McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

Gentlemen.

1 - I have not abandoned this forum. I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months. I plan to prove them wrong about that but then I must also live in the real world and not one of personal wishfulness.

So I have many things to achieve in a short [period time and cannot dedicate time to this forum where it has been made clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.

Where pragmatically you must consider the alternative possibilities (invariance of light is a consequence of a a different origin of light being based on v = c relative to a universal background energy relative to the observer absolute velocity as a function of some quantum energy level.

i.e. - simular to some form of dimensional binding energy release in which case different observers are seeing different photons rather than a photon have a physical invariant velocity to any observer regardless of veloicty to the source of ight which requires a form of relativity.

2 - Recognizing that the same results can be mathmatically reproduced from an absolute concept vs a SR concept and where the reciprocity of SR is prohibited in LR vs the mathematical consequence of a relative vleocity view of original SR and where current physics functions in a mathematical manner which also rejects reciprocity of the actual physical concepts but physcists refuse to acknowlege that motion "Relative" some inertial frame (not other clocks) is in fact an absolute physical measurement not a "Mere Relative Velocity) view.

3 - With respect to the Gravity Patent that you can replace the theoretical diaphragm valve with a hypothetical mechanical valve comprised of a series of thin layered iris plates where such that the differential prressure across the chambers is never felt by the shepe and where the volume of gas being pumped back into the lower chamber is virtuall "zero" and energy plus gravity weight of the system allowing passage ofthe sphere between ehyamcberw must "theretorically" be considered.

4 - With regard to an "Inertial Drive" The term has nothing to do with the historical hypothetical warp speed drives, etc, but simply means a mechanisim of converting rotary momentum forces in to some linear momentum force in which all acceleration/decelleration forces combined with centrifugal forces are accounted for and for which there becomes a net vector momentum force (torque around the source) that becomes a linear force on the frame by using counter rotating system. That force being a function of power (energy) input and is NOT pertetual motion or defies actual physics.

5 - Thanks to all that may have participated here and regardless of our curt and rather pointed posts I respect you all.

[Pink Booties]

Sorry to hear of your troubles. But I'm unwilling to even consider alternatives.

[Ziggurat]

I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months.

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope you beat the odds.

So I have many things to achieve in a short [period time and cannot dedicate time to this forum where it has been made clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.

MacM, I don't think you understand the crowd here. People are indeed willing to consider alternatives to currently accepted models. But in order to get them to do that, you need to do several things:

1) You need to demonstrate that you understand those currently accepted models, and why they were accepted in the first place.
2) You need to show shortcomings of those currently accepted models, ie, show where these models are contradicted by experiment.
3) You need to show that these alternatives match the currently accepted model in those cases where the currently accepted model works.
4) You need to show that these alternatives also match experiments where current models fail.

You have not actually managed to do any of these things, MacM. This is not any easy task either: in fact, even just understanding current models takes considerable time and effort. But if you don't understand them then how can you hope to show that they ever fail? And given that there are plenty of crackpots out there who think they've discovered why physics is all wrong and their pet model will reveal everything, how can you make your model stand out from the crackpots? You can't do it without showing mastery of those current models.

Where pragmatically you must consider the alternative possibilities (invariance of light is a consequence of a a different origin of light being based on v = c relative to a universal background energy relative to the observer absolute velocity as a function of some quantum energy level.

This is is symptomatic of your problems here. What does this even mean? Physics can often be confusing, which is why the math is so important: math is unambiguous. Our physics theories are often described with words, but they are always formulated in terms of math. What is the math behind your statement? I really have no idea. And so I cannot evaluate it. If you cannot express it mathematically, then it won't be clear to anyone else that you really know what you're talking about either.

3 - With respect to the Gravity Patent that you can replace the theoretical diaphragm valve with a hypothetical mechanical valve comprised of a series of thin layered iris plates where such that the differential prressure across the chambers is never felt by the shepe and where the volume of gas being pumped back into the lower chamber is virtuall "zero" and energy plus gravity weight of the system allowing passage ofthe sphere between ehyamcberw must "theretorically" be considered.

These details just don't matter. Either gravity is a conservative force, in which case you cannot power a perpetual motion device of any kind with it, or gravity is not a conservative force, in which case you don't need your perpetual motion device to be fancy at all. You have suggested you think it's not conservative, but have not given a mathematical description of what a non-conservative gravitational force should look like.

4 - With regard to an "Inertial Drive" The term has nothing to do with the historical hypothetical warp speed drives, etc, but simply means a mechanisim of converting rotary momentum forces

You are using words in a way which makes no sense. Momentum and force are completely different things. Furthermore, they are both nouns, neither one is an adjective. So even grammatically, a "momentum force" makes absolutely no sense. Whatever it is you mean, if you can't find a better way to express it, nobody is going to accept it. And with good reason.

[BenBurch]

The best of luck to you.

[Horatius]

Gentlemen.

1 - I have not abandoned this forum. I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months. I plan to prove them wrong about that but then I must also live in the real world and not one of personal wishfulness.



Well, that totally sucks. I hope it works out for you.


5 - Thanks to all that may have participated here and regardless of our curt and rather pointed posts I respect you all.


Having been a part of the thread on your patents, I appreciate your thanks.

[Dancing David]

Sorry as a survivor of the little c, I am sorry to read that.

[UncaYimmy]

1) You need to demonstrate that you understand those currently accepted models, and why they were accepted in the first place.
2) You need to show shortcomings of those currently accepted models, ie, show where these models are contradicted by experiment.
3) You need to show that these alternatives match the currently accepted model in those cases where the currently accepted model works.
4) You need to show that these alternatives also match experiments where current models fail.

I hope this gets repeated in upcoming threads - especially #1. It amazes me how many people make the mistake of assuming their (mis)understanding of something means that everybody else has it wrong.

[CaveDave]

Gentlemen.
Just a reminder, one or more of your correspondents might not have been "men", though I understand that usage is general and not sex-exclusive.:)


1 - I have not abandoned this forum. I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months. I plan to prove them wrong about that but then I must also live in the real world and not one of personal wishfulness.
I (and I am sure I speak for all the others here) am saddened by your diagnosis, and hope for you the best possible outcome. Those among us who believe in prayer, I am certain, are going to put out great effort on your behalf; the others will still wish you a rapid recovery.
Newcomer or not, despite what your early impressions were, you are welcome and appreciated here, even as a stimulus to unlimber the thinkin' muscles and promote a lively debate. Get better soon!!


So I have many things to achieve in a short [period time and cannot dedicate time to this forum where it has been made clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.
It is a shame that you still seem to harbor the misconception that there is some "entrenched group of zealots" and/or religiously adherent group of Tru-B-Leever(C)'s that are somehow set to resist any assault on their "inviolably sacred" precepts; you are, sadly, mistaken.
You, as has been abundantly pointed out, fail to "sling the lingo" in the way which is accepted by the physics community and then demand to be understood by the professionals. (You evidently live in El Paso... try speaking Portugese or just making up words at your whim and see where it gets you:D)


Where pragmatically you must consider the alternative possibilities (invariance of light is a consequence of a a different origin of light being based on v = c relative to a universal background energy relative to the observer absolute velocity as a function of some quantum energy level.

i.e. - simular to some form of dimensional binding energy release in which case different observers are seeing different photons rather than a photon have a physical invariant velocity to any observer regardless of veloicty to the source of ight which requires a form of relativity.

2 - Recognizing that the same results can be mathmatically reproduced from an absolute concept vs a SR concept and where the reciprocity of SR is prohibited in LR vs the mathematical consequence of a relative vleocity view of original SR and where current physics functions in a mathematical manner which also rejects reciprocity of the actual physical concepts but physcists refuse to acknowlege that motion "Relative" some inertial frame (not other clocks) is in fact an absolute physical measurement not a "Mere Relative Velocity) view.
Were you not paying attention? ISTR that others have already dealt with that and/or asked for clarification or equations (the Lingua Franca of Physics) which you failed to provide).


3 - With respect to the Gravity Patent that you can replace the theoretical diaphragm valve with a hypothetical mechanical valve comprised of a series of thin layered iris plates where such that the differential prressure across the chambers is never felt by the shepe and where the volume of gas being pumped back into the lower chamber is virtuall "zero" and energy plus gravity weight of the system allowing passage ofthe sphere between ehyamcberw [ I assume you meant "the chambers"?]must "theretorically" be considered.
No, it won't work, obvious just by inspection (IOTTMCO). C'mon, an engineer has to be able to see that!:jaw-dropp


4 - With regard to an "Inertial Drive" The term has nothing to do with the historical hypothetical warp speed drives, etc, but simply means a mechanisim of converting rotary momentum forces in to some linear momentum force in which all acceleration/decelleration forces combined with centrifugal forces are accounted for and for which there becomes a net vector momentum force (torque around the source) that becomes a linear force on the frame by using counter rotating system. That force being a function of power (energy) input and is NOT pertetual motion or defies actual physics.
ETA: You have always done this on the GROUND, and even with rails, low friction or not, you are reacting against it. take away THAT factor if you want to honestly test your concept.
Try it on a small scale, neutrally buoyant, in water (submarine) or air (blimp) and see if it works there. Dont waste TOO much money or your precious time on it, though.
I predict you will get some shaking but no net motion... IOTTMCO (Just in case you never picked that acronym up in engineering school, "Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer".:D)
Others have told you how the principles work.


5 - Thanks to all that may have participated here and regardless of our curt and rather pointed posts I respect you all.
Always have to make the jabs at others, don'cha?:D


I bid you peace and the best possible health, and a speedy recovery.:):)


-----------------------------

Some random suggestions: (I hope you heed them):)
Get a spell checker.
Use the "preview post" button to check readability before submission.
Learn about Homophones and how they're NOT equivalent in meaning.

Really and truly, honest injun, no foolin', sloppy typing habits indicate sloppy, lazy, thinking! Learn it and love it! :D


------------------------------

Get healthy soon,

Dave

[MacM]

Sorry to hear of your troubles. But I'm unwilling to even consider alternatives.
Thanks and sorry you are entrenched.

[MattusMaximus]

Good luck, MacM.

[MacM]

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope you beat the odds.

Thanks


MacM, I don't think you understand the crowd here. People are indeed willing to consider alternatives to currently accepted models. But in order to get them to do that, you need to do several things:

1) You need to demonstrate that you understand those currently accepted models, and why they were accepted in the first place.

Again I actually believe I do but I may have communication problems in that regard.

2) You need to show shortcomings of those currently accepted models, ie, show where these models are contradicted by experiment.

Again I believe the change from the initial "Relative Velocity" concept as proposed between cocks to the current consideration of "Who Accelerated (Switxched Frames) puts SR into an actual absolute system vs "Mere Relative Veloicty". You are measuring a "Relative" velocity change to some unknown absolute inertial frame velocity and not relative velocity between clocks..

3) You need to show that these alternatives match the currently accepted model in those cases where the currently accepted model works.

If you look at some of the better mathematical work ups using LR (an absolute reference system) they are consistant in results with SR asd applied today. There fore both are mathematically useable. SR if by far more simple butLR ismore pragmatic as a physical theory.

4) You need to show that these alternatives also match experiments where current models fail.

They do.

This is is symptomatic of your problems here. What does this even mean? Physics can often be confusing, which is why the math is so important: math is unambiguous. Our physics theories are often described with words, but they are always formulated in terms of math. What is the math behind your statement? I really have no idea. And so I cannot evaluate it. If you cannot express it mathematically, then it won't be clear to anyone else that you really know what you're talking about either.

I recognize the difficulty and appreciate the problem. It is not simple to describe even in words much less a formalized mathematicaly model of a spatial medium thatis omnidirectional multi-energetic (virtually infinite velocity components) which interact only at the v = c to an observer with relative velocity to any inertial absolute velocity light source so as to generate a photon. Every observer with different relative velocity to the light source therfore is seeing different photons and light is NOT actually invariant but merely the measurement is invariant to the observer frame..

These details just don't matter. Either gravity is a conservative force, in which case you cannot power a perpetual motion device of any kind with it, or gravity is not a conservative force, in which case you don't need your perpetual motion device to be fancy at all. You have suggested you think it's not conservative, but have not given a mathematical description of what a non-conservative gravitational force should look like.

Untrue. If a calculation of passage (theoretically friction free, absolute seal, minimal theoretical "0" contact pressure, where kenetic energy is captured by submersing the sphere into the valve body volume and once sealed in the upper area then exposed to minimal thin film gap hence only sphere volume of air to re-compress as "Gravity" continues to move the sphere down through the valve, results in an out put mathemaitcally.

This can be easily envisioned if you follow the process carefually. This does not mean "Petual Motion" because by definition it is only perpetual if there is no outside source of power.

What it would mean is gravity is a function of energy flow in the universe (a form of pushing gravity).

FYI: 55 years ago when I first concienved of UniKEF I predicted that massive gravitating bodies would be found to have a heat component linked to gravitational poetential. In 1964 NASA found just such component which as yet may not have been satisfactorliy explained.

I also made several other priori's which have been found to be true. So whuile my theory is only barely mathematically considered the general concept seems correct which is why Iam perhaps more stuborn than most to accept rhetoric and current physics as the exclusive answer.

You are using words in a way which makes no sense. Momentum and force are completely different things. Furthermore, they are both nouns, neither one is an adjective. So even grammatically, a "momentum force" makes absolutely no sense. Whatever it is you mean, if you can't find a better way to express it, nobody is going to accept it. And with good reason.

It is unfortunate that professionals are unable to have dialog in common language because your use of terms assume certin conditions which are not supported in the alternative views.

[MacM]

The best of luck to you.

Thank You

[MacM]

Well, that totally sucks. I hope it works out for you.


Thank You





Having been a part of the thread on your patents, I appreciate your thanks.

Ditto

[MacM]

Sorry as a survivor of the little c, I am sorry to read that.

Well it is fair to say I'd rather not be where I am but I must live in the real world and just do what I can. Your survival is an encouragement. Thaks.

[MacM]

I hope this gets repeated in upcoming threads - especially #1. It amazes me how many people make the mistake of assuming their (mis)understanding of something means that everybody else has it wrong.

I do appreciate your standards but must also isist that it is a double edged sword, That is communications difficulaties tends to cause you to believe misunderstandings that may not exits and causes lack of understanding of the proposed alternative. That is mostly my fault but to some degree also a falut of the professinal for not understanding that terms use in your standards makes assupmtion not valid in the alternative.

[MacM]

Just a reminder, one or more of your correspondents might not have been "men", though I understand that usage is general and not sex-exclusive.:)

Point noted and your interpretation is a good one. Thanks.


I (and I am sure I speak for all the others here) am saddened by your diagnosis, and hope for you the best possible outcome. Those among us who believe in prayer, I am certain, are going to put out great effort on your behalf; the others will still wish you a rapid recovery.
Newcomer or not, despite what your early impressions were, you are welcome and appreciated here, even as a stimulus to unlimber the thinkin' muscles and promote a lively debate. Get better soon!!

Again thanks in spite of the fact that I give God or Gods virtually zero possibility. I only say virtualy because I nor anyone can prove otherwise but God or Gods are simply ludricrus concepts that add nothing but another layer of unknowns (not sound solutions) for our ignorance of nature

It is a shame that you still seem to harbor the misconception that there is some "entrenched group of zealots" and/or religiously adherent group of Tru-B-Leever(C)'s that are somehow set to resist any assault on their "inviolably sacred" precepts; you are, sadly, mistaken.
You, as has been abundantly pointed out, fail to "sling the lingo" in the way which is accepted by the physics community and then demand to be understood by the professionals. (You evidently live in El Paso... try speaking Portugese or just making up words at your whim and see where it gets you:D)

:D

Were you not paying attention? ISTR that others have already dealt with that and/or asked for clarification or equations (the Lingua Franca of Physics) which you failed to provide).

Actually there are numerous indpeth studies and mathematical work ups out there but you have not and likely will not bother to even consider them. I haven't time to seek them all out for you you neeed to scan some NPA materials.

No, it won't work, obvious just by inspection (IOTTMCO). C'mon, an engineer has to be able to see that!:jaw-dropp

Well as an engineer viewing this in the exptreme theoretical - SEE above discussing about the patent.

ETA: You have always done this on the GROUND, and even with rails, low friction or not, you are reacting against it. take away THAT factor if you want to honestly test your concept.
Try it on a small scale, neutrally buoyant, in water (submarine) or air (blimp) and see if it works there. Dont waste TOO much money or your precious time on it, though.
I predict you will get some shaking but no net motion... IOTTMCO (Just in case you never picked that acronym up in engineering school, "Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer".:D)
Others have told you how the principles work.

I understand the suspended test method but have seen enough to be convinced it works in space.

Verely Verely I say to thee yee who look but cannot see'.

Always have to make the jabs at others, don'cha?:D

It's call "Turn about" -:D


I bid you peace and the best possible health, and a speedy recovery.:):)

Thanks again


-----------------------------

Some random suggestions: (I hope you heed them):)
Get a spell checker.
Use the "preview post" button to check readability before submission.
Learn about Homophones and how they're NOT equivalent in meaning.

Really and truly, honest injun, no foolin', sloppy typing habits indicate sloppy, lazy, thinking! Learn it and love it! :D


------------------------------

Used to type 65 wpm correctly but the Rithus brother have moved in to this old man.

Get healthy soon,
Dave

Thanks

[MacM]

Good luck, MacM.


Thank You. I damn well intend to return here for a number of years.

[UncaYimmy]

Mac, here's a quote I think you should take to heart in future discussions:

Nobel [laureate] Richard Feynman wrote, "Today, we understand better that what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false. This is answered by experiments, and untold numbers of experiments have confirmed Maxwell's equations [as complete and accurate.] If we take away the scaffolding he used to build it, we find that Maxwell's beautiful edifice stands on its own."

So, while verbal arguments can be useful, I suggest you show some math.

[CaveDave]

Again thanks in spite of the fact that I give God or Gods virtually zero possibility. I only say virtualy because I nor anyone can prove otherwise but God or Gods are simply ludricrus concepts that add nothing but another layer of unknowns (not sound solutions) for our ignorance of nature

I, myself, am a lifelong (from about age 8) atheist, but I know that a non-negligible segment of the members here have beliefs ranging from agnostic to devoutly religious, and I was including them, as your thread is probably read by several of them, and I doubt anyone would read the OP and not wish you well.:)

Actually there are numerous indpeth studies and mathematical work ups out there but you have not and likely will not bother to even consider them. I haven't time to seek them all out for you you neeed to scan some NPA materials.
Where would these "NPA materials" be located?


Well as an engineer viewing this in the exptreme theoretical - SEE above discussing about the patent.
I assume you refer to:
Untrue. If a calculation of passage (theoretically friction free, absolute seal, minimal theoretical "0" contact pressure, where kenetic energy is captured by submersing the sphere into the valve body volume and once sealed in the upper area then exposed to minimal thin film gap hence only sphere volume of air to re-compress as "Gravity" continues to move the sphere down through the valve, results in an out put mathemaitcally.

Which does NOT, despite what you imagine, negate the delta P across the valve diaphragm. The "ball" still has to enter and exit the region, and the pressure differential is still there, killing any gain. Why would you want to lift the balls in the water column and let them fall, just to waste power in a pumped air lock (the only way to avoid the pressure drop)

[Humorous aside]
I once heard of a reformulation of the laws of Thermodynamics in the language of Poker told in a physics lecture:
)You can never win.
)You can never break even.
)You can never leave the table.
[/Humorous aside]

I understand the suspended test method but have seen enough to be convinced it works in space.

If by "suspended" you mean by wires or such, you can still have reaction. Try neutral buoyancy, I bet it'll fail.

Verely Verely I say to thee yee who look but cannot see'.

Irony, much?:D

It's call "Turn about" -
Another poster here has a sig line that clarifies the difference between ad hominem(sp?) and fair criticism, you should read it (I wish I could direct you to it, but my memory is quirky of late:))

You came into this forum with an entire woodlot worth of chips on your shoulder, daring others to prove you wrong, and even being disingenuous in some of your statements to lure in challengers to your POV just to pick a fight: is it any wonder to you, honestly, that you might be met with a certain amount of hostility?

Used to type 65 wpm correctly but the Rithus brother have moved in to this old man.

Correct COPY typing at speed is one thing, but readable spelling and good grammar and syntax is another. Perhaps I should have stated it differently, but the really difficult aspect of decrypting your posts is, after the typos have been sorted out, one must still try to excavate your intended meaning from the melange of nonstandard usage and "sound-a-like" spelling you employ.

These remarks are intended to help you understand the difficulties we have had with communication, and not as personal attacks, BTW.:)
-----------------

One other thing, when you intersperse your replies within another's post, even when in color, it makes it complicated to quote your text in a response.:)

-----------------



I hope you defeat those nasty invaders!

Cheers,

Dave

[wackyvorlon]

MacM, I too wish you good health and as speedy a recovery as possible.

However, in all honesty, I find your writing inscrutable. I can read physics books, and make sense of it. But what you have written here is a complete enigma to me.

[MacM]

Mac, here's a quote I think you should take to heart in future discussions:

Nobel [laureate] Richard Feynman wrote, "Today, we understand better that what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false. This is answered by experiments, and untold numbers of experiments have confirmed Maxwell's equations [as complete and accurate.] If we take away the scaffolding he used to build it, we find that Maxwell's beautiful edifice stands on its own."

So, while verbal arguments can be useful, I suggest you show some math.

He He. I have a favorite of my own it is the definition difference between "Intelligence" and "Genius"

Your are intelligent if you know and understand to believe only half of what you hear and see.

You are a genius if you know which half to believe.

[wackyvorlon]

Actually, I don't believe that's correct. Genius is more directly tied to output. Einstein may have known he was right, but if he hadn't written it down and developed a rigorous theoretical treatment he would not have been considered a genius.

[MacM]

I, myself, am a lifelong (from about age 8) atheist, but I know that a non-negligible segment of the members here have beliefs ranging from agnostic to devoutly religious, and I was including them, as your thread is probably read by several of them, and I doubt anyone would read the OP and not wish you well.:)

Well I do not believe myself but we have and have had lifelong best friends that are devoute and I respect their right to be so and they have respected our right to not believe. We have set around the supper table many times while they prayed for their food and we merely sat and waited to pass the plates.

So I accept their prayers as appreciated well wishes. Thanks.

Where would these "NPA materials" be located?

http://www.worldnpa.org/main/

This is a group of anti-relativity scientists (quacks included) that exceed 1,200 membership world wide and conduct telecomferences, chats, direct e-mail exchanges, etc.

You have to sort of thumb through and find those papers you might find of interest if not totally agreeable with. Your input there might be an interesting exercise.

Not all are quacks, in fact NPA had (or may still have) a Nobel Prize Winner as a member. There are many notable and published physicist, etc. members there. They all disagree with relativity as the exclusivephysics reality and have numerous alternative theories, all of which cannot be correct if any one is.

