Almost Missed Out
Gee. I almost missed this post and based on the topic, specifically that of 1119, I get the uneasy feeling that I may have been the straw that broke the camels back.
First I want to say that I can see why James R is a moderator (or Administrator). Good sensible post. I did feel your 4th option was a bit weak but I haven't read a lot of posts that I hope are included here other than just mine. I mean I only posted one night guys
Second referance comments by 1119: I appreciate what you intended to say and I want to make sure that my comments were't mis-consconstrued.
I am not over turning Newton, Einstien and Quantum Theory. I do have test data that voids those theories views reference gravity.
This isn't theory and while the testing has been prompted by UniKEF, the results must be explained by some other view than the grand three above. UniKEF is at a very lay level and I would not expect much of it to prevail and even that which seems validated at this time may have other answers other than UniKEF but that is where the testing was derived from and it does explain it, indeed predicted it. I can't say more because there is no more. Once that data is published, it'll be up to Warren to explain why. If he doesn't like my view so be it, I don't like his. He can go look for his own explanation. I have no problem with that.
And finally. I can underestand the frustration of trying to talk with wackos. I can also underestand the frustration of trying to talk with bonified "Educated" physicists. Guys that want to teach and preach and are unwilling to look beyond the covers of work done by others before them.
Rest our soul if science stops looking. How does one filter out wackos from the 1 in a 100 that James R mentioned. Usually that is easy because of the extreme and clearly left field idea being presented but sometimes new ideas have merit.
If that were not the case then science would be finished and there would be no need for a forum or for laboratories or for physicists for that matter.
Regarding my own efforts, they stem from 1954. they have been reviewed by Physicists from Purdue University, NC University, the R&D Command of the US Army and by the Geodetic Institute in Franfurt, Germany; plus one chapter of the original manuscript has been written for me by a physicist that read my work and found interest. None of the above called me "Uneducated", a "Crackpot" or the like. They have all suggested I push forward to one day publish.
But I am not satisfied yet with the quality and state of the work.
Unless you view this MSB as a teaching forum, I find the resistance to the discussion of new views to be counter productive.
I find the arguements of the Relativity thumpers to be less than pursuasive. You attempt to support the theory using the theory as the basis. You throw out tests and observations that confirm the theory but you refuse to consider that the results of such tests and observations may have alternative explanations.
There are no known set of physics "Laws". There are only theories. These have changed yer after year and will continue to change but making matters more complex is only creating mathematical algorithums, it is not necessarily describing reality.
There are most of the time alternative explanations that are not only more simple (C Razor Principle) but provide the same observation without the conflicts posed by the three clock problem; which none of yu have fully addressed.
You have discussed frames of reference, etc., but you have declined to address that Relativity and Lorentz creates the requirement that clocks under such test and by Relativity must return to Earth displaying TWO different time losses simultaneously.
Most of you have been quite fair. Warren however, seems to think Relativity is the only answer and attempts to drive off anyone that disagrees with that view.
My disagreement IS NOT based on not understanding, my disagreement is infact understanding what Relativity claims is reality.
There is a major difference between reality and observation or illusion.
I agree to hold down my tone as soon as other hold down their. I was attacked immediately and continuously and nothing in those attacks bore any merits to the principle issues at hand.
Gee. I almost missed this post and based on the topic, specifically that of 1119, I get the uneasy feeling that I may have been the straw that broke the camels back.
First I want to say that I can see why James R is a moderator (or Administrator). Good sensible post. I did feel your 4th option was a bit weak but I haven't read a lot of posts that I hope are included here other than just mine. I mean I only posted one night guys
Second referance comments by 1119: I appreciate what you intended to say and I want to make sure that my comments were't mis-consconstrued.
I am not over turning Newton, Einstien and Quantum Theory. I do have test data that voids those theories views reference gravity.
This isn't theory and while the testing has been prompted by UniKEF, the results must be explained by some other view than the grand three above. UniKEF is at a very lay level and I would not expect much of it to prevail and even that which seems validated at this time may have other answers other than UniKEF but that is where the testing was derived from and it does explain it, indeed predicted it. I can't say more because there is no more. Once that data is published, it'll be up to Warren to explain why. If he doesn't like my view so be it, I don't like his. He can go look for his own explanation. I have no problem with that.
And finally. I can underestand the frustration of trying to talk with wackos. I can also underestand the frustration of trying to talk with bonified "Educated" physicists. Guys that want to teach and preach and are unwilling to look beyond the covers of work done by others before them.
Rest our soul if science stops looking. How does one filter out wackos from the 1 in a 100 that James R mentioned. Usually that is easy because of the extreme and clearly left field idea being presented but sometimes new ideas have merit.
If that were not the case then science would be finished and there would be no need for a forum or for laboratories or for physicists for that matter.
Regarding my own efforts, they stem from 1954. they have been reviewed by Physicists from Purdue University, NC University, the R&D Command of the US Army and by the Geodetic Institute in Franfurt, Germany; plus one chapter of the original manuscript has been written for me by a physicist that read my work and found interest. None of the above called me "Uneducated", a "Crackpot" or the like. They have all suggested I push forward to one day publish.
But I am not satisfied yet with the quality and state of the work.
Unless you view this MSB as a teaching forum, I find the resistance to the discussion of new views to be counter productive.
I find the arguements of the Relativity thumpers to be less than pursuasive. You attempt to support the theory using the theory as the basis. You throw out tests and observations that confirm the theory but you refuse to consider that the results of such tests and observations may have alternative explanations.
There are no known set of physics "Laws". There are only theories. These have changed yer after year and will continue to change but making matters more complex is only creating mathematical algorithums, it is not necessarily describing reality.
There are most of the time alternative explanations that are not only more simple (C Razor Principle) but provide the same observation without the conflicts posed by the three clock problem; which none of yu have fully addressed.
You have discussed frames of reference, etc., but you have declined to address that Relativity and Lorentz creates the requirement that clocks under such test and by Relativity must return to Earth displaying TWO different time losses simultaneously.
Most of you have been quite fair. Warren however, seems to think Relativity is the only answer and attempts to drive off anyone that disagrees with that view.
My disagreement IS NOT based on not understanding, my disagreement is infact understanding what Relativity claims is reality.
There is a major difference between reality and observation or illusion.
I agree to hold down my tone as soon as other hold down their. I was attacked immediately and continuously and nothing in those attacks bore any merits to the principle issues at hand.
