Relavistic Mass

M

MacM

Registered Senior Member
Moved

Just a Note from UniKEF. JR's comment that UniKEF has been widely critiqued is a crock. It hasn't received any consideration what-so-ever here.

It has been rejected without due consideration or credit for having made over one dozen priori predictions 50 years ago.

It is not however a complete theory backed by formal mathematics, etc., it is merely a concept but that concept has been highly accurate and has predicted many of the newest findings about the universe and his attitude about it is intollerable, hence I have removed the text I had posted.

Anyone interested in the concept may join:

http://groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm

Of 310 Physics web site on MSN Groups UniKEF is rated #1.

http://groups.msn.com/browse.msnw?catid=297


Dan K. McCoin
UniKEF Author
 
Last edited:
Moderator note (Physics Forum):

The UniKEF theory mentioned here has been widely critiqued in the Physics forum. For reasons explained previously, this theory is not scientific, so the thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum.
 
we could discuss string theory/M theory here

Originally posted by James R
...so the thread has been moved to a more appropriate forum.
Click to expand...

this is great
I didnt realize there was a special place for Pseudoscience here
we could discuss theories here that dont have falsifiability, dont have experimental evidence to back them up, etc
thinking of the criteria that James R posted, for what is Pseudoscience

some good discussion on Usenet sci.physics.research about this lately

also extremely interesting critique of string theory by a prominent string theorist named Tom Banks, and a mathematical physics prof at Columbia named Peter Woit, clear-sighted and rather chilling insight into the state of theoretical high-energy-physics which is verging on pseudoscience

it's something to be concerned about and a lot of people are, so might be a good place to gather some of the recent quotes and news
 
Mark,

I would agree with your statement. My objection to SF and its practice (actual application) of rules is that in fact discussions of String, M or P Brane Theories would be done over on the Physics channel without batting an eye.

They are concepts unverified and perhaps unverifiable that are favored by physicists but have no more proof than UniKEF.

UniKEF has not been discussed. I tried to introduce some of the concepts and had the door slammed instantly on the basis that it lacked formal mathematics.

I don't challenge that finding and would not even challenge it being placed into pseudoscience. My objection is to the claim by James that it has received wide critique and found lacking.

Facts are it has received no critiquing and its priori predictions were meet with unfounded enuendo that they were made up after the fact which is ludricrus if anyone should look at the historical documents around the theory.




Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
 
string theory is an outgrowth of quantum field theory, which is an experimentally verified theory. true, string theory itself is not experimentally verified, but also, string theory is an active area of mathematical research, and is this not also a math forum?

i don t thing your criticism of string theory is deserved.
 
lethe,

but also, string theory is an active area of mathematical research, and is this not also a math forum?

i don t thing your criticism of string theory is deserved.
Click to expand...


ANS: I accept your above view. However I would expect the discussion be more math oriented than supporting the theory itself as something detailing reality.


Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
 
SpyMouse,

You had me at "bifurcated".
Click to expand...

ANS: That is just a fancy word meaning splitting into two paths.

In this case it means energy applied to accelerate a mass becomes more and more stored in space and less and less applied to the acceleration. A form of energy transfer efficiency decrease from the view of accelerating the mass.

Unruh's Affect has virtual particles becoming real particles in proportion to acceleration of a mass. The energy used to cause that transformation comes from the accelerating mass.

While the results are very simular to the process predicted in UniKEF it isn't exactly the same but if upon further study it is found that the Unruh Affect strengthens with relative velocity then it would be precisely the same.

It causes the mass "appear" to increase in that it takes more energy to accelerate but in reality no actual mass change is occuring. That is it provides the "Relavistic Mass" concept in Relativity to have a physical explanation verses being purely mathematical "Affect" without a "Cause".

Most UniKEF conclusions are simular. That is they merely provide an alternative view of what we see or observe when testing Relativity and as such are not in disagreement with the function but the cause.

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top