So there it is - have fun. :D

I assume you refer to:

Which does NOT, despite what you imagine, negate the delta P across the valve diaphragm. The "ball" still has to enter and exit the region, and the pressure differential is still there, killing any gain. Why would you want to lift the balls in the water column and let them fall, just to waste power in a pumped air lock (the only way to avoid the pressure drop)

[Humorous aside]
I once heard of a reformulation of the laws of Thermodynamics in the language of Poker told in a physics lecture:
)You can never win.
)You can never break even.
)You can never leave the table.
[/Humorous aside]

OK I didn't introduce my gravity patent here, another member did as a means of attempting to either embarass me or deminish anything I might post. I responded before I knew I had cancer and since I don't really want to part this world as a perpetual motion geek let me clarify.

1 - This patent was from my youth, before my formal education and is not something I've been putting on my "Resumes'" - :D. Just thought I would have a bit of payback fun.

2 - For those not knowledgeable let me clarify. "IT DOESN'T WORK". Now let me also caution that that does NOT mean gravity is not an energy pushing force.

3 - For those that do not already know it to cause a column of fluid to become imbalanced one must do work to establish the differential height gravity potential.

That imbalance is supported by pressure differential across the column. When a stack of bouyant spheres pushes one sphere over the top into the free-fall chamber gravity will provide kenetic energy for the sphere to theoretically be able to re-enter the high pressure chamber.

However, as you can see the device requires a control valve between the chambers and that means the sphere does not fall as far from the potential as it was raised.

HINT: You will have less energy from free fall than required to re-enter the lower high pressure chamber - regardless of how exotic a valve you might design.

Re-entering the high pressure chamber requires F x D (Force times Distance).

Given a cylinder instead of a sphere: The Force is Psi x Area and Distance is cylinder length or L x A = Volume. The volume of air being displaced in the lower chamber would equal the work potential of the Ke from free fall ONLY if the potential height of the fluid column and the distance of free fall are equal (no room for a valve).


If by "suspended" you mean by wires or such, you can still have reaction. Try neutral buoyancy, I bet it'll fail.

I hope to be around to take you up on that bet. FYI: My eldest son Mark McCoin has been assigned all my patents and fabricated the Rotary engine shown on "U-Tube" under McCoin Rotary Engine ((5) videos there scroll down)for which we just received patent this January. So he is continuing to work on these devices. You can find many other VALID patent through USPTO.Gov and I/n McCoin on advanced search.

Another poster here has a sig line that clarifies the difference between ad hominem(sp?) and fair criticism, you should read it (I wish I could direct you to it, but my memory is quirky of late:))

Mine too - :D

You came into this forum with an entire woodlot worth of chips on your shoulder, daring others to prove you wrong, and even being disingenuous in some of your statements to lure in challengers to your POV just to pick a fight: is it any wonder to you, honestly, that you might be met with a certain amount of hostility?

He He - I've been at this for many years and know what it takes to stir the pot. Helps sort out the wanna-bees from the real thinkers.

Correct COPY typing at speed is one thing, but readable spelling and good grammar and syntax is another. Perhaps I should have stated it differently, but the really difficult aspect of decrypting your posts is, after the typos have been sorted out, one must still try to excavate your intended meaning from the melange of nonstandard usage and "sound-a-like" spelling you employ.

These remarks are intended to help you understand the difficulties we have had with communication, and not as personal attacks, BTW.:)

He He - Actually I also spell well when I choose to care but in my later years I just smack the keyboard and hope it is readable. I know that hurts credability a bit but then having my view does anyhow - :D
-----------------

One other thing, when you intersperse your replies within another's post, even when in color, it makes it complicated to quote your text in a response.:)

-----------------

Actually it has to do with my 68 y/o mental retention. If I just use
"Quote" I don't know what your comments are in reference to, so I either intersperse or "Cut and Paste" the post into my reply and then delete as I reply.


I hope you defeat those nasty invaders!

Cheers,

Dave

Thanks once again. I'll try to not be so nasty from now on - :D

[MacM]

MacM, I too wish you good health and as speedy a recovery as possible.

However, in all honesty, I find your writing inscrutable. I can read physics books, and make sense of it. But what you have written here is a complete enigma to me.


Thank you and :D:D

[MacM]

Actually, I don't believe that's correct. Genius is more directly tied to output. Einstein may have known he was right, but if he hadn't written it down and developed a rigorous theoretical treatment he would not have been considered a genius.

Picky, picky, picky - :D

[MacM]

Change of subject here. I just saw something about problems at LHC. Anybody care to say briefly what happened?

PS: FYI - IF OK with management I would like to keep this as a single thread for me to follow which may involve a variety of subjects so I don't have to look all over and try to keep up. Other threads have exceeded 1,000 posts and I can't reply to everybody now. - Thanks and let me know.

[MacM]

FYI: NPA links. It appears the Nobel may have passed on but here are some links to info on NPA.

NPA Listed

Notables:
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists

Scientists
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Notables

McCoinProfile
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Admin&tab1=Display&id=1327

McCoin Gravity Test
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Experiments&tab1=Display&id=38

I have had e-mail contact and dialog with the following NPA notables:

Tom Van Flandern - Recently deceased. For many years; He and I had a very simular concept of pushing gravity but shared little else in common.

Ronald Hatch - Current views on GPS

Paul Marmet - Sometime ago and briefly - Relativity.

Plus numerous other members.

Seems there are about 7,000 papers available to scan or review there.

Some testing - of which I also have a test posted. More info available on request.

[MacM]

To refocus this discussion let me attempt to put my view into common language because I don't have a great difference with how SR is actually applied mathematically but more symantically how it is described which misleads lesser educated members.

In my view your adaption of the frame switching scheme actually is now based on an absolute system of measure but you continue to merely refer to the "Relative Velocity" aspect to an unidentified absolute frame.

i.e.:

F0, F1 F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, .....Fn, Finf, etc".

Such that your math is a "Relative Velocity Differential" between some unknown value of "Abolute Frames of reference. That is you and I may share an underlying absolute velocity of some unknown value

i.e. -F1 = 0.6c but where I appear at inertial rest at 0.6c at F1 = 0.6c Kmps universally but locally = "0" Kmps and you have known accelerations from that frame putting you into a cycle having been in frames F10 = 0.95c or a "Relative velocity to the F1 frame = "0" to F10 = 0.36c.

This is why the "Relative Velocity" between clocks is void and irrelevant.

My issue of "No spatial Lorentz Contraction and a consequences of measured relative velocity differential is based on a different view of the cause of "Measured" invariance of light vs "Actual Invariance" of light.

Perhaps we might tnow be able to have civil discussion of such possibilities.

Thanks.

[Kuko 4000]

Take care Mac, I hope it all turns out good for you!

Kuko

[Ziggurat]

First off, a suggestion: use the quote tags to separate your comments from the comments you respond to. Otherwise anyone replying to you has to manually insert your comments into their reply.

Again I believe the change from the initial "Relative Velocity" concept as proposed between cocks to the current consideration of "Who Accelerated (Switxched Frames) puts SR into an actual absolute system vs "Mere Relative Veloicty". You are measuring a "Relative" velocity change to some unknown absolute inertial frame velocity and not relative velocity between clocks.

The existence of absolute acceleration is separate from the existence of absolute velocity. Even under Galilean relativity, you have the former but not the latter. And the whole point of inertial reference frames is that they are not absolute: there are an infinitude of inertial reference frames, each moving with respect to the others, and in each of them the laws of physics look exactly the same. So none of them can sensibly be called absolute. Rather than demonstrating a shortcoming of the existing model, this response suggests a shortcoming in your understanding of that model. Again: we don't even have to look at special relativity, all of these issues arise under Galilean relativity, and you don't even seem to have a firm grasp of that.

I recognize the difficulty and appreciate the problem. It is not simple to describe even in words much less a formalized mathematicaly model

It doesn't matter if it's difficult: the point is, you have not done so. Without such a mathematically defined model, nobody else can evaluate it in any sensible fashion. Hell, you can't even make quantitative predictions yourself if you can't frame your theory in mathematical terms. That's not physics. It is, at best, philosophy.

of a spatial medium thatis omnidirectional multi-energetic (virtually infinite velocity components) which interact only at the v = c to an observer with relative velocity to any inertial absolute velocity light source so as to generate a photon. Every observer with different relative velocity to the light source therfore is seeing different photons and light is NOT actually invariant but merely the measurement is invariant to the observer frame.

Have you ever heard of pickle bugs? They lay eggs in cucumbers, and when the eggs hatch, the larva start to eat the cucumbers from the inside, growing to fill the hole they create. When the larva are full grown and before they go through metamorphosis, they take on the appearance of the cucumber they consumed. In fact, they're often mistakenly picked by farmers, who throw them in with other cucumbers. Normally not a problem, they finish metamophosis and crawl away, and no one is the wiser. But metamorphosis gets interrupted and the larva dies if the cucumbers are pickled. So these pickle bug larva get canned along with all the other pickles, and unsuspecting consumers end up taking out a pickle bug larva and biting into it, thinking it's a pickle. At which time they notice that a pickle bug larva tastes... just like a pickle.

What's that you say? There's no such thing as pickle bugs? How do you know? How can you be sure?

If there's no way to distinguish the existence of something from its non-existence, then it what sense can it exist at all? The same applies to the aether (as a medium for electromagnetic excitations) and to your excitations traveling at something other than c which are only observable at c. There is no way to distinguish between their existence and non-existence. Just like the pickle bug, you may be able to create a theory which posits their existence, but you can only do so by making them like the pickle bug: non-observable.


Untrue. If a calculation of passage (theoretically friction free, absolute seal, minimal theoretical "0" contact pressure, where kenetic energy is captured by submersing the sphere into the valve body volume and once sealed in the upper area then exposed to minimal thin film gap hence only sphere volume of air to re-compress as "Gravity" continues to move the sphere down through the valve, results in an out put mathemaitcally.


Once again, these details do not matter. Unless the valve itself is doing net work on the ball (in which case you don't need gravity, the valve itself is your perpetual motion machine), the only possible way to extract energy is if the path integral of work done by gravity around a closed loop is nonzero - ie, gravity is non-conservative. There is no alternative. That you do not understand these very basic issues goes to my previous point 1: you have not demonstrated a solid grasp of what is already understood by physicists. And the issue of conservative vs. nonconservative force in regards to energy conservation is not simply a matter of theory: it's an absolute distinction for any theory.

This can be easily envisioned if you follow the process carefually. This does not mean "Petual Motion" because by definition it is only perpetual if there is no outside source of power.

In other words, you think gravity is not only non-conservative, but it draws energy from somewhere else in order to do this work. Where this energy is being lost from remains unspecified. You'll have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone.


FYI: 55 years ago when I first concienved of UniKEF I predicted that massive gravitating bodies would be found to have a heat component linked to gravitational poetential. In 1964 NASA found just such component which as yet may not have been satisfactorliy explained.

Again, not good enough. What "heat component" has NASA found? How is it any different than simple compressional heating? Has NASA really not found any explanation for it using standard physics? And can your theory actually predict this heating quantitatively? None of these questions are answered, let alone addressed. Without them, your claim is pretty much meaningless.

I also made several other priori's which have been found to be true.

Also not good enough. Existing theories have made predictions which were found correct too. This in no way distinguishes your theory as any better than, or even as good as, existing theories. You need to show numbers 2-4 above. Which you haven't done.

So whuile my theory is only barely mathematically considered

Which makes it essentially useless.

the general concept seems correct

"seems" isn't good enough. It has to be something that can be evaluated quantitatively, which your theory cannot be.

which is why Iam perhaps more stuborn than most to accept rhetoric and current physics as the exclusive answer.

Exclusive answer? No, it's not the exclusive answer. If you were in the field (and no offense, but it's obvious you're not), then you'd know that there are MANY areas of active debate and contention. The areas that are not actively debated are so because they have been long settled: experimental evidence for the correctness of those theories is overwhelming. That does not mean that the theories are taken as being absolutely correct, but it DOES mean that, like Newtonian mechanics for moderately large and slow objects, they are at least excellent approximations. Any theory which aims to take their place must, just like special relativity does with Newtonian mechanics, reduce to existing theories in the limiting conditions in which existing theories work so well. But just as with pretty much everything else in physics, you need your theory to be framed in mathematical terms in order to be able to evaluate it in this manner. But you have not done so: your theory has no mathematical formalism, and so is essentially untestable. It cannot be disproven for the same reason it cannot be tested in any meaningful manner.

It is unfortunate that professionals are unable to have dialog in common language because your use of terms assume certin conditions which are not supported in the alternative views.

No, MacM. The terms "momentum" and "force" do not assume anything. They are quantities which have rigorous definitions. A definition is not an assumption. You are using those words in ways which conflict with those accepted definitions. As a result, your statement was nonsensical. Now, if you would prefer to use some other definition besides the standard accepted definition, you may do so. But in such a case, the burden is on you to provide the definition you want to use. You have not done so. Without an alternative definition, I have no recourse but to try to apply the standard definitions. And the result, as already mentioned, is not even grammatically correct.

[wackyvorlon]

I may be misunderstanding you here, but isn't the equality of all reference frames a corner stone of relativity?

[Ziggurat]

I may be misunderstanding you here

Who is "you"?

but isn't the equality of all reference frames a corner stone of relativity?

No: the equivalence of all inertial reference frames is a corner stone of relativity (both Galilean and special). Non-inertial reference frames are not equivalent.

[wackyvorlon]

Who is "you"?



No: the equivalence of all inertial reference frames is a corner stone of relativity (both Galilean and special). Non-inertial reference frames are not equivalent.

The "you" was MacM, a fellow posted before I had a chance and I didn't notice. Ahh yes, now I remember the bit about them being inertial. Me != physicist. Now I'm off to try to figure out where exactly one can find a *non* inertial reference frame....

EDIT: Ahh, now I get it! So the earth is non-inertial because it's rotating. The math for such a reference frame at relativistic velocities must get very interesting indeed....

[sol invictus]

MacM, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you recover and prove your doctors wrong.

If I could venture to give you one piece of advice, it would be this - forget about physics for now. Forget about this and other internet fora. Enjoy your life, your family, your friends, the summer. When you've recovered you can come back to this, but for now there are much more rewarding things to do.

We probably disagree on why, but I suspect you would agree with me that you have no chance of convincing anyone here. So don't waste your time!

[MacM]

I may be misunderstanding you here, but isn't the equality of all reference frames a corner stone of relativity?

Correct and I do understand the concept of reference frames but I still say:

F1=0, F2=0.1c, F3=0.2c, F4=0.3c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9C - F4) = 0.6c; IS still an absolute measure system. It is just that an inertial F4 locally = 0.

[MacM]

MacM, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you recover and prove your doctors wrong.

If I could venture to give you one piece of advice, it would be this - forget about physics for now. Forget about this and other internet fora. Enjoy your life, your family, your friends, the summer. When you've recovered you can come back to this, but for now there are much more rewarding things to do.

Correct. I get my first Chem Wed .

We probably disagree on why, but I suspect you would agree with me that you have no chance of convincing anyone here. So don't waste your time!

No I fully agree with you but I enjoy the batter.

[Reality Check]

Hi MacM. Sorry to hear about your health problems. I hope your treatment goes well.

I do have some questions about your reply to wackyvorlon:
Correct and I do understand the concept of reference frames but I still say:

F1=0, F2=0.1c, F3=0.2c, F4=0.3c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9C - F4) = 0.6c; IS still an absolute measure system. It is just that an inertial F4 locally = 0.
What is an "absolute measure system"?
How big is "locally"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offseting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

[Cuddles]

clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.

That's one hell of a false dichotomy you've got yourself there. You may be better off taking it to the Conspiracies section. Alternatively, you could simply recognise a very obvious third possibility - you're wrong.

[MacM]

Hi MacM. Sorry to hear about your health problems. I hope your treatment goes well.

I do have some questions about your reply to wackyvorlon:

What is an "absolute measure system"?
How big is "locally"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offseting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

Great question. Local I suspect is a planck volume and there are one for every possible planck increment of energy (motion) from some unknown absolute zero to whatever speed (velocity) might describe particle entanglement.

The thing is our physics are bound by Lorentz and v = c becomes an existance limit within our universe but if you blast off in space to high relavistic speeds I suspect you will begin to measure (see) or experience objects that were outside your c band universe inertial rest reference.

Also it would mean that some objects which would now exceed v = c that were before your acceleration were receeding have now ceased to exist in your new universal surroundings.

[MacM]

That's one hell of a false dichotomy you've got yourself there. You may be better off taking it to the Conspiracies section. Alternatively, you could simply recognise a very obvious third possibility - you're wrong.

Definitely possible - :D But my statement only applies to those that have posted SR rhetoric and not considered what is being said. That is it doesn't matter what SR says if the foundation of SR is being questioned.

[Reality Check]

Great question. Local I suspect is a planck volume and there are one for every possible planck increment of energy (motion) from some unknown absolute zero to whatever speed (velocity) might describe particle entanglement.

The thing is our physics are bound by Lorentz and v = c becomes an existance limit within our universe but if you blast off in space to high relavistic speeds I suspect you will begin to measure (see) or experience objects that were outside your c band universe inertial rest reference.

Also it would mean that some objects which would now exceed v = c that were before your acceleration were receeding have now ceased to exist in your new universal surroundings.
Not quite right. Our physics is not limited by "Lorentz". It is extended by the Lorentz transformation in SR to be more correct for observers moving at high velocities in inertial reference frames. v=c is not an "existence limit". Physical objects just cannot get to velocities > c (N.B. light actually exists and travels at v=c). The objects do not cease to exist in your new universal surroundings - you just cannot see them. That is why there is an observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe).

I do not what you mean by "c band universe inertial rest reference" but at velocities approaching c you do see unusual effects, e.g. see the Optical Effects of Special Relativity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4) YouTube video.

If local is a Planck volume then you need a quantum gravity theory to describe the physics - how is your string theory?

So that is one question answered. What about the rest:
What is an "absolute measure system"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offsetting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

And:
What is a "c band universe inertial rest reference"? My guess is the observable universe if "c band universe" is the objects in the universe traveling <= c and "inertial rest reference" is an inertial reference frame (but what is "rest" doing in there? )
Why is F4 so special. Why can we not subtract F1 (a velocity of 0) to get an "absolute measure system"?

[MacM]

Not quite right. Our physics is not limited by "Lorentz". It is extended by the Lorentz transformation in SR to be more correct for observers moving at high velocities in inertial reference frames. v=c is not an "existence limit". Physical objects just cannot get to velocities > c (N.B. light actually exists and travels at v=c). The objects do not cease to exist in your new universal surroundings - you just cannot see them. That is why there is an observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe).

I do not what you mean by "c band universe inertial rest reference" but at velocities approaching c you do see unusual effects, e.g. see the Optical Effects of Special Relativity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4) YouTube video.

If local is a Planck volume then you need a quantum gravity theory to describe the physics - how is your string theory?

So that is one question answered. What about the rest:
What is an "absolute measure system"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offsetting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

And:
What is a "c band universe inertial rest reference"? My guess is the observable universe if "c band universe" is the objects in the universe traveling <= c and "inertial rest reference" is an inertial reference frame (but what is "rest" doing in there? )
Why is F4 so special. Why can we not subtract F1 (a velocity of 0) to get an "absolute measure system"?

Unfortunately all you are doing is reciting rhetoric and SR. I'm proposing that what you call light may have a completely different origin and your invariance if merely a measure based on differrent photons at different absolute universal energies.


Actually nothing you have said addresses the issues raised but merely recites existing concepts.

Not interested.

[Reality Check]

Unfortunately all you are doing is reciting rhetoric and SR. I'm proposing that what you call light may have a completely different origin and your invariance if merely a measure based on differrent photons at different absolute universal energies.

Actually nothing you have said addresses the issues raised but merely recites existing concepts.

Not interested.
I am not "reciting rhetoric and SR".
I am not addressing the issue raised because you have not raised any intelligible issue.
I am asking questions about what your terms mean.
But if your terms mean nothing then I guess we are back to your meaningless non-science again.

BTW:
Are you saying that light is not an electromagnetic wave? Or that light is not a photon? Or that wave/particle duality is false? Or?
What does "different absolute universal energies" mean?

[UncaYimmy]

Unfortunately all you are doing is reciting rhetoric and SR. I'm proposing that what you call light may have a completely different origin and your invariance if merely a measure based on differrent photons at different absolute universal energies.


Actually nothing you have said addresses the issues raised but merely recites existing concepts.

Not interested.

First, you don't seem to know the meaning of rhetoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric).

Second, you have proposed nothing. You might think you have, but you have not. Either we're all failing to understand something complex or you are not communicating your ideas very well.

Once again, show the math. Without it, you have nothing.

[MacM]

Are you saying that light is not an electromagnetic wave? Or that light is not a photon? Or that wave/particle duality is false? Or?

I suspect that what you refer to as a photon is very simular to photons generated by Cerenkov Radiation but just where the medium is spatial vacuum.

That is something is exceeding v = c for that medium. Further that the photon measured is one generated at some quantum value of energy relative to the observer and hence the observer motion changes when and where a photon is measured.

That is observers with different velocities to the source are measuring different photons not that "a" photon has an invariant velocity to all observers.

I further suspect that the carrier wave(s) for production of light therefore exist at every concievable value upto and including a speed (veloicty) required to link particles in entanglement.

It is you veloicty relative to this unseen spatial fabric or energy that results in all measured relavisitc processes.

What does "different absolute universal energies" mean?

To understand such terminologies you must fisrt forfiet the idea that there is no actual absolute rest and accept that frames are nothing more tha some energy level (meaning motion velocities) within the dynamic spatial background.

All inertial frames are relative to some absolute background but locally we can only measure or sense relative to the local rest reference (which actually may - most likely ) has velocity universally.

[MacM]

First, you don't seem to know the meaning of rhetoric (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rhetoric).

WEBSTER:

Rhetoric 2: using or characterized by mere rhetoric, or artificial eloquence; showy and elaborate in style.

Seems appropriate to me. Hollow meaningless diatribe quoting existing theory as a basis of discussion. Anything not consistant with that is outside realm of consideraton.

Why didn't you emphasize the further definition below in your link?

*************************

Related Words

grandiloquence, grandiosity, magniloquence, empty talk, empty words, hot air, palaver

*********************************

You are correct. It is complex, I am not making it clear and there is no math.

This is something that most here have not been trained to do and unfortunatley that is to think for yourselves.

That is not meant to be negative, you are trained in regurgitating what has been done before you and to manipulate formulas.

[Reality Check]

You are correct. It is complex, I am not making it clear and there is no math.

This is something that most here have not been trained to do and unfortunatley that is to think for yourselves.

That is not meant to be negative, you are trained in regurgitating what has been done before you and to manipulate formulas.
That is the point:
Not only are you not makig "it" clear - you have not even stated what "it" is in any way that we can understand.
You thus leave us with no option but to try to read your mind (is that what you mean by "think for yourselves" :) ?).

A suggestion:

Create a glossary of your personal terms for various things (so that we have a way to translate them into things that are commonly used).
State your issue clearly using only terms in your glossary. Including mathematics would be good (and clearer).
Here is a start:

"absolute measure system" = ?
"different absolute universal energies" = ?
"c band universe inertial rest reference" = ?
P.S. You still have not answered my questions but once you know what you are taking about, we can return to them.

