clock problem was incomplete. Upon making it complete, via any mechanism you'd like, you'll see no paradoxes. b) Having the clocks stop at preset times prevents you from figuring out what proper times the clocks would experience, which was the entire point of your thought experiment. You may presume that they stop at the same instant wrt the earth clock, but you cannot prove it. It doesn't answer any questions when you get three clocks back to earth, only to find that they all say the times you programmed them to stop at. You can continue to say things like 'you've all failed to explain the three-clock problem' all you'd like -- it's clear that you are incapable of recognizing your own misunderstandings. 2) Your insistence that gravity cannot involve "mass squared" was a fundamental tenet of your argument against Newtonian mechanics (and indirectly againt general relativity). You said over and over again how you realized when you were 13 that "squared mass" doesn't exist, and therefore Newton's law should have an addition operation. When it was shown that there is no way that an addition rule can explain the way gravity works, you revoked the assertion and stated that actually, that wasn't my important point, after all. Of course it was, Mac. 3) Your continued insistence that the Army and so on liked your work so much says nothing. Your involvement as a technician in nuclear plants means nothing. Your "research companies" mean nothing. Your age means nothing. You say yourself that you have not the mathematical sophistication to actually explain your theory, and you've demonstrated you don't have the logical sophistication to understand any real theories. You fit the crackpot template to a tee. I'm done with you. Carry on. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - Warren
Blind chroot, Before I respond to your allegations, let me just say this. I hold no grudge against you. I suspect you are a fine individual and quite intelligent. You do have a problem but I think you and the rest know what that is without me having to go into that. And no I am not without problems. But that is not at issue here. This time lets try to communicate and resove this issue. quote: *************** 1) You didn't disprove relativity. *************** [[No I did not but I dang sure pointed out it is problematic.]] ***************** a) Your three-clock problem was incomplete. Upon making it complete, via any mechanism you'd like, you'll see no paradoxes. ***************** [[No so as will be clearly stated below]] ************** b) Having the clocks stop at preset times prevents you from figuring out what proper times the clocks would experience, which was the entire point of your thought experiment. You may presume that they stop at the same instant wrt the earth clock, but you cannot prove it. It doesn't answer any questions when you get three clocks back to earth, only to find that they all say the times you programmed them to stop at. You can continue to say things like 'you've all failed to explain the three-clock problem' all you'd like -- it's clear that you are incapable of recognizing your own misunderstandings. *************** [[ If you recall, I said stipulate the synchronization of the clocks. You refused to do that claiming it had to be shown how it could be done. That is a false arguement in a thought experiment, since that issue has nothing what-so-ever to do with the purpose of the test which was to determine the consequence of linear relative velocity in terms of time dilation. To satisfy the requirement and to complete the test I simply created a situation which effectively stipulated the synchronization. If you just stop flapping your gums and open your ears and eyes you would see the truth. If Relativity is valid then the test results would have produced the times stated by your calculations. Therefore to assume setting the clocks to stop by those times is valid if you trust Relativity. Granted it removes the actual test from a practical vantage point. But you can't have it both ways. Relativity either works or it doesn't. If it does then those are the times to be expected from the test. Therefore as a believer in Relativity you should have no objection to using Relativity to accomplish the task. Because the dilated times on the clocks are not at issue. You yourself calculated those times. I accept those times. You accept those times. By using Relativity to meet your demand for a stop of the clocks has not violated anything, indeed it insures that the times you calculated are going to be presented upon return for comparison. It is wholly valid asssuming you support Relativity and it did not alter the times you supplied as results from the test. Where is your objection? By what possible basis can you object?. There is no sound objection other than to deny the test results which you do not like. *********** **************** 2) Your insistence that gravity cannot involve "mass squared" was a fundamental tenet of your argument against Newtonian mechanics (and indirectly againt general relativity). You said over and over again how you realized when you were 13 that "squared mass" doesn't exist, and therefore Newton's law should have an addition operation. When it was shown that there is no way that an addition rule can explain the way gravity works, you revoked the assertion and stated that actually, that wasn't my important point, after all. Of course it was, Mac. **************** [[You have difficulty reading I see. I have never instisted mass squared could not be involved. I said I didn't like it and that it lacked physical clarity. That I preferred something better which had a physical underpinning. Did I screw up when I wrote down the UniKEF form absolutely but that doesn't change UniKEF. It damn sure would have hadn't James R. pointed that out. I am