OK Relavists
- Thread starter MacM
- Start date
Re: Typical
Originally posted by MacM
ANS: I would conceed you are more "knowledgable" of physics at least as taught. But (and I already know your response to this will be assininely negative but who cares) I am more adept to understanding reality than you.
This in itself is a somewhat assine comment. Your 'understanding reality' must be based on experiences you have already had... unless you call on some higher power, which I don't think you will. That said, your only experiences have been in standard every day physics. Although you learned about nukes, you had no actual experiences with seeing 2 atoms collide... and all your 'knowledge' of the situation is based soley on the text books given to you. In terms of relativity, you have no personal experiences where you would think they played a large role (even though they may have, and you not realised it). I take issue with you assuming you are more 'adept to understanding reality' when you are not adept to picking up a book and learning about things that you personally can not test.
Do you not realize that unless challenges are made to current theory and you go through life preaching current concepts as a matter of absolute law of reality that there could be no change.
Challenges are worthless unless they are made with a complete understanding of the theory. You haven't made a signle original challenge which hasn't already been answered... it accomplishes nothing.
Using the teachings of current concepts as their own justifiction is defeatist and no progress will occur.
Until you see a 'reality' in which the current concept breaks down, we have nothing to build a new one on.
many issues are beyond absolute detail of mathematics they are a matter of clarity of thought and not seeing the world through tainted glasses.
'Clarity of thought' will not disprove realtivity unless it finds some internal contradiction which was missed by the many people who developed, use, teach, and learn it. What it takes to disprove realitivty is a physically possible situation where relativity gives the wrong answer.
I support my arguement from my perspective without the benefit OR yoke of burden of authority.
A 'perspective' is severily damaged by a lack of knowledge in the field, because you are effectively blind to the reasoning behind it.
It is "Xxxxxxx" Xxxxxxx.
You know someone is serious when they call you and Xxxxxxx
are you under the impression, ryans, that when newton first published his theory of gravitation, it took only one line? if so, then you are wrong. he filled several chapters of principia with it. the explanation alone took one.
just because you can state a result in one line, does not mean that the theory was simple, or easy to state, or trivial to come up with, in the beginning. in fact, i believe the contrary is true: the simpler and more obvious the theory, the more difficult it is to come up with.
The derivation can be found on the UniKEF homepage... however it is a mess to derive, and in the end relies on constants which are not easily measurable. Also, the derivation gives the same result as integrating point forces over an area/volume (I think you know what I mean, but the phrasing may be poor). The benefit in the standard approach is that it is easily calculatable and doesn't rely on any unknown constants. You can actually get an answer, and not a bunch of unknowns.
Regardless, I can't think of much you use either method for besides astrophysics (nebula 'colliding' and all that). Everything within our solar system would just simplify to point masses.
Echo
Persol,
ANS: Please note that that was an echo.
Also you made a rather lengthy post upset because I told ryans I had a better grasp on reality. Your post is generally accepted and just let me note that I occasionaly post comments to piss off people that are attempting to piss me off. That was one of them.
Don't want to give the impression I think I am a know it all "also. "
Persol,
ANS: Please note that that was an echo.
Also you made a rather lengthy post upset because I told ryans I had a better grasp on reality. Your post is generally accepted and just let me note that I occasionaly post comments to piss off people that are attempting to piss me off. That was one of them.
Don't want to give the impression I think I am a know it all "also. "
Constants
Persol,
ANS: I am assuming the constants you are referring to are "U" and "~".
They are simply a hypothetical bifurcation of the standard "G" constant. Their product will result in "G". One would use "G" to calculate gravity but "U" and "~" will have other useful purposes once they are determined.
ANS: Actually this is not yet known. Dr Allards calculus only evaluates the concept as applied to two circles and the UniKEF form of integration has never been done for solid geometry.
"Silly me", I thought when I came here I would find interest and others would pick up the idea and pursue the derivations.
Further the concept does not integrate objects to a point source in the same manner that standard integration is used. U.. Integration has a different function which includes geometry of the object in its final conclusion. Only solid congruent spheres will produce the same general result of being equivelent points
This issue goes directly to the testing that has been under way (post poned now for two month due to medical family problems in Indiana but has recently been re-started).
ANS: The "Unknowns" issues has been addressed above. I would agree standard is going to be easier but I don't find that an issue. Newtonian is easier than Relativity but you like Relativity. I believe it should come down to which one is the most correct to observation and testing. I can tell you that as of right now Newton is in trouble and I think so is Einstien but I won't go there until my data is at hand and at that time I am going to fully enjoy this MSB's participation.
Persol,
ANS: I am assuming the constants you are referring to are "U" and "~".
They are simply a hypothetical bifurcation of the standard "G" constant. Their product will result in "G". One would use "G" to calculate gravity but "U" and "~" will have other useful purposes once they are determined.
ANS: Actually this is not yet known. Dr Allards calculus only evaluates the concept as applied to two circles and the UniKEF form of integration has never been done for solid geometry.