[UncaYimmy]

WEBSTER:

Rhetoric 2: using or characterized by mere rhetoric, or artificial eloquence; showy and elaborate in style.

Okay, I take it back. You don't know what it means to show artificial eloquence or be showy and elaborate in style.

Seems appropriate to me. Hollow meaningless diatribe quoting existing theory as a basis of discussion. Anything not consistant with that is outside realm of consideraton.
Let's take 'em one by one:

Hollow - How is the Theory of Relativity hollow?
Meaningless - See above. It has plenty of meaning.
Diatribe - A sharply abusive denunciation? No way. The post was quite civil.

I don't believe English has a word that means what you want it to mean, which is that you received an explanation based on currently accepted theory. This little exchange demonstrates your biggest problem, Mac. You use words in ways that other people don't. This applies to physics as well as English. And you get irritated with us for not understanding you.

That is not meant to be negative, you are trained in regurgitating what has been done before you and to manipulate formulas.
I haven't been trained in diddly squat when it comes to relativity. What I do see is a large group of people using a common language to communicate ideas. For most of history those ideas did not exist. The language evolved and definitions became accepted.

Now you come along and start using terms that already have meaning, yet you don't even come close to explaining what it is that you really mean.

So, show the math. It's the least ambiguous language we mortals have. Or are you saying you cannot do that?

[MacM]

I'll post replies tonight (going for Chemo now).

For those not already indoctrinated Einstein made a speach wherein he stated SR does NOT disprove the existance of an aether; plus GR REQUIRES it.

http://www.mountainman.com.au:80/aether_0.html

[Cuddles]

But my statement only applies to those that have posted SR rhetoric and not considered what is being said.

And this is your big problem - you simply dismiss everyone who disagrees with you by claiming they're listening to what you say. They have considered what you say, and they disagree with it.

That is it doesn't matter what SR says if the foundation of SR is being questioned.

What nonsense. It is what SR says that is exactly what matters. Theories are tested by looking at what they say and comparing that to observation of what actually happens. The simple fact is that SR and GR match those observation very well. That will remain true no matter how much you dispute their founding assumptions. The only way for a theory to supplant them is to make predictions that match observation even better.

This is your other big problem - you don't appear to understand how science works. You can't just argue that your idea sounds good, you have to make predictions and then test them. The only way to dispute a theory is by showing that what it says is either internally consistent or wrong. By dismissing the predictions of the theory you are trying to dispute, you make it impossible for anything you say to be relevant in any way.

[Reality Check]

Good luck with the Chemo MacM.

I'll post replies tonight (going for Chemo now).

For those not already indoctrinated Einstein made a speach wherein he stated SR does NOT disprove the existance of an aether; plus GR REQUIRES it.

http://www.mountainman.com.au:80/aether_0.html
And I quote with emphasis for those not already deluded

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether,; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it. We shall see later that this point of view, the conceivability of which shall at once endeavour to make more intelligible by a somewhat halting comparison, is justified by the results of the general theory of relativity.

In Einsteins own words MacM is right - SR ignores the existence of a ether because the ether has no physical properties but that does not mean that it does not exist. GR justifies this.

This is basically what the Wikipedia article in Lorentz ether theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory) says
Viewed as a theory of elementary particles, Lorentz's electron/ether theory was superseded during the first few decades of the 20th century, first by quantum mechanics and then by quantum field theory. As a general theory of dynamics, Lorentz and Poincare had already (by about 1905) found it necessary to invoke the principle of relativity itself in order to make the theory match all the available empirical data. By this point, the last vestiges of a substantial ether had been eliminated from Lorentz's "ether" theory, and it become both empirically and deductively equivalent to special relativity. The only difference was the metaphysical[C 7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory#cite_note-59) postulate of a unique absolute rest frame, which was empirically undetectable and played no role in the physical predictions of the theory. As a result, the term "Lorentz ether theory" is sometimes used today to refer to a neo-Lorentzian interpretation of special relativity. The prefix "neo" is used in recognition of the fact that the interpretation must now be applied to physical entities and processes (such as the standard model of quantum field theory) that were unknown in Lorentz's day.

and the [c 7] citation:

Lorentz commented that the difference between his and Einstein's view was purely metaphysical, and could be left to the metaphysicians.

[MacM]

And this is your big problem - you simply dismiss everyone who disagrees with you by claiming they're listening to what you say. They have considered what you say, and they disagree with it.



What nonsense. It is what SR says that is exactly what matters. Theories are tested by looking at what they say and comparing that to observation of what actually happens. The simple fact is that SR and GR match those observation very well. That will remain true no matter how much you dispute their founding assumptions. The only way for a theory to supplant them is to make predictions that match observation even better.

This is your other big problem - you don't appear to understand how science works. You can't just argue that your idea sounds good, you have to make predictions and then test them. The only way to dispute a theory is by showing that what it says is either internally consistent or wrong. By dismissing the predictions of the theory you are trying to dispute, you make it impossible for anything you say to be relevant in any way.

Please turn on the light and look deep into the mirrow.

[UncaYimmy]

Please turn on the light and look deep into the mirrow.

Well, you've convinced me. Since all these other idiots have it wrong, can you tell me how I can use this new theory to make some money? A PM is fine.

Thanks!

[sol invictus]

For those not already indoctrinated Einstein made a speach wherein he stated SR does NOT disprove the existance of an aether; plus GR REQUIRES it.

As he says, it requires a very peculiar form of ether - an ether that's deformed by the presence of mass and energy within it, and one that has no definite state of motion (that's the part you have so much difficulty with). It's so totally unlike the 19th century conception of ether that the term has fallen completely into disuse.

The ether he's discussing is what physicists today refer to as the metric of spacetime - it's a completely standard and very well understood part of physics. It's the first thing you study when you learn general relativity.

As I've tried to explain to you, the defining characteristic of GR is that all freely moving observers will obtain identical results if they perform identical, local experiments - in other words, they will never, under any circumstances, be able to detect their speed or direction of motion. However they will be able to detect their linear acceleration or rotation - that's the primary sense in which GR requires an "ether".

[Cuddles]

Please turn on the light and look deep into the mirrow.

Is that some kind of fish?

[MacM]

Good luck with the Chemo MacM.


And I quote with emphasis for those not already deluded

In Einsteins own words MacM is right - SR ignores the existence of a ether because the ether has no physical properties but that does not mean that it does not exist. GR justifies this.

This is basically what the Wikipedia article in Lorentz ether theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory) says

and the [c 7] citation:

Thanks RC for your post in all respects.

[MacM]

Well, you've convinced me. Since all these other idiots have it wrong, can you tell me how I can use this new theory to make some money? A PM is fine.

Thanks!

Hey if I could do that you'd be reading my published works - :D

[MacM]

As he says, it requires a very peculiar form of ether - an ether that's deformed by the presence of mass and energy within it, and one that has no definite state of motion (that's the part you have so much difficulty with). It's so totally unlike the 19th century conception of ether that the term has fallen completely into disuse.

The ether he's discussing is what physicists today refer to as the metric of spacetime - it's a completely standard and very well understood part of physics. It's the first thing you study when you learn general relativity.

As I've tried to explain to you, the defining characteristic of GR is that all freely moving observers will obtain identical results if they perform identical, local experiments - in other words, they will never, under any circumstances, be able to detect their speed or direction of motion. However they will be able to detect their linear acceleration or rotation - that's the primary sense in which GR requires an "ether".

My primary objection to modern phusics is that it is virtually pure mathematics. Math is good, necessary and useful but current theories lack any physical views.

[MacM]

Is that some kind of fish?

Opps. It was late. Lets try "Mirror" - :D

[Reality Check]

My primary objection to modern phusics is that it is virtually pure mathematics. Math is good, necessary and useful but current theories lack any physical views.
I would like to know what your criteria was for this statement, e.g. your own opinion, some survey of all scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical science journals, the experimental vs theoretical science budget (US or other?), etc.

Modern physics is what physics has been ever since Galileo Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo) - a mixture of theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physics. The current theories do have "physical views" - they match the physical observations.

But "physical views" may mean something different to you since you seem to have your own definitions and terms for many things.

And why "modern" and "current"? Mathematics has been a vital part of physics (and all science) since at least Galileo's time. Are you about to throw away all science since then because it is too mathematical for your tastes?

[MacM]

I would like to know what your criteria was for this statement, e.g. your own opinion, some survey of all scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical science journals, the experimental vs theoretical science budget (US or other?), etc.

Modern physics is what physics has been ever since Galileo Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo) - a mixture of theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physics. The current theories do have "physical views" - they match the physical observations.

But "physical views" may mean something different to you since you seem to have your own definitions and terms for many things.

And why "modern" and "current"? Mathematics has been a vital part of physics (and all science) since at least Galileo's time. Are you about to throw away all science since then because it is too mathematical for your tastes?

Basic Physics such as the Bohr Atom are physical concepts (even though that no longer applies). Current physics lean far more into higher mathematics and little if any physical concepts. i.e. - Strings with 11+ dimensions, etc.

The problem with math is that given sufficient degrees of freedom one can produce whatever results one seeks but saying with 11D we can now encompass gravity is simply meaningless.

[Reality Check]

Basic Physics such as the Bohr Atom are physical concepts (even though that no longer applies). Current physics lean far more into higher mathematics and little if any physical concepts. i.e. - Strings with 11+ dimensions, etc.

The problem with math is that given sufficient degrees of freedom one can produce whatever results one seeks but saying with 11D we can now encompass gravity is simply meaningless.
So by "physical concepts" you mean things that we perceive physically, i.e. the way we see the world as determined by our evolutionary history (what I like to call the ape brain perspective).

This of course neglects that logical part of the human brain. We never see things that move fast wrt the speed of light. Thus all relativistic effects are "non-physical" according to your definition. But we have designed experiments to explore what happens at high speeds. Ditto for most of modern physics (see the list at the end of this post).

Or maybe your definition of physical is "things we can describe in pretty pictures (like the Bohr atom)". Guess what - there are lots of pretty pictures for modern physics, e.g. the quantum mechanical pictures of atomic orbitals. And there are lots of pretty pictures for string theory.

With 11+ dimensions we can encompass gravity. Gravity is curvature in spacetime (4D). Adding more dimensions allows the incorporation of other forces. The current string theory has too many degrees of freedom to be fully predictive. But that applies only to that theory.

If your issue was only with string theory then you would not be alone.
But your issue seems to be with all mathematics in physics. Perhaps you can point out the "degrees of freedom" in the following that allows them to produce whatever results one seeks:

Newton's laws
Maxwell's equations
Special relativity
General relativity
Quantum mechanics

[MacM]

So by "physical concepts" you mean things that we perceive physically, i.e. the way we see the world as determined by our evolutionary history (what I like to call the ape brain perspective).

This of course neglects that logical part of the human brain. We never see things that move fast wrt the speed of light. Thus all relativistic effects are "non-physical" according to your definition. But we have designed experiments to explore what happens at high speeds. Ditto for most of modern physics (see the list at the end of this post).

Or maybe your definition of physical is "things we can describe in pretty pictures (like the Bohr atom)". Guess what - there are lots of pretty pictures for modern physics, e.g. the quantum mechanical pictures of atomic orbitals. And there are lots of pretty pictures for string theory.

With 11+ dimensions we can encompass gravity. Gravity is curvature in spacetime (4D). Adding more dimensions allows the incorporation of other forces. The current string theory has too many degrees of freedom to be fully predictive. But that applies only to that theory.

If your issue was only with string theory then you would not be alone.
But your issue seems to be with all mathematics in physics. Perhaps you can point out the "degrees of freedom" in the following that allows them to produce whatever results one seeks:

Newton's laws
Maxwell's equations
Special relativity
General relativity
Quantum mechanics


Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

[Reality Check]

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.
So it is just spacetime that you have a problem with.

The sheer nonsense is to ignore that the scientific method tells us that the best description of gravity that we have requires that space and time contract, expand, curve, etc. If you can come up with a better scientific theory of gravity that does not need the curvature of spacetime then scientists will use that instead. As soon as that happens, your "sheer nonsense" will become actual science rather than your own personal opinion based on your own personal prejudices.

As far as I know space is never given attributes such as permeability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_permeability). Are you thinking about the permeability of free space and other constants?

[UncaYimmy]

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

So, how do you feel about time?

[UncaYimmy]

Once again I want to remind the physics experts here that while the persons who start and prolong these threads here may leave with no better understanding than when they started, there are folks like myself who learn.

In pondering MacM's claims, I stumbled across this site about Gravity Probe B that discusses the fabric of spacetime (http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html). A few more dots were connected for me.

Perhaps MacM feels like Einstein who said that to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words."

[sol invictus]

Actually the math is necessary, useful and required but to assert there is no fabric to space but then give it physical attributes of permeability, etc.
To allow it to contract, expand, curve, etc is shear nonsense.

You've erected some kind of straw man and are busily trying to knock it down. No one "asserts there is no fabric to space"[time]. Just the contrary. But physicists don't use the word "ether" to describe it, because that word implies properties that spacetime simply doesn't have (like a rest frame).

As very often happens in physics, naive expectations are proven wrong by experiments. In the 19th century nearly everyone believed in an ether. They were wrong, unless you stretch the term so far it bears almost no relation to its original conception.

[RussDill]

I think the best line of inquiry here is a thought experiment. Suppose man colonizes Mars. We'll need a GPS system for Mars. We build some satellites on Earth, and accelerate them over to Mars and into Mars orbit. We build some on Mars and put them into Mars orbit.

According to MacM, they accelerated from different initial reference frames and should thus behave differently. Is this a correct line of thinking MacM?

[Note, I utilize the "MacM" usage of acceleration here]

[MacM]

I think the best line of inquiry here is a thought experiment. Suppose man colonizes Mars. We'll need a GPS system for Mars. We build some satellites on Earth, and accelerate them over to Mars and into Mars orbit. We build some on Mars and put them into Mars orbit.

According to MacM, they accelerated from different initial reference frames and should thus behave differently. Is this a correct line of thinking MacM?

[Note, I utilize the "MacM" usage of acceleration here]No. Once the satellites occupy the same frame they will tick the same. They will however have a different time accumuation history before reachingh that point. Assume Mars has been colonized and the GPS is being constructed at the same time on Mars and Earth. They will clearly have accumulated different amounts of time when berought together but will now be ticking at the same rate.

[MacM]

So, how do you feel about time?

Time is an attribute of an ergetic 3D Space, not a dimension in it's own right.

To reverse time you must reverse all universal energy flow.

[MacM]

I would like to know what your criteria was for this statement, e.g. your own opinion, some survey of all scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical scientists, the difference in numbers of experimental vs theoretical science journals, the experimental vs theoretical science budget (US or other?), etc.

Modern physics is what physics has been ever since Galileo Galilei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo) - a mixture of theoretical (mathematical) and experimental physics. The current theories do have "physical views" - they match the physical observations.

But "physical views" may mean something different to you since you seem to have your own definitions and terms for many things.

And why "modern" and "current"? Mathematics has been a vital part of physics (and all science) since at least Galileo's time. Are you about to throw away all science since then because it is too mathematical for your tastes?

Not to mathematical but to unphysical. You seem to have forgotten that math used to be used to better define physical concepts. Today math is proposed as the concept without any physical understanding. Much like Newtonian Gravity. "Some mysterious force effuding from all mass"

[MacM]

Once again I want to remind the physics experts here that while the persons who start and prolong these threads here may leave with no better understanding than when they started, there are folks like myself who learn.

In pondering MacM's claims, I stumbled across this site about Gravity Probe B that discusses the fabric of spacetime (http://einstein.stanford.edu/SPACETIME/spacetime2.html). A few more dots were connected for me.

Perhaps MacM feels like Einstein who said that to express physical laws without coordinates is like "describing thoughts without words."


Actually more simple than that. I envision gravity a a mechanical (physical) process due to an energy flow. That concept actually predicts the 1/r^2 relationship locally but an enhanced gravity over Newton on Galatic scales (Which now requires some mysterious Dark Matter); plus would produce the accelerating expansion of the universe (now requiring some mysterious Dark Energy).

Frankly I suspect what is now called Dark Energy is my 1954 UniKEF; which causes all three features of gravity.

It is also testable.

[Ziggurat]

Actually more simple than that. I envision gravity a a mechanical (physical) process due to an energy flow. That concept actually predicts the 1/r^2 relationship locally but an enhanced gravity over Newton on Galatic scales (Which now requires some mysterious Dark Matter); plus would produce the accelerating expansion of the universe (now requiring some mysterious Dark Energy).

Alright, what's its functional form? Surely you can write down an equation which indicates the strength of your gravitational field as a function of distance. If it's not 1/r2, what is it? What's the equation?

[MacM]

You've erected some kind of straw man and are busily trying to knock it down. No one "asserts there is no fabric to space"[time]. Just the contrary. But physicists don't use the word "ether" to describe it, because that word implies properties that spacetime simply doesn't have (like a rest frame).

As very often happens in physics, naive expectations are proven wrong by experiments. In the 19th century nearly everyone believed in an ether. They were wrong, unless you stretch the term so far it bears almost no relation to its original conception.

Color "red" above your assumptions are showing. "Absence of Evidence isNOT Evicence of Absence". Try to remember that. Perhaps you can ignore the fact that o know absolute rest can be identified but that does NOT mean it is not there.

My own view of space if not of theoriginal aether but of a dynamic energy flow creating space. There was never a Big Bang but merely a Big Rip. The Big Rip eliminates that pesky inflationary period predicted singuoarities, etc.

The Rip is a form of bifurcated energy where nothing was ever created.

(N)othingness--------------> (+S)omethingness + (-S)omethingness = "0"

That process is still on going and produces gravity and the expansion.

[MacM]

Alright, what's its functional form? Surely you can write down an equation which indicates the strength of your gravitational field as a function of distance. If it's not 1/r2, what is it? What's the equation?

Not so simple. If I'm correct this energy flows from every spatial ordinate point. The universe is finite but expanding. Calculus shows that locally this view produces the Newtonian view but it also predicts that where Netownian Gravity tends toward"0" as "r" approaches infinity, in UniKEF gravity has a component approaching "1". This yields 1/r^2 locally but greater gravity on galatic scales and as seperation increases beyond where the sources of penetrating energy between bodies exceeds sources for energy pushing bodies together then there becomes an accelerating expansion.

If I am correct (some testing suggests I am) then there is a geometrical component to gravity heretofore not measured or considered. That is given two spheres and two cubes of equal masses. placed the same distance apart you will find a very slight difference in gravity.

Gravity is NOT Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r^2. That is integration to a point source isn't valid.

[Ziggurat]

Not so simple. If I'm correct this energy flows from every spatial ordinate point. The universe is finite but expanding. Calculus shows that locally this view produces the Newtonian view but it also predicts that where Netownian Gravity tends toward"0" as "r" approaches infinity, in UniKEF gravity has a component approaching "1".

So something like 1/r2 + 1 then. Or how about 1/r2 +1/(1+1/r2), if you want the correction to vanish at small r. There are lots of equations which have different limiting behavior in different regimes, that's no excuse. Your inability to find an equation for your model means that you can't actually do calculations with your model. Which makes it, well, not much of a model.

If I am correct (some testing suggests I am) then there is a geometrical component to gravity heretofore not measured or considered. That is given two spheres and two cubes of equal masses. placed the same distance apart you will find a very slight difference in gravity.

It's already been pointed out to you in another thread that this is what you would expect given Newtonian gravity. 1/r2 is for a point source: for an extended mass, you need to integrate over different r's. For spherically symetric bodies the integral conveniently works out to 1/r2 for r being the single distance to the center, but for other shapes (such as a cube), the integral does NOT work out so trivially. If you want to express the field in terms of only r to the center, you get all sorts of extra terms (quadrupole, octopole, etc). If you can show that the observed field is different from what a full Newtonian calculation should show for a cube, that would be one thing, but it's expected to be different from a sphere. This is freshman level physics, and you're showing ignorance of it.

Gravity is NOT Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r^2. That is integration to a point source isn't valid.

You've got it backwards: you integrate from a point source to find the field of an extended source, not the other way around.

[Reality Check]

Not to mathematical but to unphysical. You seem to have forgotten that math used to be used to better define physical concepts. Today math is proposed as the concept without any physical understanding. Much like Newtonian Gravity. "Some mysterious force effuding from all mass"
At what point was math used to "define physical concepts"?
Experiments are used to better define physical concepts.

[UncaYimmy]

Time is an attribute of an ergetic 3D Space, not a dimension in it's own right.

To reverse time you must reverse all universal energy flow.

I assume you mean "energetic" rather than "ergetic." I tried to look up the deifinition of "energetic 3D space" - the only references in all of Google were written by you. Please define.

Why would I want to reverse time? Do I also want to reverse matter?

[MacM]

At what point was math used to "define physical concepts"?
Experiments are used to better define physical concepts.

Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts..

[Ziggurat]

Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts..

Uh, no. This is simply wrong. Math, for example, is what led to the prediction that electromagnetic fluctuations could travel as waves, and that this might explain what light was.

[UncaYimmy]

Uh, no. This is simply wrong. Math, for example, is what led to the prediction that electromagnetic fluctuations could travel as waves, and that this might explain what light was.

I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong because his statement doesn't seem to make any sense:

"Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts."

Math defines the experiments: Aren't the experiments physical in nature?

Physical concepts: Is there such a thing? A concept is an idea. It's not physical. Or does he mean a concept about the physical world? If so, see the first half of that sentence.

For this layman it's just double-talk. However, it does explain why MacM never shows his math and refuses to solve the math for problems presented to him.

[MacM]

I assume you mean "energetic" rather than "ergetic." I tried to look up the deifinition of "energetic 3D space" - the only references in all of Google were written by you. Please define.

Why would I want to reverse time? Do I also want to reverse matter?[/QUOTE]

The view is that space is formed by free flowing (unbound) energy. Mass is compacted space by the ratio E = mc^2. That is you can convert mass into an equivelent spatial volume based on energy.

Passage of flowing energy through a mass produces a slight drag (attenuates the spatial field) such that the flow impeding another mass produces slightly less drag in that vector. Considering that the flow is substantially multidirectional that results in a net loss of drag between object which appears as an attraction.

To compute it properly you must consider not only a new "G" but an attenuation factor "~". Instead of "G" I use "U" for universal energy.

G = U * ~ = 6.67E=11 N . m^2 / Kg^2 For example considering maximum gravity near a Black Hole one might find that U = 2.2233E60 n . m / s and ~ = 3.0E-71 m . s / Kg^2

The following link is to some files showing testing done( 1st UniKEF file) , UniKEF Calculus done, etc. The calculus was done by Dr Edward Allard, physicist of infered fame.

It doesn't prove the concept but shows that locally it at least produces the 1/r^2 result expected.

http://mac.mccoinunikeftheory.yuku.com/fs/ls

Why would I want to reverse time? Do I also want to reverse matter?

Actually it would be neat if it were possible but it is not and all the BS about reversing time via about relativity or FTL particles having negative time and time-space cones, etc is out and out BS.

[MacM]

I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong because his statement doesn't seem to make any sense:

"Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts."