correcting that error. The error was mine, not in UniKEF. Dr Allards' work merely derived the basis for the 1/r^2 relationship using UniKEF geometry concept for Gravity. As it turns out m1*m2 is still correct and as I pointed out in a subsequent post when you view it from the energy field vantage point it now makes sense. I won't repeat all that here but in the simplest terms you are actually looking at the collision of kenetic energy fields. Mass is an expression of a bodies interaction to the field so when you multiply the masses together you are actually multiplying energy together. No need to beat a dead horse you have no interest and I have no interest in convincing you. What bothers you about me having this kind of boyhood? Frankly there was a time where I felt like I had much greater insight (right or wrong time will tell) but now when I read my own manuscript sometimes I have to go back and study it to understand it. Don't ask me why, I don't know why and I don't care why. The mass squared issue was and still is an important point but thanks to James R. I realize what you are physically looking at. It has nothing to do with the square apple that I used to see. Frankly I havn't thought a lot about much of this stuff for years so this is sort of like a refresher course. ************ *************** 3) Your continued insistence that the Army and so on liked your work so much says nothing. Your involvement as a technician in nuclear plants means nothing. Your "research companies" mean nothing. Your age means nothing. You say yourself that you have not the mathematical sophistication to actually explain your theory, and you've demonstrated you don't have the logical sophistication to understand any real theories. **************** [[Pardon me. What a jerk. I have not "continued to insist anything". I never stated the Army "liked my work". I stated what they stated and have pointed out because some people want to give no credibility to anything that there have been many qualified people that have reviewed and contributed, such as Dr Allard. I suppose his credentials don't mean anything either. Only the great Warren Seal of Approval means anything. You are pathetic, you know that don't you?. How does it feel to be made look stupid in front of your peers? You have been you know. And the more you deny the results of the 3 Clock Problem I snared you in the worse you look. As far as my limit in mathematics, if had to choose between knowing what you think you know or having a free mind to think for myself, I'll go for the free mind. Nothing wrong with education but when you become a tape recorder playing back the works of others and doing none of your own that is pathetic. ********************** ************ You fit the crackpot template to a tee. I'm done with you. Carry on. ************ [[I may fit your view as a crackpot, frankly I care less about your view. The real world will advance further faster without you]] QUESTION OF THE DAY: "Why, If you assume Relativity Valid can you prove it Invalid" Waiting for a proper answer - Warren Almighty.
Re: Blind It hasn't been proven 'invalid' yet. Your calculations for the 3 clock problem are w-r-o-n-g. So far relativity has passed all tests its been put through. :bugeye:
When I was 13, the only conclusion I came to was that I sure did have a hell of a lot left to learn. - Warren
Re: Blind If you specify the clocks should stop at a certain reading, when you get them back together, all observers will agree that they stopped at the appropriate reading. This isn't a paradox, and isn't useful for learning anything about high-velocity mechanics. - Warren
Calculations GundamWing, quote: ********* It hasn't been proven 'invalid' yet. Your calculations for the 3 clock problem are w-r-o-n-g. ********* [[They weren't my calculations. They are chroots. He just doesn't like the result.]] quote: ************** chroot 1720 posts When I was 13, the only conclusion I came to was that I sure did have a hell of a lot left to learn. - Warren ************* [[Apparently you still do.]]
Good chroot, And so do I. That is why I am here. Ready to be buddies yetPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Stopped Clocks chroot, In all seriousness. At bringing the clocks back together with the time predicted was my intent. You just concurred that that was achieved. My question is why does that sow a requirement for two different time losses for the same clocks? I am looking for an explanation. I am not fluffing my feathers. I'm asking if you if you have an answer for that conflict.
How it affects the results, I'm not sure, but there is a flaw in your original post. Given the velocities of tr1 to be .2c and tr2 to be .3c, you then took their observed difference in velocity to be .1c, which is incorrect. Relative velocities are not additive. To get their difference as they see them, you must use (u + v)/(1 - uv/c^2). I got a difference of ~.1064c for tr1's observance of tr2's speed relative to tr1.
Jaxom, Replacing .1c with .1064c in the calculations still won't account for the large time difference between the clocks in the two frames of reference. Tom
Relative velocity between A and B from A's (or B's) frame of reference to be calculated. Can't use the gamma factor determined from C. Actual input from B to A (or A to B) is required, independent of C. 1. The experiment should be able to enable A or B to calculate the velocity of the other moving clock B or A independent of C. I think the experiment needs modification to this effect. Most probably it could not be a thought experiment. Actual experiment should take place!. 2. Otherwise comparing the results of A Vs B with (B-C - A-C) is meaningless. may be other ways around could be there. could not think so deeply. it seems very wierd Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