"Silly me", I thought when I came here I would find interest and others would pick up the idea and pursue the derivations.
Further the concept does not integrate objects to a point source in the same manner that standard integration is used. U.. Integration has a different function which includes geometry of the object in its final conclusion. Only solid congruent spheres will produce the same general result of being equivelent points
This issue goes directly to the testing that has been under way (post poned now for two month due to medical family problems in Indiana but has recently been re-started).
ANS: The "Unknowns" issues has been addressed above. I would agree standard is going to be easier but I don't find that an issue. Newtonian is easier than Relativity but you like Relativity. I believe it should come down to which one is the most correct to observation and testing. I can tell you that as of right now Newton is in trouble and I think so is Einstien but I won't go there until my data is at hand and at that time I am going to fully enjoy this MSB's participation.
Does your UniKEF theory circumvent renormalization in quantum electrodynamics?
If you give me the answer to this integral, I swear from this day that I will be a bonifide convert.
since I cannot easily show formula I will say it in words,
The integral of [exp(-ar)/r] between the limits of zero and infinity. Look up the yukawa potential to see its exact form.
If you give me the answer to this integral, I swear from this day that I will be a bonifide convert.
since I cannot easily show formula I will say it in words,
The integral of [exp(-ar)/r] between the limits of zero and infinity. Look up the yukawa potential to see its exact form.
Distraction
ryans,
ANS: Here is the perfect example of what I have said earlier.
You like to shift topics to find one that meets your needs. Clearly nobody has said UniKEF is inclusive of every dynamic process in the Universe.
It in fact has been made clear that it only scratches the surface of a very few.
Off point and supurflous.:m:
ryans,
ANS: Here is the perfect example of what I have said earlier.
You like to shift topics to find one that meets your needs. Clearly nobody has said UniKEF is inclusive of every dynamic process in the Universe.
It in fact has been made clear that it only scratches the surface of a very few.
Off point and supurflous.:m:
Mac you ****, this as a genuine proposition. To my knowledge, this integral cannot be solved within the framework of modern mathematics, due to the nature of the singularity at r=0. If someone can solve this integral, it would change physics, as it is a standard integral in field theories where infinities arise. Thus if a solution is found in your framework, I will be genuinly and instantly converted.
Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
Moderator edit: Personal insults add nothing useful to the discussion.
Last edited by a moderator:
Compliment
ryans,
ANS: I should return the compliment but think I will maintain the high road this morning.
That is fantastic. All UniKEF needs to do is solve something you claim is mathematically unsolvable, something I have not claimed to have done.
And something that I have no interest in either since I do not accept infinity as a property linked to any reality.
I think my post stands regarding you being off point.
ryans,
ANS: I should return the compliment but think I will maintain the high road this morning.
That is fantastic. All UniKEF needs to do is solve something you claim is mathematically unsolvable, something I have not claimed to have done.
And something that I have no interest in either since I do not accept infinity as a property linked to any reality.
I think my post stands regarding you being off point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Constants
Originally posted by MacM
They are simply a hypothetical bifurcation of the standard "G" constant. Their product will result in "G". One would use "G" to calculate gravity but "U" and "~" will have other useful purposes once they are determined.
I can't even find the slide that had the solution on it now. But anyway, how do you find U, ~, and G?
Actually this is not yet known. Dr Allards calculus only evaluates the concept as applied to two circles and the UniKEF form of integration has never been done for solid geometry.
You will get the same result as standard gravity calculations. As much as you don't like to admit it, you system is a standard push gravity system.
Further the concept does not integrate objects to a point source in the same manner that standard integration is used. U.. Integration has a different function which includes geometry of the object in its final conclusion. Only solid congruent spheres will produce the same general result of being equivelent points
I agree that only spheres at a distance are incredibly accuratly estimated as point masses. For all other shapes, you will (by neccesity) get the same result as volume integration. These equations have been used on large groups of stars, and have given correct answers. (While the star is a sphere, the group of evenly distributed ones is not.)
Newtonian is easier than Relativity but you like Relativity.
I like both. I have no reason to rely on relativity when I calculate everyday stuff here on earth. Newtonian isn't completely correct, but at sub-sub-c-velocities it is damn close.
I believe it should come down to which one is the most correct to observation and testing.
Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.
I can tell you that as of right now Newton is in trouble and I think so is Einstien but I won't go there until my data is at hand and at that time I am going to fully enjoy this MSB's participation.
Please stop using your invisible data as if it supprts your cause. I have my own test going that supports relativity. You'll see it next april. Until then just believe that my data completely supports it
Persol,
ANS: Pushing Gravity, I would say yes. The same results I don't think so. Other pushing gravity concepts have not used the geometric integration approach. Testing will either verify this view or it will put it in the trash heap. It is being tested without predjudice in that regard. There is no advantage to advocating a clearly incorrect view.