Math defines the experiments: Aren't the experiments physical in nature?

Physical concepts: Is there such a thing? A concept is an idea. It's not physical. Or does he mean a concept about the physical world? If so, see the first half of that sentence.

For this layman it's just double-talk. However, it does explain why MacM never shows his math and refuses to solve the math for problems presented to him.

I don't have a problem with the math so why waste time. Math merely defines relationships but doesn't provide any underlying physical concepts.

For example in my limited work, I deal more with physical concepts and haven't developed the math. I have had (45 years+ ago) higher mathematics but have never had to use it in my work and don't even pretend anymore. But that does not mean I don't understand what is being done. I do.

In my work there is a physical principle involved, not some mysterious force of every particle of mass attracting every other particle of mass in the universe.

If anybody elects to pursue this mathematically I predict you will be able to compute the actual dimensions of the universe (not merely the observed diameter). That is by looking at the rate of change in gravity from local to galatic then cosmic one will find the finite dimension.

[Ziggurat]

The view is that space is formed by free flowing (unbound) energy. Mass is compacted space by the ratio E = mc^2. That is you can convert mass into an equivelent spatial volume based on energy.

Not with that equation, you can't. It is not possible to arrange that equation, or even the quantities in that equation, in any way to produce something with units of volume.

The following link is to some files showing testing done( 1st UniKEF file) , UniKEF Calculus done, etc. The calculus was done by Dr Edward Allard, physicist of infered fame.

It doesn't prove the concept but shows that locally it at least produces the 1/r^2 result expected.

http://mac.mccoinunikeftheory.yuku.com/fs/ls

Your link doesn't work. It requires a login and password.

[Ziggurat]

I don't have a problem with the math so why waste time.

But you do have a problem with math. You demonstrated that above with a wrong claim regarding conversion of units.

For example in my limited work, I deal more with physical concepts and haven't developed the math.

In other words, you have vague ideas which you can't quantify, and therefore can't formulate into a falsifiable theory. Which means that whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

If anybody elects to pursue this mathematically I predict you will be able to compute the actual dimensions of the universe (not merely the observed diameter). That is by looking at the rate of change in gravity from local to galatic then cosmic one will find the finite dimension.

Why haven't you done this yourself? And if you can't do it, then how can you make conclusions about the results one would get?

[UncaYimmy]

I still don't understand what you mean by, "Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts."

Please define what you mean by "defines the experiments" and "physical concepts" and then compare/contrast the two.

[Reality Check]

Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts..
How does math "define the experiments"?
For example what mathematics did Galileo use to define his experiments before he did them? How did he pick what maths to use to "define the experiments"?

There is a general sense in which math "defines the experiments" - experiments do measurements and you need mathematics to do measurements.

You are right that mathematics produces no physical concepts. By definition mathematics is about abstract concepts, e.g. numbers, lines, sets, etc.
It is scientific theories using mathematics to match experimental results and observations that provide physical concepts such as atomic orbitals, wave/particle duality, the curvature of space/time, time dilation.

[MacM]

But you do have a problem with math. You demonstrated that above with a wrong claim regarding conversion of units.

In other words, you have vague ideas which you can't quantify, and therefore can't formulate into a falsifiable theory. Which means that whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

Why haven't you done this yourself? And if you can't do it, then how can you make conclusions about the results one would get?


No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

[MacM]

But you do have a problem with math. You demonstrated that above with a wrong claim regarding conversion of units.

In other words, you have vague ideas which you can't quantify, and therefore can't formulate into a falsifiable theory. Which means that whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

Why haven't you done this yourself? And if you can't do it, then how can you make conclusions about the results one would get?


I have no real interest in pursueing the math. I'd have to go back and completely relearn. I can see the trend and that is good enough for me. Now get off your high horse and do some math yourself.

What I do is better than science. You get to roll around and wallow in the work of others. I get to think for myself.

[MacM]

How does math "define the experiments"?
For example what mathematics did Galileo use to define his experiments before he did them? How did he pick what maths to use to "define the experiments"?

There is a general sense in which math "defines the experiments" - experiments do measurements and you need mathematics to do measurements.

You are right that mathematics produces no physical concepts. By definition mathematics is about abstract concepts, e.g. numbers, lines, sets, etc.
It is scientific theories using mathematics to match experimental results and observations that provide physical concepts such as atomic orbitals, wave/particle duality, the curvature of space/time, time dilation.

You can't measure something before you know what it is you want to detect. That requires physical concepts. When you take observed data and produce math to describe it you do not produce a physical concept along with it. You only produce a mathematical re;ationship.

[UncaYimmy]

What I do is better than science. You get to roll around and wallow in the work of others. I get to think for myself.
So why are you here? For someone who seems so very proud of thinking for himself and who looks down on mainstream scientists, you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince others of something (what, I'm still not sure). Why? Honestly, I just don't get it.

[Ziggurat]

I have no real interest in pursueing the math. I'd have to go back and completely relearn. I can see the trend and that is good enough for me. Now get off your high horse and do some math yourself.

I do plenty of math. But we're not talking about my ideas, we're talking about yours. I can't do the math for your theory for you.

What I do is better than science.

You aren't doing science, you're waving your hands around. Doing science would require making quantifiable, falsifiable predictions. But you won't do that, because you can't be troubled to do any math. It's a common refrain among cranks. You claim that you aren't like all the other cranks, but you refuse to do the one thing which might actually separate yourself from them.

I get to think for myself.

So do poets, philosophers, and playwrites. Doesn't make what they do science.

[Ziggurat]

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

A nucleon does not have a well defined volume, and since c is not dimensionless or unitless, this statement wouldn't make sense even if it did.

[RussDill]

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

ok...I'm really doubting the usability of further discussion.

First, c^2 is a constant area, not volume. Second, increasing the volume of something would involve a multiplication by a unit-less constant. For example, if you have an area of 1 m^2, doubling the area would be a multiplication by 2, not 2 m^2.

Second, why are you singling out nucleons?

Third, what is the volume of a nucleon and what would it mean for the volume of a nucleon to increase?

Fourth, you seem to have a strong bias against mathematics. I'm not sure why. I know it may seem daunting and abstract, but certainly no more abstract than any other form of language or thought. When things are expressed in English, there can be a great deal of ambiguity. Definitions of words are never definite, grammatical structures can be interpreted in a variety of ways, etc. Mathematics allows ideas to be expressed in unambiguous ways.

I strongly suggest a book like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality:_A_Complete_Guide_to_the_Laws_ of_the_Universe

As it first builds a solid foundation in the language of mathematics. If you'd like something lighter, I think something like Feynman, like "Six Easy Pieces", or QED. The core of the mathematics get explained, but it stays as basic as possible. The ways in which Penrose describes entropy is especially enlightening.

I remember I read a lot of Kaku and Greene when I was young, but it really glosses over the foundation of the theories discussed that it really gets you no closer to understanding the topics discussed, it mearly tickles the brain.

[RussDill]

You aren't doing science, you're waving your hands around. Doing science would require making quantifiable, falsifiable predictions. But you won't do that, because you can't be troubled to do any math. It's a common refrain among cranks. You claim that you aren't like all the other cranks, but you refuse to do the one thing which might actually separate yourself from them.

I think people get the impression from pop science books that the hand waving is not only enough, but it is all that is involved. I realize that writers like Kaku and Greene actually do do serious work and publications, but their popularized books just include the hand waving.

[RussDill]

I think the best line of inquiry here is a thought experiment. Suppose man colonizes Mars. We'll need a GPS system for Mars. We build some satellites on Earth, and accelerate them over to Mars and into Mars orbit. We build some on Mars and put them into Mars orbit.

According to MacM, they accelerated from different initial reference frames and should thus behave differently. Is this a correct line of thinking MacM?

[Note, I utilize the "MacM" usage of acceleration here]


No. Once the satellites occupy the same frame they will tick the same. They will however have a different time accumuation history before reachingh that point. Assume Mars has been colonized and the GPS is being constructed at the same time on Mars and Earth. They will clearly have accumulated different amounts of time when berought together but will now be ticking at the same rate.

So then the Mars frame of reference must be used for calculations?

[MacM]

Not with that equation, you can't. It is not possible to arrange that equation, or even the quantities in that equation, in any way to produce something with units of volume.


Your link doesn't work. It requires a login and password.

I guess it is no big deal anymore so here is my username and password to access "Images". That way you don't have to join.


Please do not tamper with files. Thanks.
\
http://mac.mccoinunikeftheory.yuku.com/fs/ls

Username: Mac
Passwird: dkmllm

I'm currently trying to upload a file for the General Description of UniKEF but must first convert fro .tif to jpg.

[MacM]

A nucleon does not have a well defined volume, and since c is not dimensionless or unitless, this statement wouldn't make sense even if it did.

Gee I thought I knew that considering I've had nuclear engineering. Damn it stop being picky to get a general view take the normally given dimensions of a nucleon and it's mass and convert into a spatial volume using the c^2 factor. For such a sharp scientist I'd think you could figure that out.

Oh, I forgot. While I was being trained to operate a nuclear reactor on the moon (Apollo Moon Base - Funds cut by congress in 1965) so as to think for myself, since there is no ACE Hardware just around the corner there, you have been taught to recite the works of others.


You are incapable of seeing anything but what has been ground into your brain as the ultimate fact - when the facts are it isn't.

[MacM]

ok...I'm really doubting the usability of further discussion.

First, c^2 is a constant area, not volume. Second, increasing the volume of something would involve a multiplication by a unit-less constant. For example, if you have an area of 1 m^2, doubling the area would be a multiplication by 2, not 2 m^2.

Second, why are you singling out nucleons?

Third, what is the volume of a nucleon and what would it mean for the volume of a nucleon to increase?

Fourth, you seem to have a strong bias against mathematics. I'm not sure why. I know it may seem daunting and abstract, but certainly no more abstract than any other form of language or thought. When things are expressed in English, there can be a great deal of ambiguity. Definitions of words are never definite, grammatical structures can be interpreted in a variety of ways, etc. Mathematics allows ideas to be expressed in unambiguous ways.

I strongly suggest a book like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality:_A_Complete_Guide_to_the_Laws_ of_the_Universe

As it first builds a solid foundation in the language of mathematics. If you'd like something lighter, I think something like Feynman, like "Six Easy Pieces", or QED. The core of the mathematics get explained, but it stays as basic as possible. The ways in which Penrose describes entropy is especially enlightening.

I remember I read a lot of Kaku and Greene when I was young, but it really glosses over the foundation of the theories discussed that it really gets you no closer to understanding the topics discussed, it mearly tickles the brain.

Perhaps I've tried to move to fast through this. Perhaps you might forget c^2 and just increase volume by 9E16 - :rolleyes:

[MacM]

So then the Mars frame of reference must be used for calculations?

Depends on what you want to measure. Once devices are brought together they will tick at the same rate but their dilation history is full of accelerations and decelerations, hence they will have accumulated different amounts of time.

[Ziggurat]

I guess it is no big deal anymore so here is my username and password to access "Images". That way you don't have to join.


Those don't seem to work anymore. But I wouldn't suggest this as a real solution anyways, because people other than us could stumble upon it, and while I wouldn't dream of doing anything to your account, random trolls might. You can upload images directly to this message board if they aren't too large.

[Ziggurat]

Gee I thought I knew that considering I've had nuclear engineering. Damn it stop being picky to get a general view take the normally given dimensions of a nucleon and it's mass and convert into a spatial volume using the c^2 factor. For such a sharp scientist I'd think you could figure that out.

But that still doesn't convert to a spatial volume. The units aren't right. And you can't just drop some of the units to get it into a volume either, because what unit system you use (SI, cgs, Imperial, whatever) will then make a difference.

You are incapable of seeing anything but what has been ground into your brain as the ultimate fact - when the facts are it isn't.

I'm perfectly capable of using my brain, MacM, which is why I recognize that what you're doing doesn't make sense. Try it. Do the calculations, track the units carefully, and you'll find that you don't end up with a volume.

[MacM]

So why are you here? For someone who seems so very proud of thinking for himself and who looks down on mainstream scientists, you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince others of something (what, I'm still not sure). Why? Honestly, I just don't get it.

Actually there are a number of reasons.

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.

[MacM]

Those don't seem to work anymore. But I wouldn't suggest this as a real solution anyways, because people other than us could stumble upon it, and while I wouldn't dream of doing anything to your account, random trolls might. You can upload images directly to this message board if they aren't too large.


What do you call large? I suspect they re much to large.

[MacM]

But that still doesn't convert to a spatial volume. The units aren't right. And you can't just drop some of the units to get it into a volume either, because what unit system you use (SI, cgs, Imperial, whatever) will then make a difference.



I'm perfectly capable of using my brain, MacM, which is why I recognize that what you're doing doesn't make sense. Try it. Do the calculations, track the units carefully, and you'll find that you don't end up with a volume.

Well I always give credit where credit is do. Your response here was far milder than I anticipated-:D

The problem is not that I don't do physics units I do. But that you can't seem to think if everything isn't laid out in some formal mathematical precise way where all units are resolved.

Hell I'm making general points of interest not some formal outlay. The fact is somewhere I made the conversion myself. I'll see if I can locate it.

[UncaYimmy]

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.
That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.
That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.
That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.
That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.
That doesn't explain why you are posting here.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.
Which leads me back to my question: Why are you posting here?

I'm not saying you cannot. I am not saying you should not. I am saying that I simply do not understand what you hope to accomplish, especially considering that you seem to look down on everyone.

I know this is getting off-topic, but perhaps if I understand where you are heading I can figure out what you're trying to say. Right now it's like I've been given a handful of puzzle pieces but not the box with the picture showing me what I'm supposed to be making. What am I supposed to walk away with after this these threads are done?

[Reality Check]

Actually there are a number of reasons.

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

2 - I have many physicist friends that I converse with which are of simular mind as I with regard to the falicy of relativity as a physical concept.

3 - One somewhat famous physicist actually wrote Chapter (7) "Calculus" in my original Manuscript.

4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.

Hint. All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc is just that I have done considerable math in the past and have made several predictions which over the decades have become accepted as fact.

So I really don't need pompus, enflated egos telling me what I don't know or understand. What they don't understand is that their purported higher education is nothing more than an indoctrination and they have become tape recorders repeating what they have been told to recite. They have not been thaught to think.

Frankly I prefer my own education to theirs for theirs leads to a paycheck but no real discoveries.
The problem with this post is that it does not mean anything unless you actually give citations and name names, e.g.

Who was the "High Energy Physicist" and what did he actually acknowledge?
Who was the "somewhat famous physicist" and what was the "Calculus" chapter standard calculus as found in any math textbook?
Where did the Institute of Applied Geodesy publish their paper about the "pertabation"?
Why did they have to give you permission to cite them? That is strange since anyone is free to cite any published paper.
You do realize that unpublished predictions are almost as bad as no predictions at all? If you do not tell anyone about your predictions before they are confirmed then there is always the suspicion that you revised your work to include the prediction.

As for "All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc":
We do not have access to your magnum opus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_opus) that you have been working on for so long (decades?). Thus we have to judge your mathematical ability from your posts here, e.g.
No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.
has a couple of problems:

It is obviously wrong using simple dimensional analysis since c^2 has dimensions of length squared divided by time squared. A volume has dimensions of length cubed. So the statement "increase the volume by c^2" in nonsense.
You need to define what the "volume" of a nucleon is. Are you asuming that they are spheres and working from some sort of raduis? Is that radius the charge radius (but what about the uncharged neutron)?
However since you seem to have your own private langauge of mathematics and physics maybe c is not the speed of light, nucleon may not be nucleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon), etc. In that case you need to be clearer about what the post really means.

[RussDill]

ok...I'm really doubting the usability of further discussion.

First, c^2 is a constant area, not volume. Second, increasing the volume of something would involve a multiplication by a unit-less constant. For example, if you have an area of 1 m^2, doubling the area would be a multiplication by 2, not 2 m^2.

Sorry, I made an error here, If taken literally, c^2 is the rate of change of a measure of a change in area (m^2/s^2) making your volume comment make even less sense...

[RussDill]

Perhaps I've tried to move to fast through this. Perhaps you might forget c^2 and just increase volume by 9E16 - :rolleyes:

9*10^16 is what you get if you measure the speed of light in m/s. Why are meters and seconds special? If I measure it in light years per year, then I would get a factor of one. Are you seeing what is going on here? The 9*10^6 is a completely meaningless number. If I choose MPH instead of m/s, then the number I get is 4.5*10^17th. Why would the m/s be correct, and the mph number be wrong?

[RussDill]

Depends on what you want to measure. Once devices are brought together they will tick at the same rate but their dilation history is full of accelerations and decelerations, hence they will have accumulated different amounts of time.

I want to measure:

a) What signals I receive from the satellites from earth and when they are received
b) What signals I receive from the satellites from mars and when they are received

(Assume the signal sent is the value of the clock on board the satellite)

[MacM]

That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


That doesn't explain why you are posting here.


Which leads me back to my question: Why are you posting here?

I'm not saying you cannot. I am not saying you should not. I am saying that I simply do not understand what you hope to accomplish, especially considering that you seem to look down on everyone.

I know this is getting off-topic, but perhaps if I understand where you are heading I can figure out what you're trying to say. Right now it's like I've been given a handful of puzzle pieces but not the box with the picture showing me what I'm supposed to be making. What am I supposed to walk away with after this these threads are done?

Let me simplify. I have been on numerous sites over the years. Invariably I have found scientists that would send me a PM saying what they are afraid to say in public. Relativity sucks and keep up the pressure.

I have to admit there hasn't been one from here that have done so yet.

I hope you walk away with some understanding that relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness. When compelled to respond to an alternative view by showing it's falicy vs just reciting SR or GR others have ultimately acknowledged that Lorentz Contraction may just be an arbitrary artifact of misapplied basic physics in a closed mathematical construct.

i.e. - Claiming a clock is ticking slower than another when comparing frames but then claiming it's proper time is correct therefor distance must have changed.

Remember velocity is a calculated composite relationship of two physical principles. Time & Distance. If Clock "A" is dilated relative to Clock "B" then it is ticking slower and when you compute velocity in each frame you would get a different relative velocity computation. Where "s" is distance. v1 = ds / dt1 and v2 = ds / dt2.

With respective tick rates of clocks in keeping with emperical data means ds did NOT change because trip time is fully accounted for by the dilated tick rate of the traveling clock.

The relative velocity IS the same universally but locally the assumption that relative velocity is the same therefor distance must have changed is bogus because it ignores the dilated condition of one clock being used to time the trip.

It is (in SR terms) a bit "Counter Intuitive" to not think of relative velocity as being symmetrical. That is if I pass you standing along the road side while I was going 60 Mph that we both would not compute 60 Mph relative velocity. But the fact is we won't and that is where relativity falls apart.

[MacM]

The problem with this post is that it does not mean anything unless you actually give citations and name names, e.g.

Who was the "High Energy Physicist" and what did he actually acknowledge?
Who was the "somewhat famous physicist" and what was the "Calculus" chapter standard calculus as found in any math textbook?
Where did the Institute of Applied Geodesy publish their paper about the "pertabation"?
Why did they have to give you permission to cite them? That is strange since anyone is free to cite any published paper.
You do realize that unpublished predictions are almost as bad as no predictions at all? If you do not tell anyone about your predictions before they are confirmed then there is always the suspicion that you revised your work to include the prediction.

As for "All this phooey about "Units", "Math", etc":
We do not have access to your magnum opus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnum_opus) that you have been working on for so long (decades?). Thus we have to judge your mathematical ability from your posts here, e.g.

has a couple of problems:

It is obviously wrong using simple dimensional analysis since c^2 has dimensions of length squared divided by time squared. A volume has dimensions of length cubed. So the statement "increase the volume by c^2" in nonsense.
You need to define what the "volume" of a nucleon is. Are you asuming that they are spheres and working from some sort of raduis? Is that radius the charge radius (but what about the uncharged neutron)?
However since you seem to have your own private langauge of mathematics and physics maybe c is not the speed of light, nucleon may not be nucleon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleon), etc. In that case you need to be clearer about what the post really means.

Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)
Dr Lincoln - Debates.

The Institute detected the pertabation over 50 years ago. I sought their permission to show according to my view how that pertabation occured and referred to their work . I didn't have to have their permission but they gave it.

Now as to units, etc. You are still trying to read to much into it. The mention of E = mc^2 was to express the compaction ratio of space into mass. That is space is free flowing energy and that energy compacted into mass has that ratio. m and s?. I tried to simplify for you the fact that 9E16 would be the volume ratio. This has nothing to do with units conversions.

[MacM]

9*10^16 is what you get if you measure the speed of light in m/s. Why are meters and seconds special? If I measure it in light years per year, then I would get a factor of one. Are you seeing what is going on here? The 9*10^6 is a completely meaningless number. If I choose MPH instead of m/s, then the number I get is 4.5*10^17th. Why would the m/s be correct, and the mph number be wrong?

9E16 is NOT a meaningless number it is a ratio of compaction between space and mass; which accounts forthe conversion of E -nto mass. Space is E!.

[MacM]

I want to measure:

a) What signals I receive from the satellites from earth and when they are received
b) What signals I receive from the satellites from mars and when they are received

(Assume the signal sent is the value of the clock on board the satellite)

You are making no sense. I first understood that you were manufacturing satellites on Earth and Mars but they were being deployed around Mars. Now you seem to be talking about signals from Earth satellites and Martian satellites mixed.???

[RussDill]

You are making no sense. I first understood that you were manufacturing satellites on Earth and Mars but they were being deployed around Mars. Now you seem to be talking about signals from Earth satellites and Martian satellites mixed.???

This is why Math is so great, english is too ambiguois. The from indicates the reception of signals in this example, not the transmission. The satellites are orbiting mars. The signals are monitored from earth and mars.

[RussDill]

Let me simplify. I have been on numerous sites over the years. Invariably I have found scientists that would send me a PM saying what they are afraid to say in public. Relativity sucks and keep up the pressure.

I agree, you've completely boiled down and simplified your argument here:

* Argument from authority ("scientists")
* Argument of some conspiracy ("afraid to say in public")

I hope you walk away with some understanding that relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness. When compelled to respond to an alternative view by showing it's falicy vs just reciting SR or GR others have ultimately acknowledged that Lorentz Contraction may just be an arbitrary artifact of misapplied basic physics in a closed mathematical construct.

Here is where your argument is muddled, you oscillate between a hard disagreement, and a soft disagreement. In your soft disagreement, you make statements like "relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness" implying that GR and SR make predictions backed by experiment. In your hard disagreement below, you seem to be claiming that SR makes predictions that disagree with experiment.

i.e. - Claiming a clock is ticking slower than another when comparing frames but then claiming it's proper time is correct therefor distance must have changed.

You've used way too many pronouns here. I have no clue what you are attempting to say. You seem to be saying that:

a) There must be some absolute clock that ticks throughout space and has some kind of importance.
b) You can formulate a theory based on this if you eliminate length contraction.

Recall that both length contraction and time dilation were both part of physics years before SR. They did not grow out of SR.

Remember velocity is a calculated composite relationship of two physical principles. Time & Distance.

According to who? Why are distance and time special units of measure and velocity a composite unit of measure? You can just as easily claim that time and velocity are special units of measure and define distance as a composite of velocity and time.

If Clock "A" is dilated relative to Clock "B" then it is ticking slower and when you compute velocity in each frame you would get a different relative velocity computation.

You described a situation that has never been observed to exist (in inertial reference frames). You will never observe a clock in another inertial reference frame ticking faster than your own. Your example claims that when using "B"'s frame of reference, clock "A" will tick faster than your own. Please to provide experimental data to show this.

Where "s" is distance. v1 = ds / dt1 and v2 = ds / dt2.

A measurement of velocity depends on a chosen inertial reference frame. So lets say that "A" is a clock launched from the mars base. "B" is a clock launched from the earth. Both are sent towards eachother at high rates of speed. Are you claiming that both will measure different relative velocities?

With respective tick rates of clocks in keeping with emperical data means ds did NOT change because trip time is fully accounted for by the dilated tick rate of the traveling clock.

Use the two clocks, one from mars and one from earth and show me the math (The clocks are on a collision course)

The relative velocity IS the same universally but locally the assumption that relative velocity is the same therefor distance must have changed is bogus because it ignores the dilated condition of one clock being used to time the trip.

Does universally mean from any inertial reference frame? Or a particular reference frame. If so, which one?

It is (in SR terms) a bit "Counter Intuitive" to not think of relative velocity as being symmetrical. That is if I pass you standing along the road side while I was going 60 Mph that we both would not compute 60 Mph relative velocity. But the fact is we won't and that is where relativity falls apart.

Yes we would. Why wouldn't we?

[RussDill]

9E16 is NOT a meaningless number it is a ratio of compaction between space and mass; which accounts forthe conversion of E -nto mass. Space is E!.

Why is 9*10^16 correct and 4.5*10^17 wrong?

[Reality Check]

Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)
Dr Lincoln - Debates.

You still have not got the trick of citation or answering questions so lets try again.
"Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)" of what?

Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?
"Dr Lincoln - Debates" - Is Debates a book or a journal?

Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?


The Institute detected the pertabation over 50 years ago. I sought their permission to show according to my view how that pertabation occured and referred to their work . I didn't have to have their permission but they gave it.

Citation to their paper?
Alternately you must have a copy of the paper - Could you make it available?

You also need to show your calculation for the perturbation so that it can be matched against this 50 year old observation and checked for validity.
Have you checked it against other data?
And just what the cause of this "pertabation" of gravity? Why the lunar eclipse important?
As far as I know, gravity perturbations happen all the time because the Earth and Moon are not perfect spheres.


Now as to units, etc. You are still trying to read to much into it. The mention of E = mc^2 was to express the compaction ratio of space into mass. That is space is free flowing energy and that energy compacted into mass has that ratio. m and s?. I tried to simplify for you the fact that 9E16 would be the volume ratio. This has nothing to do with units conversions.
You seem to be under the impression that this is something to do with "units conversions". That is wrong. It is to do with a basic bit of mathematical physics that high school students should know about. You may have forgotten it in your long career so here is an explanation of dimensional analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis).

Here is what you actually stated:
No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.
Now you just throw "9E16" into the mix (when c^2 is actually 8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2).
Which leads to these questions:

How is the compaction ratio of space into mass calculated?
What is the numeric value of the compaction ratio of space into mass?
What has it got to do with E=mc^2 which is nothing to do with either volume or space?
What are the units of 9E16?
Or is it a dimensionless value - in that case why do you think quoting a number with units (c^2) makes thing "simpler"?
Why did you originally not quote the number and state how you calculated it?

[MacM]

This is why Math is so great, english is too ambiguois. The from indicates the reception of signals in this example, not the transmission. The satellites are orbiting mars. The signals are monitored from earth and mars.Then the next question would be "Why the question"?

What possible relevence does it have?

[MacM]

I agree, you've completely boiled down and simplified your argument here:

* Argument from authority ("scientists")
* Argument of some conspiracy ("afraid to say in public")

I don't adhere to any conspiracy theory at all. It is AD HOC reality. Those that oppose relativity don't get or keep good jobs, regardless of their education and/or experience before opposing relativity.

Facts are not a conspiracy. Many many good scientists reputations have been slandered just for speaking out. It has to do with the selfrightous attitude of relativists, not some conspiracy.

Here is where your argument is muddled, you oscillate between a hard disagreement, and a soft disagreement. In your soft disagreement, you make statements like "relativity does not hold the exclusive right to physical correctness" implying that GR and SR make predictions backed by experiment. In your hard disagreement below, you seem to be claiming that SR makes predictions that disagree with experiment.

Both are true. SR predicts contraction of distance as a function of relative velocity (for one frame) but in another frame clocks are dilated. A common physical cause does not generate two different physical consequences based on mere perspective of frames. Lorentz contraction has never been demonstrated physically.

You've used way too many pronouns here. I have no clue what you are attempting to say. You seem to be saying that:

a) There must be some absolute clock that ticks throughout space and has some kind of importance.

b) You can formulate a theory based on this if you eliminate length contraction.

Recall that both length contraction and time dilation were both part of physics years before SR. They did not grow out of SR.

And the Earth as the center of all motion preceeded that. It wasn't correct either.

According to who? Why are distance and time special units of measure and velocity a composite unit of measure? You can just as easily claim that time and velocity are special units of measure and define distance as a composite of velocity and time.

This is actually a matter of choice and logic. The point being you must pick one and not flip-flop from one to the other changing frames. One could argue that distance contracts but clocks continue to tick at a common rate but logically that carries with it certain unpleasant consequences - i.e.

1 - Under relavistic conditions you get closer to something the faster you receed from it.

2 - The whole of the universe collapses to virtual nothing for a particle accelerated to near light's v = c in a matter of milli-seconds.

3 - The accelerating expansion of the universe must in fact be due to decelleration since at relavistic velocities near the edge of the universe such objects would be subject to spatial contraction not expansion.

Oscam's Razor would suggest it is clock tick rate based on some absolute universal energy level and not spatial contraction that produces the measured results - BUT not both as a matter of observer perspective.

You described a situation that has never been observed to exist (in inertial reference frames). You will never observe a clock in another inertial reference frame ticking faster than your own. Your example claims that when using "B"'s frame of reference, clock "A" will tick faster than your own. Please to provide experimental data to show this.

You are getting lost once again. This is NOT about what you might "Observe" or "Percieve" during relative motion but about permanent physical change as demonstrated by dilated clocks and accumulated time differences when compared in a common rest frame "After" having had relative velocity.

A measurement of velocity depends on a chosen inertial reference frame. So lets say that "A" is a clock launched from the mars base. "B" is a clock launched from the earth. Both are sent towards eachother at high rates of speed. Are you claiming that both will measure different relative velocities?

Correct. The key here is the term "Measure" which is based on ds / dt and where they have different acceleration histories hence different (unknown) absolute velocities, therefor different dilated tick rates or "t" standards.

Use the two clocks, one from mars and one from earth and show me the math (The clocks are on a collision course)

Assume some universal absolute rest reference from which these vehicles have achieved the following respective velocities.


M = 0.1c and E = 0.3c.

GammaM = 1.005037815

GammaE = 1.048284837

Respective ticks rates universally would be:

tM = 0.994987437

tE = 0.953939201

Now assuming Velocity Addition (which I don't BTW) they would see according to SR a common relative velocity of 0.338349515c, not 0.4c.

However that ignores the fact that one will ultimately be found to be ticking slower than the other according to accumulated times. Both are slightly dilated unversally.

tM / tE = 1.043030243

Hence (excluding velocity addition) M computes 0.1c * 1.005037815 = 0.100503c for himself relative to mars and computes E leaving earth at 0.3015c for a closing of 0.402c (with velocity addition) = 0.39017c!

While E computes 0.3c * 1.04828 = 0.31448c for himself and sees M as leaving mars at 0.104828c. For a closing rate of 0.419308c (with VA) = 0.44799c!

Does universally mean from any inertial reference frame? Or a particular reference frame. If so, which one?

Universally is the unknown, not measured absolute rest frame.

Yes we would. Why wouldn't we?

Because if you merely accept physical properties as being truely physical and not some flip-flop mathematical assumptions then clocks with motion have different tick rates and will compute different relative velocities.

I fully acknowledge that this view becomes a bit more difficult to work with mathematically but that does not make it any less logical from a pure physicas vantage point.

You are starting to ask appropriate questions. It would also be appropriate if you were to note that my calculations are correct or not. See I do the math also inspite of assertions to the contrary here..

[MacM]

Why is 9*10^16 correct and 4.5*10^17 wrong?

Logical assumption. E = mc^2 as the basis for the concept of energy vs mass form and the view that space is comprised of unbound free flowing energy (energetic 3D space).

[Ziggurat]

The problem is not that I don't do physics units I do.

Maybe you can, but you haven't.

But that you can't seem to think if everything isn't laid out in some formal mathematical precise way where all units are resolved.

That could be true, but it's irrelevant. Whether or not I can think without units, the fact remains that if you include the units and the units don't work out, you did something wrong. I'm telling you that the units don't work out. The easiest way to prove me wrong is to simply show what happens to the units. But you haven't done so. Why not, MacM?

Hell I'm making general points of interest not some formal outlay.

It doesn't take a lot to keep track of units, MacM. You've spent more time trying to defend the fact that you haven't included units than it would have taken to just demonstrate what happens with the units.

The fact is somewhere I made the conversion myself. I'll see if I can locate it.

Please do. Or alternatively, just do it again. What you're suggesting isn't exactly very complicated math.

9E16 is NOT a meaningless number it is a ratio of compaction between space and mass; which accounts forthe conversion of E -nto mass. Space is E!.

But it is only that ratio in a particular system of units. Pick another system of units and you get a different number, but it's still the same ratio. Which is why whenever c is listed, they always include the units. The number alone is indeed meaningless. 9x1016 acres/fortnight2 has exactly the same dimensions as c2, but different dimensions. Substituting one for the other will change any answer you get. So let's see the units, MacM.

[MacM]

You still have not got the trick of citation or answering questions so lets try again.
"Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)" of what?

Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?

Dr Edward Allard is the physicist of infered fame and author of Chapter (7) - Calculus in my manuscript. It was 300+ pages and not something that can be clearly posted here.

"Dr Lincoln - Debates" - Is Debates a book or a journal?

Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?


Dr Lincoln was the high energy particle physicist for which (3) formal moderated debates were presented on another web site. He acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically but for which he still favored SR. i.e. - the fact that spatial contraction need not exist in reality.

However, after having done so I would not let them continue to spread rhetoric in other threads and ultimately was banned from the site because they grewctired of qualifying their posts.

Citation to their paper?
Alternately you must have a copy of the paper - Could you make it available?

What paper?

You also need to show your calculation for the perturbation so that it can be matched against this 50 year old observation and checked for validity.
Have you checked it against other data?
And just what the cause of this "pertabation" of gravity? Why the lunar eclipse important?
As far as I know, gravity perturbations happen all the time because the Earth and Moon are not perfect spheres.

Not so fast. Actually I don't need to show the calculation. In my historical data file you can find a letter from the US Army stating they had found my prediction verified in a German research document and would forward it as soon as it had been translated into english. When I received the document I learned my predicton had been confirmed.

You seem to be under the impression that this is something to do with "units conversions". That is wrong. It is to do with a basic bit of mathematical physics that high school students should know about. You may have forgotten it in your long career so here is an explanation of dimensional analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis).

Here is what you actually stated:

Now you just throw "9E16" into the mix (when c^2 is actually 8.98755179 × 1016 m2 / s2).

What a lot of crap. 9E16 vs 8.9755179 with or without units. Shsssh! You really are strapped to the old test book. What happens if they forget to number the pages?

Which leads to these questions:

How is the compaction ratio of space into mass calculated?
What is the numeric value of the compaction ratio of space into mass?
What has it got to do with E=mc^2 which is nothing to do with either volume or space?
What are the units of 9E16?
Or is it a dimensionless value - in that case why do you think quoting a number with units (c^2) makes thing "simpler"?
Why did you originally not quote the number and state how you calculated it?


The compaction factor is just that a general concept not some finite calculation. Get over it. Think.

[MacM]

Maybe you can, but you haven't.



That could be true, but it's irrelevant. Whether or not I can think without units, the fact remains that if you include the units and the units don't work out, you did something wrong. I'm telling you that the units don't work out. The easiest way to prove me wrong is to simply show what happens to the units. But you haven't done so. Why not, MacM?



It doesn't take a lot to keep track of units, MacM. You've spent more time trying to defend the fact that you haven't included units than it would have taken to just demonstrate what happens with the units.



Please do. Or alternatively, just do it again. What you're suggesting isn't exactly very complicated math.



But it is only that ratio in a particular system of units. Pick another system of units and you get a different number, but it's still the same ratio. Which is why whenever c is listed, they always include the units. The number alone is indeed meaningless. 9x1016 acres/fortnight2 has exactly the same dimensions as c2, but different dimensions. Substituting one for the other will change any answer you get. So let's see the units, MacM.

Well bitch all you want but I don't waste my time with minor details. 9E16 vs 8.9E16 Who the hell cares. This is a general discussion.

[Ziggurat]

Well bitch all you want but I don't waste my time with minor details. 9E16 vs 8.9E16 Who the hell cares. This is a general discussion.

I'm not the one who made the distinction between 9E16 and 8.9E16. That's only a matter of precision, not one of units. My objection is much more fundamental. I'm saying that the units don't work at all. Now, either you can just ignore me, or you can prove me wrong. But ignoring me doesn't make my objection a "minor detail". If I'm right, then whatever you did is not simply a little bit inaccurate, it's nonsensical, because units MUST work out right in any correct calculation. And if I'm wrong, it should only take a moment to demonstrate how you do this conversion with units. So what's it going to be, MacM? Are you going to prove me wrong, or are you going to ignore a criticism which, if correct, would mean that nothing you did made sense?

[Belz...]

I pick B.

[Reality Check]

Dr Edward Allard is the physicist of infered fame and author of Chapter (7) - Calculus in my manuscript. It was 300+ pages and not something that can be clearly posted here.

What is "infered fame"?
Is the Calculus chapter a description of standard textbook calculus?


Dr Lincoln was the high energy particle physicist for which (3) formal moderated debates were presented on another web site. He acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically but for which he still favored SR. i.e. - the fact that spatial contraction need not exist in reality.

However, after having done so I would not let them continue to spread rhetoric in other threads and ultimately was banned from the site because they grewctired of qualifying their posts.

What is the URL of the web site so that we can look at the "(3) formal moderated debates"?

ETA: Is it On the Theory of Relativity - Lorentz Contraction (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=1038)?


What paper?

The paper where the institute published their results.


Not so fast. Actually I don't need to show the calculation. In my historical data file you can find a letter from the US Army stating they had found my prediction verified in a German research document and would forward it as soon as it had been translated into english. When I received the document I learned my predicton had been confirmed.

Did the US Army do the calculation then?
You do need to show the calculation so that we can be sure that your theory actually produced the result rather then you just comining up with the number out of thin air. It would also be good to verify that it was a prediction (you did the calculation then it was confirmed - not the other way around).

URL to the "historical data file"?


What a lot of crap. 9E16 vs 8.9755179 with or without units. Shsssh! You really are strapped to the old test book. What happens if they forget to number the pages?

You are really ignorant of textbooks so here is a simple example for the simple:
Let us try to calculate the volume of a cube scaled by a factor X.
The formula is V= X*v (V= increased volume, v=original volume)
Any one with 2 brain cells will see that V and v are in units of length cubed and thus the units of v and X multiplied together must be length cubed. Therefore X must have no units.
If someone tries to plug X = c^2 then everyone will know that they are wrong.



The compaction factor is just that a general concept not some finite calculation. Get over it. Think.
Then what use is it? It sounds like just an idea in your head with no possible use in science.

[Ziggurat]

What is "infered fame"?

Maybe that's like more than famous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGtHhAfe8w).

[Reality Check]

Dr Lincoln was the high energy particle physicist for which (3) formal moderated debates were presented on another web site. He acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically but for which he still favored SR. i.e. - the fact that spatial contraction need not exist in reality.

It looks like you are talking about the threads on the Science Philosophy Chat Forums site, e.g. On the Theory of Relativity - Lorentz Contraction (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=1038).

Now all you have to do is point out the posts where Dr Lincoln did "acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically".
So far all I can see is him trying to correct your confusion about Special Relativity.

Interesting comment (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=5267) from Dr Lincoln about MacM:
I am NOT overcomplicating the problem. Nor am applying an arbitrary number. I am pounding through your stubborn misconceptions by trying to force you to confront relativity, not the twisted variant against which you rail so energetically. Real relativity is both much, much more and much less than you think. And I'm NOT going to let you push me into solving the problem so you can dismiss the answer, rather than focusing on each step. I've done that before and we never got anywhere.
Sound familiar anyone?


However, after having done so I would not let them continue to spread rhetoric in other threads and ultimately was banned from the site because they grewctired of qualifying their posts.
Who is "them"?
How did they get the moderators of a forum that includes areas for non-statndard theories to ban you for stating a non-standard theory?
What does "qualifying their posts" mean?

This sounds more than a little paranoid on your part.

[RussDill]

Then the next question would be "Why the question"?

What possible relevence does it have?

One of your claims that confuses me is that you claim that I cannot treat the inertial frame of a muon headed at near light speed towards earth the same as the reference frame of the earth.

I'm trying to understand what makes the earth reference frame special. I'm trying how you decide on which frame of reference calculations must be done from. It can't always be the earth, right?

[RussDill]

Why is 9*10^16 correct and 4.5*10^17 wrong?
Logical assumption. E = mc^2 as the basis for the concept of energy vs mass form and the view that space is comprised of unbound free flowing energy (energetic 3D space).

Ok, so I have a volume. I multiply it by 9*10^16, right? Thats the speed of light in meters per second squared with the units chopped off.

I'd rather use meters per nanosecond. Thats ok, right? What is the difference, both values are c. c^2 then is 0.09 m^2/ns^2. Ok, so now I multiply a volume by the unitless 0.09. It gives me a smaller volume than I started with rather than a larger one. Which one is right?

[MacM]

It looks like you are talking about the threads on the Science Philosophy Chat Forums site, e.g. On the Theory of Relativity - Lorentz Contraction (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=1038).

Now all you have to do is point out the posts where Dr Lincoln did "acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically".
So far all I can see is him trying to correct your confusion about Special Relativity.

Interesting comment (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?t=5267) from Dr Lincoln about MacM:

Sound familiar anyone?


Who is "them"?
How did they get the moderators of a forum that includes areas for non-statndard theories to ban you for stating a non-standard theory?
What does "qualifying their posts" mean?

This sounds more than a little paranoid on your part.

I will answer more completely once I get a response back from the site. I have requested a listing of where the original debates threads have been placed. It was in those threads that certain concessions were made. After that I was banned because I refused to contain my comments to Alternative Theories" and kept upsetting the apple cart when over reaching rhetoric was being made about relativity.

So your postings is showing some of the down fall process and not the formal debates which were more constrained and controlled.

[MacM]

Maybe that's like more than famous (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIGtHhAfe8w).


Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "


Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

[MacM]

Ok, so I have a volume. I multiply it by 9*10^16, right? Thats the speed of light in meters per second squared with the units chopped off.

I'd rather use meters per nanosecond. Thats ok, right? What is the difference, both values are c. c^2 then is 0.09 m^2/ns^2. Ok, so now I multiply a volume by the unitless 0.09. It gives me a smaller volume than I started with rather than a larger one. Which one is right?

Are trying to be deliberately funny? Your not. You don't call something a "Factor" and then apply units to it. You certainly don't reduce units to some minor value then post this sort of trash.

[MacM]

One of your claims that confuses me is that you claim that I cannot treat the inertial frame of a muon headed at near light speed towards earth the same as the reference frame of the earth.

I'm trying to understand what makes the earth reference frame special. I'm trying how you decide on which frame of reference calculations must be done from. It can't always be the earth, right?

Herein lies your problem. You want to claim both frames are equal. They are not since one has accelerated more than the other and hence the muon is more dilated (remember we aren't looking at the illusions of motion during relative motion but the fact of accumulated time difference once the muon and earth are in a commom frame).

It is the muon that was dilated, not the earth and that is because the muon was ticking slower due to it's energy level subsequent to acceleration. Don't waste time telling me the muon was born with velocity and hence never accelerated. It was formed by a charged particle which had been accelerated and that momentum is carried forward at transition.

[Terry]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "


Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

So "Infered" is infrared then?

[Ziggurat]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

"Infered" isn't a word. Spelling-wise, it's closest to "inferred (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inferred)", which makes no sense in this context. I actually suspected that you meant "infrared" (and yes, I know what it means), but I decided to make a joke because I think it's funny. Apparently your spelling is so bad you missed the joke because you didn't even realize you misspelled it. Which is funny too, actually.

[RussDill]

I don't adhere to any conspiracy theory at all. It is AD HOC reality. Those that oppose relativity don't get or keep good jobs, regardless of their education and/or experience before opposing relativity.

Facts are not a conspiracy. Many many good scientists reputations have been slandered just for speaking out. It has to do with the selfrightous attitude of relativists, not some conspiracy.

So you are saying that individuals who study theories that would supplant relativity get blacklisted, but its out in the open. Its just what people do. Well gee, then I can provide quite a few counter examples. How about everyone studying things like quantum loop gravity?

Second, if there is some experiment that can be performed that shows that results that are outside the predictions of SR and/or GR, that'd be a surefire way to fame.

Science is all about disagreement. But there is a catch, I like to call it, "Show me the money". There are two ways to do that. One is to show a problem with a current theory, either an internal consistency, or perform an experiment that produces results counter to a current theory.

Another is to create a new theory with testable predictions and perform experiments that either confirm or deny those predictions. A good place to look here is the history of atomic spectra.

If someone continually proclaims that some currently accepting theory is wrong and slings ad hominems against those in the scientific community ("self-righteous attitude"), but never can get to the "Show me the money" point, then what are they accomplishing? They certainly aren't making any scientific contributions.

You might consider string theory in this camp because they do not yet have testable predictions, but I don't think you'll find some claim by string theorists that the Standard Model is BS or that they are getting blacklisted and not given jobs, or that all the other scientists who won't listen to them are "self-righteous". They fully understand the state of their work. It isn't prime-time yet.

...implying that GR and SR make predictions backed by experiment. [...] you seem to be claiming that SR makes predictions that disagree with experiment.
Both are true.

So...All experimental data matches the predictions of SR *AND* there is experimental data that doesn't match the predictions of SR?!?!?!

SR predicts contraction of distance as a function of relative velocity (for one frame) but in another frame clocks are dilated.

It does nothing of the sort. It gives you transforms for transforming coordinates from one inertial reference frame to another. The transformation between reference frames both contracts distance along the direction of motion and dilates time.

A common physical cause does not generate two different physical consequences based on mere perspective of frames.