ANS: You are basing your perspective on a macroscopic approach. The difference are more pronounced at micro csopic scale.
I
Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.[/quote]
ANS: In a contest between Newton and Einstien I would agree.
ANS: I'm sure you and other might wish I did stop. But frankly I am not the one that has resurrected UniKEF here. Don't expect me to sit back and absorb arrows and not respoind. If you don't want to hear about testing then don't attack the concept before it is posted.
Is that fair or what?
ANS: Pushing Gravity, I would say yes. The same results I don't think so. Other pushing gravity concepts have not used the geometric integration approach. Testing will either verify this view or it will put it in the trash heap. It is being tested without predjudice in that regard. There is no advantage to advocating a clearly incorrect view.
ANS: You are basing your perspective on a macroscopic approach. The difference are more pronounced at micro csopic scale.
I
Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.[/quote]
ANS: In a contest between Newton and Einstien I would agree.
ANS: I'm sure you and other might wish I did stop. But frankly I am not the one that has resurrected UniKEF here. Don't expect me to sit back and absorb arrows and not respoind. If you don't want to hear about testing then don't attack the concept before it is posted.
Is that fair or what?
Originally posted by MacM
Pushing Gravity, I would say yes. The same results I don't think so. Other pushing gravity concepts have not used the geometric integration approach.
All 'pushing gravity' explainations I have seen use some geometric approach... most use brute force calculations, but brute force will give you answers VERY close to integration.
You are basing your perspective on a macroscopic approach. The difference are more pronounced at micro csopic scale.
Actually, gravity is less pronounced on a microscopic scale. Especially when measuing changes caused by geometry, because the atomical bonds are highly geometrically dependent. If you want to test this, in a real system, you need something large enough that the gravity plays a large role in determining the movement.
Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.
ANS: In a contest between Newton and Einstien I would agree.
Actually, in contest to every other theory so far.
If you don't want to hear about testing then don't attack the concept before it is posted. Is that fair or what?
Then don't attack relativity before you understand how it was derived and what it says. Is that fair or what?
Pushing Gravity, I would say yes. The same results I don't think so. Other pushing gravity concepts have not used the geometric integration approach.
All 'pushing gravity' explainations I have seen use some geometric approach... most use brute force calculations, but brute force will give you answers VERY close to integration.
You are basing your perspective on a macroscopic approach. The difference are more pronounced at micro csopic scale.
Actually, gravity is less pronounced on a microscopic scale. Especially when measuing changes caused by geometry, because the atomical bonds are highly geometrically dependent. If you want to test this, in a real system, you need something large enough that the gravity plays a large role in determining the movement.
Good. Relativity wins then, as it has passed every observational and test put to it.
ANS: In a contest between Newton and Einstien I would agree.
Actually, in contest to every other theory so far.
If you don't want to hear about testing then don't attack the concept before it is posted. Is that fair or what?
Then don't attack relativity before you understand how it was derived and what it says. Is that fair or what?
Deal
Persol,
ANS: I agree but my meaning wasn't "Atomic" microscopic but small in comparison to the macroscopic galactic view ou were citing.
[/quote] If you want to test this, in a real system, you need something large enough that the gravity plays a large role in determining the movement. [/quote]
ASN: We agree but that doesn't need to be overly huge. A bowling ball is more than adequate and they have measured microgravity in Casimir Tests.
ANS: I agree as long as you don't try to declare the contest over.
ANS: Deal but that doesn't mean I am prohibited from raising questions or challenging answers. My responses have not as late referred to UniKEF. The MSB assumes they are part of UniKEF
and that isn't necessarily so.
Lets wrap up the "Relativity" string and move on.
Persol,
ANS: I agree but my meaning wasn't "Atomic" microscopic but small in comparison to the macroscopic galactic view ou were citing.
[/quote] If you want to test this, in a real system, you need something large enough that the gravity plays a large role in determining the movement. [/quote]
ASN: We agree but that doesn't need to be overly huge. A bowling ball is more than adequate and they have measured microgravity in Casimir Tests.
ANS: I agree as long as you don't try to declare the contest over.
ANS: Deal but that doesn't mean I am prohibited from raising questions or challenging answers. My responses have not as late referred to UniKEF. The MSB assumes they are part of UniKEF
and that isn't necessarily so.
Lets wrap up the "Relativity" string and move on.
Re: Deal
Just 2 points:
1) astronomical movement is still a good basis in this case, as the soultions are geometrical in nature
2) I keep bringing up how to determine what force is determined by gravity, and what is other forces, because it is difficult.. especially when you have other values changing (IE - shape/mass), and I imagine this will be a sticking point if your data is released.
Scary, agreed on all points.
Just 2 points:
1) astronomical movement is still a good basis in this case, as the soultions are geometrical in nature
2) I keep bringing up how to determine what force is determined by gravity, and what is other forces, because it is difficult.. especially when you have other values changing (IE - shape/mass), and I imagine this will be a sticking point if your data is released.