Oh really? Thats a really interesting argument. But can you site the source of your facts there? Also, you use the phrase "physical cause" and "physical consequence". What does this mean? I think you'll find that in minkowski space, there are no "physical consequence". Its just a different perspective. In fact, since GR and SR wrap up time and space together, I'd be expected that any effect in the time direction would cause an effect in a space direction.

Lorentz contraction has never been demonstrated physically.

It depends on what you mean. It certainly has been demonstrated with muons and particle accelerators, as objects would need to travel faster than c if the lorentz contraction were not occuring. It has also been demonstrated with electric fields and electrons traveling in parallel with strips of wire are shorter from the electron's frame of reference. We've never accelerated objects big enough to see and observed the length contraction by taking a picture or other similar measurements. That experiment is actually in queue for LHC with nanoscale electrically charged barbells.

If you could provide a theory that matches current experimental data without lorentz contraction then you'd be taken more seriously.

You've used way too many pronouns here. I have no clue what you are attempting to say. You seem to be saying that:

a) There must be some absolute clock that ticks throughout space and has some kind of importance.

b) You can formulate a theory based on this if you eliminate length contraction.

Recall that both length contraction and time dilation were both part of physics years before SR. They did not grow out of SR.
And the Earth as the center of all motion preceeded that. It wasn't correct either.

So is it (a) or (b)? Pick one or give me a (c). Your insinuation that theory must be wrong because other theories can be wrong is quite uninteresting since it would apply equally to whatever your theory is.

According to who? Why are distance and time special units of measure and velocity a composite unit of measure? You can just as easily claim that time and velocity are special units of measure and define distance as a composite of velocity and time.
This is actually a matter of choice and logic. The point being you must pick one and not flip-flop from one to the other changing frames.

I asked a question about units of measure. You responding with a choice about reference frames. Can you please explain how the two are related?

One could argue that distance contracts but clocks continue to tick at a common rate but logically that carries with it certain unpleasant consequences - i.e.

1 - Under relavistic conditions you get closer to something the faster you receed from it.


Please to explain. I am on a collision course with the sun, I keep getting closer. I am 10,000km away, clearly I'm headed towards the sun. Ok, later I'm 1000km away, how am I (a) receding and (b) receding faster than before (when I wasn't receding)

2 - The whole of the universe collapses to virtual nothing for a particle accelerated to near light's v = c in a matter of milli-seconds.

Ok, first, we can't accelerate particles to nearly that speed. The particle still measures a huge distance from here to another galaxy. Second, length contraction is only in the direction of motion. Third, both time contraction and length contraction are just acticles of the coordinate system we use. We use a Cartesian 3d coordinate system for space coordinates and a separate linear coordinate system for time. No physical structures actually change.

3 - The accelerating expansion of the universe must in fact be due to decelleration since at relavistic velocities near the edge of the universe such objects would be subject to spatial contraction not expansion.

goobly-gook. You statement makes no sense. There is no edge of the universe.

Oscam's Razor would suggest it is clock tick rate based on some absolute universal energy level and not spatial contraction that produces the measured results - BUT not both as a matter of observer perspective.

OK, I'm really getting tired of you having your own language that you refuse to explain to anyone else.

ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL ENERGY LEVEL

Please to define. Also define "energy level", "absolute energy level", and "universal energy level". If all 4 do not mean different things, then you are adding extra words to just obfuscate things.

Occam's razor does suggest that simpler theory for phenomenon are generally the correct one. However, the theory would still need to match prediction. You are claiming that SR is too complicated and therefore must be wrong but have not provided an alternate, simpler theory, just stated things that the simpler theory must not contain.

You are getting lost once again. This is NOT about what you might "Observe" or "Percieve"

Why not? The whole point of physics to make predictions about physical processes, what we "observe". The clocks send out signals and I measure them. A proper theory should predict what I measure. If it doesn't, it isn't a very useful theory, is it?

during relative motion but about permanent physical change as demonstrated by dilated clocks and accumulated time differences when compared in a common rest frame "After" having had relative velocity.

"permanent physical change", another term that would be useful to define. If a physical change isn't permanent, what cause the change to be undone? Can you describe this process and provide an example of a temporary physical change being undone?

Correct. The key here is the term "Measure" which is based on ds / dt and where they have different acceleration histories hence different (unknown) absolute velocities, therefor different dilated tick rates or "t" standards.

Their relative velocities aren't unknown. Assume both transmit a laser at a specific frequency. By measuring the blue shift of the laser from the other clock, the relative velocity can be determined.

Assume some universal absolute rest reference from which these vehicles have achieved the following respective velocities.

I can't assume some universal absolute rest frame. You'll have to give me one. Is it the sun? The earth? mars? Give me one.

M = 0.1c and E = 0.3c.

GammaM = 1.005037815

GammaE = 1.048284837

Respective ticks rates universally would be:

tM = 0.994987437

tE = 0.953939201

Now assuming Velocity Addition (which I don't BTW) they would see according to SR a common relative velocity of 0.338349515c, not 0.4c.

So the M clock will measure the E clock approaching it at 0.338c and the M clock will measure the E clock approaching at 0.338c? Can you please show where you obtained that number? Or if they are a light year apart, are you saying that from the universal rest frame, they will take 0.338 years to meet?

However that ignores the fact that one will ultimately be found to be ticking slower than the other according to accumulated times. Both are slightly dilated unversally.

Again, you say universally. Which reference frame?

tM / tE = 1.043030243

Hence (excluding velocity addition) M computes 0.1c * 1.005037815 = 0.100503c for himself relative to mars

ummm...ok. So two objects will calculate their velocity relative to each other based on a universal inertial frame of reference that you have arbitrarily chosen? If thats true, then we can measure our motion relative to that frame of reference. All such experiments have not found any such motion. Your math contradicts experimental data.

and computes E leaving earth at 0.3015c for a closing of 0.402c (with velocity addition) = 0.39017c!

While E computes 0.3c * 1.04828 = 0.31448c for himself and sees M as leaving mars at 0.104828c. For a closing rate of 0.419308c (with VA) = 0.44799c!

I don't think you understand velocity addition or under what circumstances it should be used. It only needs to be used when taking a velocity change in one inertial reference frame and measuring it from another, not for adding velocity vectors within a reference frame.

Also, your math would predict that an object leaving mars at 0.99c (gamma 7.09) would observe mars receding at 7.01c. How would the craft receive a radio message from mars?

Universally is the unknown, not measured absolute rest frame.

Care to get a little less metaphysical here? If calculations depend on performing measurements from a specific inertial frame of reference, then before any calculations can be performed, the frame of reference must be known.

Because if you merely accept physical properties as being truely physical

Physical properties are physical. SR and GR doesn't say that they are not. They just say that physics differ from our naive assumptions about space and time.

Are you saying that I will observe the car approaching me at a rate other than 60mph? Will it matter if the car is traveling east or west? north or south?

and not some flip-flop mathematical assumptions then clocks with motion have different tick rates and will compute different relative velocities.

There is no flip-floping in SR or GR. Cartesian coordinates just don't match reality. If you don't want to do transformations, use Minkowski space.

I fully acknowledge that this view becomes a bit more difficult to work with mathematically but that does not make it any less logical from a pure physicas vantage point.

So, its more complex than SR or GR. That would be an occam's razor fail. Also, you are claiming that SR and GR does not match experimental data. You need to show that first.

You are starting to ask appropriate questions. It would also be appropriate if you were to note that my calculations are correct or not. See I do the math also inspite of assertions to the contrary here..

You haven't shown all your work, so its difficult. You also are using a form of velocity addition I've never seen.

[Reality Check]

I will answer more completely once I get a response back from the site. I have requested a listing of where the original debates threads have been placed. It was in those threads that certain concessions were made. After that I was banned because I refused to contain my comments to Alternative Theories" and kept upsetting the apple cart when over reaching rhetoric was being made about relativity.

So your postings is showing some of the down fall process and not the formal debates which were more constrained and controlled.
Anither task for you - show where the site administraor states that you were banned because "because I refused to contain my comments to Alternative Theories" and kept upsetting the apple cart when over reaching rhetoric was being made about relativity".
The first reason is a standard forum rule (post in the appropriate fourum for your topic).
The second reason looks like the standard "attack the argument not the person" rule.

In other words it looks like you were banned because you broke the forum rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined the forum.
Naughty MacM :D

[RussDill]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "


Yes, I find your statement hilarious too.

Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

Just as with your previous argument by authority, you overstate your case. Edward Allard was not involved in any way in the invention of infrared imaging. Infrared scopes were used as early as WWII.

Secondly, you aren't bringing anything to the argument.

[RussDill]

Are trying to be deliberately funny? Your not. You don't call something a "Factor" and then apply units to it. You certainly don't reduce units to some minor value then post this sort of trash.

I'm deliberately trying to make you think. You say that I can't call something a "Factor" and then apply units to it. You are claiming that you can take a number with units and make it into a factor by dropping the units. Why can you go one way, but not the other?

[RussDill]

Herein lies your problem. You want to claim both frames are equal. They are not since one has accelerated more than the other and hence the muon is more dilated (remember we aren't looking at the illusions of motion during relative motion but the fact of accumulated time difference once the muon and earth are in a commom frame).

It is the muon that was dilated, not the earth and that is because the muon was ticking slower due to it's energy level subsequent to acceleration. Don't waste time telling me the muon was born with velocity and hence never accelerated. It was formed by a charged particle which had been accelerated and that momentum is carried forward at transition.

I'm trying to understand here. So to measure an object, we have to start with an inertial reference frame in which the object was not moving? And make all measurement wrt that inertial reference frame and no other?

[Reality Check]

Just as with your previous argument by authority, you overstate your case. Edward Allard was not involved in any way in the invention of infrared imaging. Infrared scopes were used as early as WWII.
To be fair to MacM, FLIR (forward looking infrared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLIR)) is not strictly the infrared imaging developed in WWII. FLIR was developed in the 1970's.

MacM's "Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory" phrase seems to come here: Waco FLIR tapes (http://www.hardylaw.net/flir.html). I would say that what it probably means is that Dr. Edward Allard is an inventor and designer in the field of FLIR.

Of course this is just a appeal to authority that happens to be fairly pathetic since Dr. Edward Allard just seems to provide a chapter on calculus. MacM may as well quote his high school math teacher.

[Cuddles]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "


Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

So "Infered" is infrared then?

:dl:

I swore I'd never use that dog, but there's really nothing else that expressing the utter hilariousness of the situation. If anyone ever needs a definition of irony, we can just refer them to MacM's post here.

[MacM]

Yes, I find your statement hilarious too.

Just as with your previous argument by authority, you overstate your case. Edward Allard was not involved in any way in the invention of infrared imaging. Infrared scopes were used as early as WWII.

Secondly, you aren't bringing anything to the argument.


I guess you either missed the FLIR aspect of my post or you don't know what it is. Otherwise your ost is BS.

[MacM]

To be fair to MacM, FLIR (forward looking infrared (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLIR)) is not strictly the infrared imaging developed in WWII. FLIR was developed in the 1970's.

MacM's "Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory" phrase seems to come here: Waco FLIR tapes (http://www.hardylaw.net/flir.html). I would say that what it probably means is that Dr. Edward Allard is an inventor and designer in the field of FLIR.

Of course this is just a appeal to authority that happens to be fairly pathetic since Dr. Edward Allard just seems to provide a chapter on calculus. MacM may as well quote his high school math teacher.

Not just calculus dip but calculus as applied to the UniKEF view of gravity.:mad:

[RussDill]

I guess you either missed the FLIR aspect of my post or you don't know what it is. Otherwise your ost is BS.

So you are saying that he was there in the 60s and 70s with the Army when FLIR systems were invented?

ETA: My bad, FLIR was invented by TI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments#Infrared_systems

In 1956 TI began research on infrared technology that lead to several line scanner contracts and with the addition of a second scan mirror the invention of the first forward looking infrared (FLIR) in 1963 with production beginning in 1966. In 1972 TI invented the Common Module FLIR concept, greatly reducing cost and allowing reuse of common components.

[Reality Check]

Not just calculus dip but calculus as applied to the UniKEF view of gravity.:mad:
Why are you :mad:?
All you have ever told us is the title of the chapter, i.e. "Calculus". The obvious assumption is that the chapter is about calculus.

Your use of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is still bad. Calculus is just calculus. It does not matter who applied it to a certain situation.

[UncaYimmy]

Your use of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is still bad. Calculus is just calculus. It does not matter who applied it to a certain situation.
It would matter to me. If one of you math guys around here did it, I would feel fairly confident that the calculations were done correctly. If MacM did it, I would be worried since he seems to struggle in that area.

Of course, correctly solving equations presented in an ill-conceived theory is about as useful as the following correctly executed sentence:

My showering blouse chastises the rolling doughnut with rosy cheeks.

[UncaYimmy]

I found MacM's old website on the WayBackMachine. If anyone is interested, some of Allard's calculus is discussed and shown (hard to read) there.

http://web.archive.org/web/20060218131640/unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/calculussect.htm

ETA: And his old MSN group (http://web.archive.org/web/20050527063824/groups.msn.com/McCoinUniKEFTheory/home.htm) where he explains where GR and SR go wrong with such gems as, "The actual recording of time dilation of ONE clock is direct proof of the failure of Einstein's Relativity, not proof of it. GPS proves that the proper relativistic view is to use three, not two referances. By using three referances it is established if one observer actually has a higher absolute velocity and it eliminates the "Reciprocity" problem or reversability claims of SRT."

[Reality Check]

MacM,
You seem to have forgotten about the citation to the published data of a "4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16."
All we know about it is:

...snip...
4 - For anyone actually looking they would find this work has been viewed by many. One prediction I made was that there would be measured a 4.2E-9 pertabation in gravity during a lunar eclipse. Guess what a 4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16.

A copy of a letter granting me the right to publish my work citing their findings is in my historical documents. I've never published because I have continued to make changes over the years and the work is not ready for publication.


And:
The Institute detected the pertabation over 50 years ago. I sought their permission to show according to my view how that pertabation occured and referred to their work . I didn't have to have their permission but they gave it.

And that for some reason you cannot find any more current papers on a perturbation in any of the many lunar eclipses that have happened in the last "over 50 years".
Why did the Institute not follow up on their result? Could it be because it was easy to explain (maybe even in the original paper)?

Maybe you should ask for the paper from their successor organization: Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (http://www.bkg.bund.de/EN/Home/homepage__node.html__nnn=true).

[MacM]

So you are saying that he was there in the 60s and 70s with the Army when FLIR systems were invented?

ETA: My bad, FLIR was invented by TI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments#Infrared_systems

Seems you choose to ignore the qualifying words here "In 1972 TI invented the Common Module FLIR.

Dr Allard invented FLIR.

[MacM]

"Infered" isn't a word. Spelling-wise, it's closest to "inferred (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inferred)", which makes no sense in this context. I actually suspected that you meant "infrared" (and yes, I know what it means), but I decided to make a joke because I think it's funny. Apparently your spelling is so bad you missed the joke because you didn't even realize you misspelled it. Which is funny too, actually.

Actually the most interesting aspect of your post is the expose' of your pathetic personality.

You find it more apporpriate to sit back poke fun at an old man perhaps just months left who's vision has started to blur, fingers have arthritis.

FYI: I have had substantial formal education in my time. I have done higher mathematics (but not lately). I used to type 65 wpm without any spelling errors.

At the moment and undercurrent conditions I really don't give a big crap about spelling, typo's, etc. All petty BS.

Your fixation on such things tells us a great deal about yourself. Have a nice day.

PS: Not looking for sympathy here just stick to issues and forget the cute ass stuff. It isn't actually cute.

[MacM]

MacM,
You seem to have forgotten about the citation to the published data of a "4.28E-9 pertabation was measured by the Institute of Applied Geodesy, Frankfort West germany, Report #16."
All we know about it is:


And:


And that for some reason you cannot find any more current papers on a perturbation in any of the many lunar eclipses that have happened in the last "over 50 years".
Why did the Institute not follow up on their result? Could it be because it was easy to explain (maybe even in the original paper)?

Maybe you should ask for the paper from their successor organization: Bundesamt für Kartographie und Geodäsie (http://www.bkg.bund.de/EN/Home/homepage__node.html__nnn=true).


Actually wise guy there have been numerous reports of mysterious recordings associtated with lunar eclipses. Particularily with respect to pendulums.

Why would I care about a more recent document when the 4.2E-9 prediction compared to a 4.28E-9 actual measurement already exists.

[Ziggurat]

You find it more apporpriate to sit back poke fun at an old man perhaps just months left who's vision has started to blur, fingers have arthritis.

The joke wasn't even primarily about you. It was mostly just an excuse to make a reference to one of my favorite lines from a movie I really like. Don't take it personally, and learn to laugh at yourself a little. Nobody actually cares about your spelling, but you'll get more respect with less defensiveness.

PS: Not looking for sympathy here just stick to issues and forget the cute ass stuff. It isn't actually cute.

Then stop complaining about my joke and get back to the actual topic. Do your conversion with units. Prove me wrong. The calculations should be easy.

[Reality Check]

Actually wise guy there have been numerous reports of mysterious recordings associtated with lunar eclipses. Particularily with respect to pendulums.

Why would I care about a more recent document when the 4.2E-9 prediction compared to a 4.28E-9 actual measurement already exists.

Then give us citations rather than unsupported assertions, wise guy.
And use your theory to match the "numerous reports of mysterious recordings associtated with lunar eclipses".

We still just have your word that one 50 year old observation exists that supports your prediction. How many observations since then say that there was a different value of the perturbation than you predicted?

We still do not have any details on what the observation actually was.

We still do know whether the observation was repeated. A single observation is merely interesting until it is confirmed.

We still do not have enough details to see if the authors had a simple explanation for the perturbation.

Was your prediction calculated in the 1950's or 1960's (before this one and only observation). Otherwise you may want to use the term retrodiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction) or postdiction.

Basically you are failing to convince anyone here that this observation even exists. Even if it exists, your failure to do the basic scientific research to look for confirmation of the observation in the last 50 years is confirmation of your low level of scientific competence.
Not that we need any given your dimensional analysis confusion :D.

To which I will add a statement of yours that does not seem to have been picked upon yet:
Logical assumption. E = mc^2 as the basis for the concept of energy vs mass form and the view that space is comprised of unbound free flowing energy (energetic 3D space).
A typical crank misunderstanding of physics where they think that energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) is an actual thing or object. Energy is actually a property of a system (like entropy, charge, spin, etc.).

And yet another point: "concept of energy vs mass form" is meaningless.
E = mc^2 is the expression of mass-energy equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence), i.e. that energy and mass are the same thing.

[RussDill]

Seems you choose to ignore the qualifying words here "In 1972 TI invented the Common Module FLIR.

Dr Allard invented FLIR.

Read it again:

In 1956 TI began research on infrared technology that lead to several line scanner contracts and with the addition of a second scan mirror the invention of the first forward looking infrared (FLIR) in 1963 with production beginning in 1966. In 1972 TI invented the Common Module FLIR concept, greatly reducing cost and allowing reuse of common components.

I don't have any info from TI listing the engineers that invented FLIR, so Edward Allard could certainly be on that list, but I don't have any evidence that shows that.

[theprestige]

I don't have any info from TI listing the engineers that invented FLIR, so Edward Allard could certainly be on that list, but I don't have any evidence that shows that.
Actually, MacM's claim is that Allard invented "Common Module" FLIR:

Seems you choose to ignore the qualifying words here "In 1972 TI invented the Common Module FLIR.

And apparently "Common Module" FLIR is a manufacturing technique, not a novel application of physics or a significant breakthrough in the underlying scientific principles.

In 1972 TI invented the Common Module FLIR concept, greatly reducing cost and allowing reuse of common components.
Which is actually pretty neat, I think.

Dr Allard invented FLIR.
Maybe so, but that's not what your evidence so far supports. Right now it's like you're claiming that Henry Ford invented the internal combustion engine, and pointing to his use of assembly lines as proof. Or claiming that Antec invented the integrated circuit, and pointing to their innovations in easy-to-maintain computer cases as proof.

[RussDill]

Actually, MacM's claim is that Allard invented "Common Module" FLIR:

Actually, he's claiming that TI only invented "Common Module" FLIR and that the invention of FLIR lies with Edward Allard. Edward Allard certainly has made advancements in the field of infrared optics and related fields as well, but I don't think he was involved in the invention of FLIR as MacM's statements seem to imply.

I also find it interesting that these types of challenges are the ones that MacM is the most likely to engage in. I'd much rather he address:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4805011#post4805011
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4804935#post4804935

[theprestige]

Actually, he's claiming that TI only invented "Common Module" FLIR and that the invention of FLIR lies with Edward Allard. Edward Allard certainly has made advancements in the field of infrared optics and related fields as well, but I don't think he was involved in the invention of FLIR as MacM's statements seem to imply.

I also find it interesting that these types of challenges are the ones that MacM is the most likely to engage in. I'd much rather he address:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4805011#post4805011
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4804935#post4804935
Ah, yes. Thanks for straightening me out!

[Holler Hoojer]

"Dr Lincoln - Debates" - Is Debates a book or a journal?


That's Don Lincoln from Fermilab, a very easy-going, gentlemanly sort. Here is the debate
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1038&hilit=macm

[Reality Check]

1 - I have in the past been party to (3) formal debates with a High Energy Physicist. He at least acknowledged that much of my views were actually viable although he personally prefered to stay with relativity due to it's simplicity. I seek out those that have some small amount of common sense and aren't full of themselves. Most here seem completely unwilling to even consider that relativity may be wrong or that the assumption of time-space is in error based on a complete misunderstanding of the basis for the measured invariance of light.

So lets see what Dr Lincoln replied in response to MacM's posting at SPCF (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=130584#p130584)about his health problems:
I'm sorry to hear that Mac. I hope that the docs are able to do something to push the cancer into remission.

I think the formal debates just got moved to physics and are to be found buried several years back.

[For those not old enough to remember the legendary Lincoln/Mac arguments (how legendary were they if they are forgotten?), Mac is an anti-relativitist and I, of course, am a practicing physicist. We had lots of long and drawn-out debates on the subject of relativity. From my point of view, the arguments always turned on a misuse and misunderstanding of relativity by Mac, but I must concede that Mac always came up with the most puzzling relativistic conundra. Unlike the usual problems (twin paradox, for instance), sometimes I'd have to scratch my head for a week to figure out how to approach the problem.]

Hang in there dude...sometimes the docs get lucky.

Lincoln
In other words: MacM is mistaken (as usual :rolleyes:).
Dr Lincoln did not think that any of MacM's views were "actually viable" - Mac just raised interesting problems which needed some thought to resolve.

[Reality Check]

Found another MacM/Lincoln debate at SPCF: Relativity confronts an Absolutist perspective (http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1410&start=0&hilit=lincoln+mac+debate)

ETA: The last comment in that debate by Dr Lincoln is a good summary of MacM's misconceptions.
Well I will be more brief. I have only a few comments.

If one rejects special relativity with cause, one must first understand it. And your examples frequently do not properly use the mathematical framework of relativity. I have detailed this framework throughout the debate and will not reiterate it now.

In addition, you tend to reject mathematics. Possibly this is because you think that mathematics hides flaws. This is far from the truth. Mathematics is a succinct language, well-suited for scientific discussion. I suspect that your distaste for mathematics reflects more a discomfort with a language that requires some time to master. In fact, it is words that come laden with confusing meanings. Discussing relativity with words requires careful definition of terms so as to make clear how the meaning of the "physics" words differ from the normal usage. Mathematical defintions are simpler and more succinct.

Your closing post brings in acceleration and special relativity...a topic mix outside the earlier discussion. We had that discussion in a separate debate and I will not reopen it now. Suffice it to say that special relativity can handle acceleration, although without the mathematical simplicity afforded by general relativity.

The bottom line is that you prefer an absolutist variation of relativity. Such a variant was held by many of the physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century (including...once Einstein's idea became apparent...some of the early architects and developers of relativity). There was a reason they rejected the idea. It does not conform to the totality of physical measurements.

Finally, you first rejected and then ignored the truly stunning observation that relativity plays a central role in the symmetry of electricity and magnetism. It is true that your preferred experiment to demonstrate what you call the reciprocity of velocity is technically difficult and financially prohibitive, but only a very stubborn person can reject this impressive unification. It unambiguously demonstrates the Lorentz contraction for which you demand proof.

I am certain that I will not convince you. I no longer wish to try. However, I do hope that the readers of the debate come away with an improved understanding of how to do relativity and its extraordinary successes. This is difficult to do in an unstructured bulletin board, but perhaps I have had some modest success.

Were I in your shoes, I would instead spend my time trying to devise an experiment that could be accomplished to prove the inadequacy of special relativity, rather than trying to argue it away using pseudo-philosophical techniques. If the experiment could be done for modest cost...say to the tune of one to ten million dollars...you might convince a physicist to try to get the funding to do the experiment. It is only through experimental data and, I am sorry to say, mathematical persuasion, that you will make headway with the scientific community.

In the meantime, Shalom....

[tsig]

Actually the most interesting aspect of your post is the expose' of your pathetic personality.

You find it more apporpriate to sit back poke fun at an old man perhaps just months left who's vision has started to blur, fingers have arthritis.

FYI: I have had substantial formal education in my time. I have done higher mathematics (but not lately). I used to type 65 wpm without any spelling errors.

At the moment and undercurrent conditions I really don't give a big crap about spelling, typo's, etc. All petty BS.

Your fixation on such things tells us a great deal about yourself. Have a nice day.

PS: Not looking for sympathy here just stick to issues and forget the cute ass stuff. It isn't actually cute.

What you're looking for is "spell-check". Get it, use it, lose the excuses.

[MacM]

The joke wasn't even primarily about you. It was mostly just an excuse to make a reference to one of my favorite lines from a movie I really like. Don't take it personally, and learn to laugh at yourself a little. Nobody actually cares about your spelling, but you'll get more respect with less defensiveness.

Then stop complaining about my joke and get back to the actual topic. Do your conversion with units. Prove me wrong. The calculations should be easy.

Well if I came here to tell jokes perhaps. But I didn't.

Now considering that I am not sure how many months I may have left I don't intend using them to defend against slander and other negative innuendos.

Having said this I will now post for the sake of others that may run across these threads my recent recontact with Dr Lincoln and two of the three formal debates we had. I may find the third and post from it as well.

I do this just to emphasize the difference in attitude compared to that received here. Many of you may well be educated but you have a feather in your cap that really needs to be clipped. You try to fly to high.

************************************************** ***

Sent: June 15th, 2009, 6:19 am
From: Lincoln
To: dkmllm

Hey, I had nothing to do with your banning. You did have a tendency to turn every thread into an anti-relativity one. I think that irritated the mods. Truth be known, I forget the particulars.

I'll take a look at your notice. It sounds ominous but I hope it is not as bad as it sounds.

Cheers..

Lincoln


by Lincoln on June 15th, 2009, 7:10 am

I'm sorry to hear that Mac. I hope that the docs are able to do something to push the cancer into remission.

I think the formal debates just got moved to physics and are to be found buried several years back.

[For those not old enough to remember the legendary Lincoln/Mac arguments (how legendary were they if they are forgotten?), Mac is an anti-relativitist and I, of course, am a practicing physicist. We had lots of long and drawn-out debates on the subject of relativity.

From my point of view, the arguments always turned on a misuse and misunderstanding of relativity by Mac, but I must concede that Mac always came up with the most puzzling relativistic conundra. Unlike the usual problems (twin paradox, for instance), sometimes I'd have to scratch my head for a week to figure out how to approach the problem.]

Hang in there dude...sometimes the docs get lucky.

Lincoln

******************* Debate 1 w/ Extracts *****************

http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1038&p=9201&hilit=Formal+Debate#p9201

In retrospect, the final result was trivial. Trivial, in this case, means many hours of a professional research physicst thinking with paper and pencil, along with consultations with at least half a dozen other experimentalists and a couple of theorists. We so seldom do acceleration in the context of SR, it took some time to think it over. Just like in math class....once it's done, it's trivial.

First, let me say that the conundrum posed by Mac was a rather good one, the solution of which is non-trivial.

Relativity simply tells you how different observers will perceive a situation.

On the other hand Mac, the query you posed was good enough to stump a number of my colleagues. The amount of time needed to figure this out was substantial….more than I had originally anticipated. Most physicists don’t have the time to put into answering these conundrums…I certainly didn’t….but since I committed, I needed to follow it through. Others won’t.

You know Mac…as much as you have thought about this, you would be well-advised to see if you could take a relativity class at a local university, preferably one of a respectable caliber. A thorough understanding of relativity would make you all the more intellectually dangerous....or maybe you’d just come over to the dark side…

**************** Another Debate ******************
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/bulletin/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1410

(1) time is perceived differently for observers at different velocity

So as to not again put donuts in jeapordy (Mac will understand even if the rest of you don't), I'll double check them before posting.

I don't think Mac is a loon...he's an intelligent and quite clever, although misguided, guy...he is definitely in the minority. And I am the mainstream guy (or member of the cabal, suppressing in jealously the brilliance of those who challenge our intellectual power, depending on your spin on things).

************************************************** ****

Now to summarize while Lincoln was obviously not a convert he did vascillate on key issues. That is came tantalizingly close to saying it correctly but declining to take that step.

i.e - His use of the term "Percieve" (once even said SR only predicts what others will "See") but consistantly refused to agree that to"See" or "Percives" is not the same as being the physical reality. That is the physical reality is that only one clock becomes dilated regardless of what others "See".

Also he had a tendancy to rely on mathematical solutions which frankly occasionaly volated tenats of SR themselves.

i.e. - I raised an issue where closing rate to a distant star would become FTL according to SR. Of course (excludingtychons) nothing can ever go FTL right? Well he ultimately came up with some math that claimed the observer would not "See" the closing rate as FTL because the event would be behind an event horizon.

1 - Not seeing an FTL event is entirely different than claiming nothing ever goes FTL.

2 - Not seeing something in your path does not make it vanish physically and continued travel would predict collision with something not visable because it is going FTL. That is outside the limits of SR. But he claimed the math salvaged SR.

3 - Numerous objects have been recorded as having apparent FTL motion. Again math has been developed to show that for objects moving relavistically in a narrow line-of-sight motionwill falsely produce the appearance of FTL motion.

That solution fails to acknowledge that less than 1/2 % of such objects show either red or blue shift consistant with line of sight motion. They appear to be proper motions (orthogonal to line of sight).

[Cuddles]

Well if I came here to tell jokes perhaps. But I didn't.

634 of your posts say otherwise.

[MacM]

What you're looking for is "spell-check". Get it, use it, lose the excuses.

Spell check. Maybe if I were writting for the President, not you guys.

[MacM]

634 of your posts say otherwise.

You should take a look at your own worthless posts. No contribution what-so-ever. Keep up the good work.

[Ziggurat]

Well if I came here to tell jokes perhaps. But I didn't.

That's too bad. Enjoying a joke is one of the finer pleasures in life, there's rather more reason to spend time appreciating them than arguing about technical stuff if you've got limited time.

i.e - His use of the term "Percieve" (once even said SR only predicts what others will "See") but consistantly refused to agree that to"See" or "Percives" is not the same as being the physical reality. That is the physical reality is that only one clock becomes dilated regardless of what others "See".

There's an issue in relativity which I think should be made explicit, though it often is not. There is a difference between what one sees and what one observes. The latter word is used in a rather precise way in relativity. What you see is literally just the light that reaches your eyes. What one observes, however, is different from what one sees: it is an idealized measurement of how things are (the physical reality) in your reference frame. One can often infer an observation from what one sees, but they are not the same thing. For example, let's say an airplane flies overhead. You hear a noise of jet engines, but you hear that noise coming from some location behind where the airplane is. But what do you observe? Well if you know the speed of sound, the speed of the jet, and the distance from you, then you can calculate where the jet was when the noise you are hearing was made, and you'll find that the noise does actually come from the jet, and not from a location behind the jet. So while you hear noise coming from behind the jet, you observe noise coming from the jet.

Same thing in relativity. There are lots of optical effects (http://www.spacetimetravel.org/ueberblick/ueberblick1.html) due to the finite propagation speed of light which can cause someone to see things which aren't real (including superluminal velocities, the apparent rotation of fast-moving objects, etc). But an observation represents reality in your reference frame. Things like time dilation and length contraction are observations. They are not what one sees, but are completely real.

And MacM, you still haven't shown your conversion with units. Your conversion is wrong, the units don't work. Admit your mistake or show us your work.

[RussDill]

I do this just to emphasize the difference in attitude compared to that received here. Many of you may well be educated but you have a feather in your cap that really needs to be clipped. You try to fly to high.

You need to take a step back and humble yourself before calling out others. Remember that you are the one who is claiming that millions of highly educated people are missing something that you can clearly see, even without a background in theoretical physics.

People in this forum are just explaining physics and current experimental data as they understand it.

[RussDill]

Same thing in relativity. There are lots of optical effects (http://www.spacetimetravel.org/ueberblick/ueberblick1.html) due to the finite propagation speed of light which can cause someone to see things which aren't real (including superluminal velocities, the apparent rotation of fast-moving objects, etc). But an observation represents reality in your reference frame. Things like time dilation and length contraction are observations. They are not what one sees, but are completely real.

Not only that, but we most often want our measurements and observations in 3 neat space dimensions and 1 neat time dimension. This is (afaik, correct me if I am wrong) another usage of the term "perceive" when it comes to relativity.

And MacM, you still haven't shown your conversion with units. Your conversion is wrong, the units don't work. Admit your mistake or show us your work.

Yes, I would be most interested in this too. As well as a set of rules for picking an inertial frame of reference before performing calculations.

[RussDill]

You should take a look at your own worthless posts. No contribution what-so-ever. Keep up the good work.

Cuddles has made some pointed posts early on in your threads, but I think he or she has less motivation/patience to try to help and/or understand you. If Cuddles is just noise to you, ignore him or her.

It really doesn't help you to author mean-spirited posts against those who make this forum possible. You might instead say, hey Cuddles, I appreciate you volunteering your time to make the JREF forum possible. Or maybe, Cuddles, I'd appreciate if you keep on topic within this thread, etc.

Edited s/as/has/g

[realpaladin]

I like Mac! Even though he is wrong, he is a strong minded individual! :)

[UncaYimmy]

<snipped quote>

You find it more apporpriate to sit back poke fun at an old man perhaps just months left who's vision has started to blur, fingers have arthritis.

At the moment and undercurrent conditions I really don't give a big crap about spelling, typo's, etc. All petty BS.

PS: Not looking for sympathy here just stick to issues and forget the cute ass stuff. It isn't actually cute.

Look, Mac, I know this will sound harsh, but your health issues are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop bringing them up. You can't say, "I'm sick and dying" and then say, "But I don't want any sympathy." Of course people will feel sympathy for you.

When it comes to spelling and typing, you must remember that sloppy presentation is often interpreted as an indicator of sloppy ideas. If you want people to take you seriously, take yourself seriously. You're trying to overturn what scientists consider a pillar in their understanding of the universe. Physics is a study in precision. Since you refuse to use the most precise language available (math), you must be very precise in your use of English.

Take your repeated use of infered. The correct word is infrared. Besides being phonetically different and thus an obvious misspelling, your misuse demonstrates a lack of understanding about the word itself. Infra means below. Thus infrared is below the red end of the visible spectrum.

Since you didn't even recognize the misspelling when it was pointed out, it would seem that you're not familiar with the term. Someone researching relativity will no doubt encounter "infrared" being tossed about. Considering your repeated misstatements about relativity, your use of "infered" is just one more indicator that your claims are not well researched.

It's bad enough that you misuse terms and state things ambigiously. Add in sloppy execution (typos, repeatedly misspelled terms), and few people are going to want to take the effort to figure out what you meant to say.

If you want to be taken seriously, treat yourself seriously. That means taking the time to write clear, concise posts. If you don't, then don't get mad when your valid points are missed.

[theprestige]

I like Mac! Even though he is wrong, he is a strong minded individual! :)
Which causes me to wonder if "strong-mindedness" isn't actually a virtue, any more than "largeness".

One person might be large in the sense of being well-fed, well-muscled, and physically fit: We might say that a two-meter, 360-kilogram Olympic athlete is "virtuously large". On the other hand, another person might be large in the sense of being morbidly obese; we might say that such a person is "viciously large".

Personally, I prefer to admire "sound-minded" individuals, on the principle that a sound mind is a virtue, and would certainly be strong when necessary (but would not exercise strength in the pursuit of un-soundness).

[MacM]

What one observes, however, is different from what one sees: it is an idealized measurement of how things are (the physical reality) in your reference frame. One can often infer an observation from what one sees, but they are not the same thing. For example, let's say an airplane flies overhead. You hear a noise of jet engines, but you hear that noise coming from some location behind where the airplane is. But what do you observe? Well if you know the speed of sound, the speed of the jet, and the distance from you, then you can calculate where the jet was when the noise you are hearing was made, and you'll find that the noise does actually come from the jet, and not from a location behind the jet. So while you hear noise coming from behind the jet, you observe noise coming from the jet.

And MacM, you still haven't shown your conversion with units. Your conversion is wrong, the units don't work. Admit your mistake or show us your work.

1 - When you calculate the time distance affect of the jet and it's noise you are computing the ONLY relaity. The rest is what is just illusions of motion. It may seem real to you but it is not real and there is and will be no permanent physical affects caused by the illusion.

The ONLY reality is that the jet is producing the noise LOCALLY in it's proper frame..

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved. I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes. The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..

[MacM]

I like Mac! Even though he is wrong, he is a strong minded individual! :)


I like that etter than hard headed - l:D

[MacM]

<snipped quote>


Look, Mac, I know this will sound harsh, but your health issues are irrelevant to the discussion, so stop bringing them up. You can't say, "I'm sick and dying" and then say, "But I don't want any sympathy." Of course people will feel sympathy for you.

When it comes to spelling and typing, you must remember that sloppy presentation is often interpreted as an indicator of sloppy ideas. If you want people to take you seriously, take yourself seriously. You're trying to overturn what scientists consider a pillar in their understanding of the universe. Physics is a study in precision. Since you refuse to use the most precise language available (math), you must be very precise in your use of English.

Take your repeated use of infered. The correct word is infrared. Besides being phonetically different and thus an obvious misspelling, your misuse demonstrates a lack of understanding about the word itself. Infra means below. Thus infrared is below the red end of the visible spectrum.

Since you didn't even recognize the misspelling when it was pointed out, it would seem that you're not familiar with the term. Someone researching relativity will no doubt encounter "infrared" being tossed about. Considering your repeated misstatements about relativity, your use of "infered" is just one more indicator that your claims are not well researched.

It's bad enough that you misuse terms and state things ambigiously. Add in sloppy execution (typos, repeatedly misspelled terms), and few people are going to want to take the effort to figure out what you meant to say.

If you want to be taken seriously, treat yourself seriously. That means taking the time to write clear, concise posts. If you don't, then don't get mad when your valid points are missed.


You are right I'm not looking for sympathy here but I did find it irritating that he repeatedly just wanted to poke fun and not address issues.

[MacM]

Which causes me to wonder if "strong-mindedness" isn't actually a virtue, any more than "largeness".

One person might be large in the sense of being well-fed, well-muscled, and physically fit: We might say that a two-meter, 360-kilogram Olympic athlete is "virtuously large". On the other hand, another person might be large in the sense of being morbidly obese; we might say that such a person is "viciously large".

Personally, I prefer to admire "sound-minded" individuals, on the principle that a sound mind is a virtue, and would certainly be strong when necessary (but would not exercise strength in the pursuit of un-soundness).


As an old saying goes "I'm not fat I'm just to short".

[MacM]

In other words:Dr Lincoln did not think that any of MacM's views were "actually viable" -
.

Actually this isn't entirely correct. I'll have to try and find his ONE post where he acknowledged that my concept of physics could be employed but that he would continue to use relativity because it would be far simplier. I also agreed with him. My view of physics gets rather complex but my point is not to throw out relati ity but to acknowledge it is a convienent mathematical tool but poor physical theory. Further that what is important is to discorver the reality.

[Reality Check]

Actually this isn't entirely correct. I'll have to try and find his ONE post where he acknowledged that my concept of physics could be employed but that he would continue to use relativity because it would be far simplier. I also agreed with him. My view of physics gets rather complex but my point is not to throw out relati ity but to acknowledge it is a convienent mathematical tool but poor physical theory. Further that what is important is to discorver the reality.
What is a "physical theory"?

Perhaps you mean a theory that agrees with the physical preconceptions of human beings as they have evolved, e.g. the properties we measure for an object moving at a slow velocity will be the same as the properties of an object moving at a very high velocity.

If you mean a theory in physics then relativity is a very good physical theory since it has been confirmed by many experiments (Experimental Basis of Special Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html)).

ETA:
The phrase "his ONE post" suggests that somewhere Dr Lincoln agrees with something you post. What about the (how many?) times he states that you have misconceptions about special relativity - do we ignore these posts?

[RussDill]

1 - When you calculate the time distance affect of the jet and it's noise you are computing the ONLY relaity.

OK, so here you are saying that the universe makes sense, there is only one reality. You are either making a basis for an argument or you are attacking a straw man. From your "ONLY", I take it you are attacking some perceived claim that there is more than one reality.

The rest is what is just illusions of motion.

I'm confused. What part is an illusion? The plane moving? Seeing the plane moving? Hearing the plane moving?

It may seem real to you but it is not real and there is and will be no permanent physical affects caused by the illusion.

Again, what illusion? Are you saying that the sound waves that reach me in response to the collision of who knows how many air molecules is some kind of illusion? Do you mean that people who thought they took off from LAX and landed at ORD didn't really get to Chicago?

The ONLY reality is that the jet is producing the noise LOCALLY in it's proper frame..

You can't just banter words without explaining their meaning. What does "LOCALLY" mean? What is a "proper frame"?

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved.

I'm pretty sure the speed of light has always had units of velocity attached to it.

I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes.

Ok, a volume is something that has length, width, and depth, right? The units of volume must be length cubed, right? such as meters^3, or cubic centimeters (cc)?

Which values in this equation do you think are volumes? If they are E and m, can you give me an equation to relate cc's or cubic inches to joules (E) and kilograms (m)?

The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..

Where does the 9*10^16th factor come from? c^2, right? I think you'll find that 299,792,458 m/s represents the number of meters that light travels in one second. You'll find that the meter was originally defined in relation to the distance from the equator to the north pole through Paris, this distance being defined as 10,000,000 meters. It was later redefined so that it represented the speed of light in whole units. The second has even a longer history. It originally goes back to the Babylonians having a base 60 number system or some such. They could have just as easily used 80 If the second were instead defined as 1/80th of a minute instead of 1/60th of a minute, then light would cover 224844343.5 meters in a second. This would change c^2 to 5*10^16th.

Is this making any sense? Am I losing you anywhere? Why would the selection of a number base by the Babylonians thousands of years ago effect the results of physical experiments today?

Also, with your volume conversion formula, can you provide an experiment that would confirm it?

[Ziggurat]

1 - When you calculate the time distance affect of the jet and it's noise you are computing the ONLY relaity.

You missed the point entirely.

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved. I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes. The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..

Except that in E=mc2, E and m do not have the same units. The fact that c is not unitless is required for equality. If you multiply a volume by c2, what you end up with will not be a volume, just as if you multiply m by c2 you don't get a mass. And if you use units other than SI, c2 won't even be 9x1016 m2/s2. All you're doing is demonstrating that you really don't understand units. You could try to prove me wrong by doing the calculations with units, but I know you won't. You will avoid doing any math at all.

[MacM]

What is a "physical theory"?

Perhaps you mean a theory that agrees with the physical preconceptions of human beings as they have evolved, e.g. the properties we measure for an object moving at a slow velocity will be the same as the properties of an object moving at a very high velocity.

If you mean a theory in physics then relativity is a very good physical theory since it has been confirmed by many experiments (Experimental Basis of Special Relativity (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html)).

ETA:
The phrase "his ONE post" suggests that somewhere Dr Lincoln agrees with something you post. What about the (how many?) times he states that you have misconceptions about special relativity - do we ignore these posts?


No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

[RussDill]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

You still haven't really defined anything. What is a "Physical basis"? and how does it differ from a "mathematical relationship". I think I see where you might be going, but I'm not sure.

When Newton formulated the laws of gravity, he used *only* a mathematical relationship. He could not determine by what mechanism it operates. Is that what you are getting at?

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

Just because you think you understand something doesn't mean that you do understand it. I think we've all had "ah-ha" moments when we realize that what we thought we understood we do not understand.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

Yes PLEASE. I've asked you many times to provide concise definitions of the words, phrases, and modifiers you use, but have received no response.

[Reality Check]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.
Do you know how to click on links and read web pages?

The physical basis for SR is the physical results from experiments confirmed its predictions.

"HOW does space-time interchange" is not an issue. We physically measure that the the universe acts as if Lorentz invariance works (if that is what you mean). This is modeled mathematically. That is what science does - get used to it :D !

[The Man]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship. <snip>

“NO physical basis..”? So I guess that whole consistency of the speed of light thing doesn’t count as being ‘physical’? “HOW does space-time interchange”? Well that can be expressed “mathematically as a relationship” as well a “physical theory” both encompassed by relativity.

[Ziggurat]

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

Space-time doesn't interchange. It is what it is. What changes is coordinates - technically speaking, though, our coordinates do not interchange, they transform. And the mathematics describes what happens physically. Just like mathematics describes what happens physically if we rotate. Now, it is indeed possible to create transformations of coordinates which have no physical meaning, but Lorentz transformations, just like rotations, are not merely mathematical relationships: they are physically meaningful because they preserve angles and lengths. In the case of Lorentz transformations, the lengths and angles are not Euclidean, but the universe need not be, and is not, Euclidean.

[realpaladin]

Personally, I prefer to admire "sound-minded" individuals, on the principle that a sound mind is a virtue, and would certainly be strong when necessary (but would not exercise strength in the pursuit of un-soundness).

I am not looking for wholesome virtues in my entertainment package. Just entertainment value is enough.

No fun in someone starting an argument and then quickly calling 'uncle' when beaten with reason :)

[theprestige]

I am not looking for wholesome virtues in my entertainment package. Just entertainment value is enough.

No fun in someone starting an argument and then quickly calling 'uncle' when beaten with reason :)
Heh. That's a very excellent point.

[MacM]

“NO physical basis..”? So I guess that whole consistency of the speed of light thing doesn’t count as being ‘physical’? “HOW does space-time interchange”? Well that can be expressed “mathematically as a relationship” as well a “physical theory” both encompassed by relativity.


Actually it is far more likely that the invariance is a fucntion of an illusion based on lack of full knowledge about the basic structure of the universe. invariance is most likely linked to parrticle entanglement. That is an many. many FTL carrier signal which based on observer motion relative to that field at v = c roduces photons.

That is it is far more likely that what different observers are seeing are different photons rather than the same photon at different times and different places.

[MacM]

Space-time doesn't interchange. It is what it is. What changes is coordinates - technically speaking, though, our coordinates do not interchange, they transform. And the mathematics describes what happens physically. Just like mathematics describes what happens physically if we rotate. Now, it is indeed possible to create transformations of coordinates which have no physical meaning, but Lorentz transformations, just like rotations, are not merely mathematical relationships: they are physically meaningful because they preserve angles and lengths. In the case of Lorentz transformations, the lengths and angles are not Euclidean, but the universe need not be, and is not, Euclidean.

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus. Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

i.e. - swapping time dilation for length contraction as a matter of observer vantage point.

It works mathematically. Nothing wrong with that. But it is assinine as a physical concept.

[MacM]

Sharing Dr Lincoln's last message to me since it made me laugh.
************************************************** ****


Re: Health Notice
by Lincoln on June 18th, 2009, 5:02 pm

I thank you for your forbearance.

Although the more I think about it, in many of our debates, you had a passing resemblance to that knight in The Holy Grail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QH39nI8ZerQ "What? That? That's just a flesh wound!. It occurs to me that I hope you are able to supply some of that determination to the lung cancer.

Be sure to keep us informed with news both good and bad.


Lincoln
Resident Member
Posts: 5191
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Location: Deep in a lab...

[Ziggurat]

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus.

But there aren't different physical effects. There are different coordinates. But there's nothing special about special relativity in this respect. If you rotate your reference frame, you transform length and width. Nothing intrinsically different about length contraction and time dilation.

Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

Nobody said anything about anything vanishing.

i.e. - swapping time dilation for length contraction as a matter of observer vantage point.

Which is not fundamentally different from swapping length for width when you rotate.

It works mathematically. Nothing wrong with that. But it is assinine as a physical concept.

Argument from incredulity will get you nowhere.

And I'm still waiting for your volume conversion with units. You won't do it because you can't.

[TjW]

You missed the point entirely.



Except that in E=mc2, E and m do not have the same units. The fact that c is not unitless is required for equality. If you multiply a volume by c2, what you end up with will not be a volume, just as if you multiply m by c2 you don't get a mass. And if you use units other than SI, c2 won't even be 9x1016 m2/s2. All you're doing is demonstrating that you really don't understand units. You could try to prove me wrong by doing the calculations with units, but I know you won't. You will avoid doing any math at all.

No I'm afraid you are the one with a definition problem here. SR ;provides absolutely NO physical basis for it's mathematical relationships. i.e. - HOW does space-time interchange - that would be a physical theory. Not merely HOW mathematically as a relationship.

AND no I do not and have not disregarded the number of times Dr Licoln and I disagree. But I also note just as here Dr Lincoln often asserted I didn't understand or that I misunderstood something which I actually did or do know.

But I disagree with emphatically and in some cases what you claim SR says isn't what SR actually is. So the confusion here is not my lack of knowledge about what is claimed but your lack of understanding the objection.

That may well me as much my fault in presentation but also in part due to your (not you personally) inability to think outside the formal mathematical confines of relativity.

You haven't been explicit enough for him, Zig. You know what Dorothy Parker said about horticulture.

MacM:
In classical physics, there's only 3 dimensions we actually measure. There's length, and mass, and time.
Some concepts are useful enough that we chunk them together and give them a name. Speed, for example. Speed, whether it's in miles per hour or meters per second, is always in the same dimensions of length divided by time.

We can express energy in different ways; we speak of Joules, and kilowatt-hours, and horsepower-hours, and so on.
But all of these different terms actually have the same dimensions.
The dimensions of energy are mass * length * length/(time * time)
A Joule, then, is 1 kg (m^2)/(s^2).
A kilowatt-hour is 3 600 000 (kg (m^2)) / (s^2)
A horsepower-hour is a little more non-obvious and irritating to work out, because of the awkwardness of the implied acceleration in using lbs-force in the definition.
A horsepower is defined as 33000 ft-lbsforce/minute.
So a horsepower-hour is that times an hour.
(33000 lbs mass x 1 ft (for the foot-pounds) x 32ft/sec^2 (to find the force exerted by 1 lb mass)/ 1 minute) x 60 minutes in the hour.
And when you look at the dimensions of the answer, it's in lbs mass x ft ^2 x sec^2.
Dividing by minutes in the horsepower definition is canceled by multiplying the 60 minutes in the hour of the horsepower-hour definition.
So we're left with lbs mass, a foot from the foot-pounds, a foot from the implied acceleration of pounds force, and the 1/sec^2 of that same implied acceleration.
The dimensions are (mass x len x len)/(time x time)

So look at the dimensions of the right hand side of E = mC^2.

m is mass. C has dimensions of length/time. So the dimensions are:
mass x length/time x length/time, which rearranged, is mass x length^2/time^2

If Einstein had multiplied those quantities together and tried to claim they were anything but energy, we would never have heard of him.

[mikekoz68]

Thank you and :D:D

Ya, I don't that was meant as a compliment. You seem to be avoiding the "show the math" comments and until there is some math to back up what you're saying, it will remain a pile of gibberish.

I am sorry to hear about your condition (if it is indeed true hate to be skeptical here but it is a popular forum ploy) and wish you a full recovery.

[Tubbythin]

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus. Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.


Is the speed of light in vacuum "something physical"?

[MacM]

But there aren't different physical effects. There are different coordinates. But there's nothing special about special relativity in this respect. If you rotate your reference frame, you transform length and width. Nothing intrinsically different about length contraction and time dilation.



Nobody said anything about anything vanishing.



Which is not fundamentally different from swapping length for width when you rotate.



Argument from incredulity will get you nowhere.

And I'm still waiting for your volume conversion with units. You won't do it because you can't.

The old Texas 2 step doesn't cut it.

You can pretend that time and space are one and the same but relativity has distinct formulas to compute the respective affects either time dilation (one physical affect) or length contraction (the second physical affect).

Transforming from one to the other buys you nothing.

You are still claiming one affect for one observer and a different affect for another observer of the same relative velocity.

[MacM]

You haven't been explicit enough for him, Zig. You know what Dorothy Parker said about horticulture.

MacM:
In classical physics, there's only 3 dimensions we actually measure. There's length, and mass, and time.
Some concepts are useful enough that we chunk them together and give them a name. Speed, for example. Speed, whether it's in miles per hour or meters per second, is always in the same dimensions of length divided by time.

We can express energy in different ways; we speak of Joules, and kilowatt-hours, and horsepower-hours, and so on.
But all of these different terms actually have the same dimensions.
The dimensions of energy are mass * length * length/(time * time)
A Joule, then, is 1 kg (m^2)/(s^2).
A kilowatt-hour is 3 600 000 (kg (m^2)) / (s^2)
A horsepower-hour is a little more non-obvious and irritating to work out, because of the awkwardness of the implied acceleration in using lbs-force in the definition.
A horsepower is defined as 33000 ft-lbsforce/minute.
So a horsepower-hour is that times an hour.
(33000 lbs mass x 1 ft (for the foot-pounds) x 32ft/sec^2 (to find the force exerted by 1 lb mass)/ 1 minute) x 60 minutes in the hour.
And when you look at the dimensions of the answer, it's in lbs mass x ft ^2 x sec^2.
Dividing by minutes in the horsepower definition is canceled by multiplying the 60 minutes in the hour of the horsepower-hour definition.
So we're left with lbs mass, a foot from the foot-pounds, a foot from the implied acceleration of pounds force, and the 1/sec^2 of that same implied acceleration.
The dimensions are (mass x len x len)/(time x time)

So look at the dimensions of the right hand side of E = mC^2.

m is mass. C has dimensions of length/time. So the dimensions are:
mass x length/time x length/time, which rearranged, is mass x length^2/time^2

If Einstein had multiplied those quantities together and tried to claim they were anything but energy, we would never have heard of him.


I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

[MacM]

Ya, I don't that was meant as a compliment. You seem to be avoiding the "show the math" comments and until there is some math to back up what you're saying, it will remain a pile of gibberish.

I am sorry to hear about your condition (if it is indeed true hate to be skeptical here but it is a popular forum ploy) and wish you a full recovery.

Thanks. Not a ploy I'm afraid. Asking for and expecting no sympathy. I did it to myself by smoking.

[MacM]

Is the speed of light in vacuum "something physical"?

Yes and no. It (my opinion) is that v = c in a vacuum is no different than v = c in some other medium. That is the concept of Cerenkov Radiation applies and what you call light is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation in a vacuum. i.e. - Hint something is going FTL in the vacuum producing photons.

It is not coincidental that this velocity is the Lorentz Contraction point where a moving object's dimension collapses to zero. That is think of photons (and Cerenkov Radiation) as a form of dimensional energy release.

What is traveling FTL is the carrier signal which also may account of particle entanglement. Your observer motion relative to that background hence will always have a v=c component and produce photons.

Different observers are seeing different photons produced along a common carrier wave based on their motion v = c relative to the background.

Is this speculation? You bet but it is sound speculation and you should acutally start to think about it.

[Tubbythin]

Yes and no. It (my opinion) is that v = c in a vacuum is no different than v = c in some other medium. That is the concept of Cerenkov Radiation applies and what you call light is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation in a vacuum. i.e. - Hint something is going FTL in the vacuum producing photons.
What "something" is going faster than light? And what is it interacting with two produces the radiation?


It is not coincidental that this velocity is the Lorentz Contraction point where a moving object's dimension collapses to zero. That is think of photons (and Cerenkov Radiation) as a form of dimensional energy release.
Cerenkov radiation is photons. What do you mean by "dimensional energy release"?


What is traveling FTL is the carrier signal which also may account of particle entanglement.
The carrier signal of what? How would it account for entanglement?


Your observer motion relative to that background hence will always have a v=c component and produce photons.
What background? Is this signal charged?


Different observers are seeing different photons produced along a common carrier wave based on their motion v = c relative to the background.

Is this speculation? You bet but it is sound speculation and you should acutally start to think about it.

In what sense is it sound speculation? It seems to have no basis in anything whatsoever.

[Tubbythin]

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

Huh??? 9E16 is the value of the speed of light squared when the speed of light is measured in m/s. So if the units of the your 1 are not m2/s2then its trivially obvious that your ratio is not dimensionless. This is very very very very very very very very very very basic stuff.


If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.
I'm sorry but suggesting that the above ratio was dimensionless is below the level of a competent Jr High school student.


But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.
Your'e correct. There is no issue whatsoever. You claim that your ratio is dimensionless. Several people have shown that is not. You are incapable of showing that it is. Therefore everybody concludes that you are wrong.

[TjW]

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

I believe your imprecise use of language contributes to your confusion.
You will get a different string of digits for your ratio depending on which set of units you use to do the calculation, and this is Ziggurat's point.
The speed of light is a constant, but the numerical value of that constant is dependent on the set of units in which it is expressed.
It is 3E8 in the MKS system. It's 3E13 in the CGS system.

Your 9E16 "ratio" relies on doing your calculation in MKS units. If you use CGS units, your ratio will be 9E26. If you do it using feet-pounds-seconds units, you'll get 9.64E17. Furlongs-stones-fortnights will give you something else.
If we express the speed of light in light-seconds per second, the ratio becomes 1.
A ratio wouldn't change as the units change. Or is that 9E16 just coincidence? Can you show how you would calculate a ratio of 9E16 starting from the speed-of-light constant 982080000 feet/second? No converting into MKS allowed.

Compare and contrast to E=MC2. There aren't any specific units involved. The measurements of mass could be in pounds, kilos or ounces. The measurements of speed could be in miles per hour, meters per second, or furlongs per fortnight. But the dimensions remain as mass x length2/time2, independent of the measurement system being used. And those are the dimensions of energy.

I admit that dimensional analysis is something I learned in junior high school. I have found it very useful in keeping me from showing other people stupid mistakes. (I still make stupid mistakes, I just don't show as many of them around.)
I'm puzzled as to why you would abandon it.

[RussDill]

I'm sorry but suggesting that the above ratio was dimensionless is below the level of a competent Jr High school student.

Actually many people make it through high school and even sometimes college physics with just memorization. Memorizing the formulas and when to apply them with no clue as to how or why they work. Kind of a cargo cult physics if you will.

[RussDill]

You can pretend that time and space are one and the same but relativity has distinct formulas to compute the respective affects either time dilation (one physical affect) or length contraction (the second physical affect).

Its been explained many times (over many years and by man people, including Dr Lincoln) how they are not two different effects or equations. And no one is pretending. How is that even an argument? Its a rotation.

Transforming from one to the other buys you nothing.

Please provide supporting evidence. It'd seem that it'd buy a very successful theory with excellent predictions.

You are still claiming one affect for one observer and a different affect for another observer of the same relative velocity.

And this has also been explained to you many times over many years. Both translations occur when switching between reference frames.

[RussDill]

Actually it is far more likely that the invariance is a fucntion of an illusion based on lack of full knowledge about the basic structure of the universe.

You've shifted gears again. Are you claiming that SR doesn't make physically correct predictions, or that you have an alternate theory?

invariance is most likely linked to parrticle entanglement.

Your statements lead me to believe that you do not understand "particle entanglement" and are just throwing it out there as a buzzword. Also, you are using the word invariance in a way I don't understand.

That is an many. many FTL carrier signal which based on observer motion relative to that field at v = c roduces photons.

So there are an infinite number of photons produced? It'd be next to impossible to make a physical theory based on this. I'd challenge you to do so, but I know you won't even attempt it.

That is it is far more likely that what different observers are seeing are different photons rather than the same photon at different times and different places.

Its far more likely that when a photon is produced, an infinite number is produced? That'd violate observations we make. It would be easy to test. Get a light. Get two pieces of paper. Put them all in a line:

[Light] [Paper 1] [Paper 2]

The second paper is shadowed by the first. Now move the second paper away from the light at some velocity:

[Light] [Paper 1] ->[Paper 2]

According to your theory, the second paper and first paper are moving at different velocities and therefore observe different photons. The second paper will therefore not be shadowed anymore by the first paper. I just performed this experiment. It shows that your theory is wrong.

[Tubbythin]

Actually many people make it through high school and even sometimes college physics with just memorization. Memorizing the formulas and when to apply them with no clue as to how or why they work. Kind of a cargo cult physics if you will.

Hmm. You may be right. Though I'm doubtful many such students would go on to try and tell everyone that relativity is wrong.

[RussDill]

Sorry but the very concept of different physical affects for different observers is simply ludricrus. Something physical is physical period. IT doesn't vanish and then become somethingelse.

i.e. - swapping time dilation for length contraction as a matter of observer vantage point.

It works mathematically. Nothing wrong with that. But it is assinine as a physical concept.

You know, in Newton's time, they said that gravity was asinine since he did not define by what mechanism it acted. Nature does not care what you think is asinine. Heck, the church said that planetary bodies not being perfectly round was asinine, or that the Earth not being the center of the universe, or orbits not being perfectly circular, etc.

The only measure of a physical theory can be how accurately is predicts physical phenomenon. If you have some other measure that can be fairly applied, please supply it.

Also, time dilation and length contraction are never "swapped" in relativity. If you can show relativity doing this, please show it.

[RussDill]

Hmm. You may be right. Though I'm doubtful many such students would go on to try and tell everyone that relativity is wrong.

The cargo cult folk would be precisely the type. Since they don't understand where equations come from or how they are derived, it'd make sense that they would believe that they can come up with their own incantations.

[RussDill]

I appreciate your time and effort here but it is wasted. I just made a very general analogy by referring to the E = mc^2 relationship when comparing mass as being compacted space along the same ratios.

He and others continue (even after being told) that there were no units involved in the comparison but merely the suggested 9E16 / 1 ratio (SEE no units factor).

If you don't know then perhaps you should be advised that I have had formal educaion in mechanical, electrical and nuclear engineering, plus electronics. So talking to me as though I am some Jr High student is frankly an insult.

But the bigger insult is for these persons to continue to make issue where none exists.

Then please, use the relation in some type of mental experiment (that could conceivably be carried out).

[RussDill]

Yes and no. It (my opinion) is that v = c in a vacuum is no different than v = c in some other medium. That is the concept of Cerenkov Radiation applies and what you call light is nothing more than a form of Cerenkov Radiation in a vacuum. i.e. - Hint something is going FTL in the vacuum producing photons.


Ok, Cherenkov radiation is only produced by charged particles traveling through insulators. Name what charged particle you are talking about in this example.

[RussDill]

I've collected some terms that if MacM could define, would make this discussion more productive. Many are compare and contrast (eg, Universal energy level vs Absolute universal energy level, or permanent physical change vs physical change). If some of these terms mean the same thing, then the longer version of the term should be dropped from the discussion since it adds nothing.

Energy level
Universal energy level
Absolute energy level
Absolute universal energy level
Physical change
Permanent physical change
Space
3D space
Energetic 3D space
Physical basis
Mathematical relationship
Locally
Locality
Frame
Proper frame
Invariance
Particle Entanglement
Signal
Carrier signal
FTL carrier signal
FTL
Cherenkov radiation

I'm sure many of you can add to this list. I think once we get past this point, we can make some progress in mutual understanding.

[Tubbythin]

The cargo cult folk would be precisely the type. Since they don't understand where equations come from or how they are derived, it'd make sense that they would believe that they can come up with their own incantations.

I still think its probably only a small fraction. And I wouldn't describe them as competent physicists. I think most of the CC just pass their exams and forget about physics altogether. I have no evidence for this, however.

[Tubbythin]

Energy level
Universal energy level
Absolute energy level
Absolute universal energy level
Physical change
Permanent physical change
Space
3D space
Energetic 3D space
Physical basis
Mathematical relationship
Locally
Locality
Frame
Proper frame
Invariance
Particle Entanglement
Signal
Carrier signal
FTL carrier signal
FTL
Cherenkov radiation


Dimensional energy release
"the concept of Cherenkov radiation"
Background

[The Man]

Actually it is far more likely that the invariance is a fucntion of an illusion based on lack of full knowledge about the basic structure of the universe. invariance is most likely linked to parrticle entanglement. That is an many. many FTL carrier signal which based on observer motion relative to that field at v = c roduces photons.

Nope just a consequence of the electromagnetic properties of space-time, specifically the permittivity and permeability of free space, which we have known about for quite some time. No ‘particle entanglement’ required or applicable.


That is it is far more likely that what different observers are seeing are different photons rather than the same photon at different times and different places.

How do you classify a “different photon”? The energy and wavelength of the photon in the referance frame that it is absorbed versus those same aspects in the referance frame that the photon was emitted depends on the relative velocity between the emitter and absorber.

[Ziggurat]

The old Texas 2 step doesn't cut it.

You can pretend that time and space are one and the same but relativity has distinct formulas to compute the respective affects either time dilation (one physical affect) or length contraction (the second physical affect).

Transforming from one to the other buys you nothing.

You are still claiming one affect for one observer and a different affect for another observer of the same relative velocity.

Well, no. There's actually a single transformation (the Lorentz transformation) that applies to all coordinates. Length contraction and time dilation are just two of the coordinates involved in a 4-vector transformation. This is, once again, no different than a rotation in 3D: one can write separate equations for what happens to x and what happens to y, but it's still just one transformation.

And not surprisingly, you still can't do the calculation you claimed you did. It's simply not believable at this point that you actually know much math at all.

[UncaYimmy]

2 - There is not and never have been units of converson involved. I gave E=mc^2 as an example of the ratio of volumes. The ratio is a factor which in the example would be 9E16 period. NO units period except those of your initial volume multiplied by the factor..
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Is there something special about 9E16? In my world the basic unit of measurement is called the Unca. It is the distance light travels in one second. The speed of light is therefore 1 Unca/s. So, what happens if I multiply a volume by 1? It's the same, right?

How about you give a real-life example of what you are trying to say? What "ratio of volumes" are you talking about?

[MacM]

Its been explained many times (over many years and by man people, including Dr Lincoln) how they are not two different effects or equations. And no one is pretending. How is that even an argument? Its a rotation.

I really hope you don't think this post tells us something we aren't familiar with. 1979 Terell Rotation is also hypothetical and that does not eliminate the contraction formulas in Einstien's theory.

[MacM]

Ok, Cherenkov radiation is only produced by charged particles traveling through insulators. Name what charged particle you are talking about in this example.


Not in this particular post but in a prior post you must have missed the qualifier Simular. It goes without further comment that your attempt to apply conventional physics to some unknown process is a flawed critique.

[MacM]

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Is there something special about 9E16?

Heck no. I made a general analogy and these people want to try and make it literal and precise. It is absurd. The point I was making was just as you have the E = mc^2 relationship that I propose that it applies to space. Where space is formed of unbound flowing energy and mass is compacted space. That is a large volume of energetic space is tied up in mass.

[RussDill]

I really hope you don't think this post tells us something we aren't familiar with. 1979 Terell Rotation is also hypothetical and that does not eliminate the contraction formulas in Einstien's theory.

I think you have a misunderstanding of how the mathematical concept of "rotation" is being used here. Why do you think Terrell rotation applies to this discussion? What are you trying to say?

[RussDill]

Not in this particular post but in a prior post you must have missed the qualifier Simular. It goes without further comment that your attempt to apply conventional physics to some unknown process is a flawed critique.

You are the one attempting to apply conventional physics to some unknown process by attempting to describe your theory by invoking Cherenkov radiation.

If the physical process you are attempting to explain has something in common with Cherenkov radiation (a wavefront of photons produced when a charged particle moves through an insulator faster than photons can traverse the insulator) then explain what it has in common. What stands in place of the charged particle?

Also note that light does not actually change speeds when moving through matter. It interacts with electrons. Photons get absorbed and re-emitted.

Additionally, photons are always produced when a charged particle moves through an insulator. Usually the photons interfere and cancel each out. In the case of Cherenkov radiation, the interference is constructive.

[Reality Check]

Heck no. I made a general analogy and these people want to try and make it literal and precise. It is absurd.

The point is that you did not state clearly that it was an analogy - you just seemed to ignore the units which is bad physics and mathematics.
So I gues that it was just an off-the-cuff comment meaning nothing.


The point I was making was just as you have the E = mc^2 relationship that I propose that it applies to space. Where space is formed of unbound flowing energy and mass is compacted space. That is a large volume of energetic space is tied up in mass.
The problem is that your concepts are simliar to those of many crackpots who do not know basic physics:

Space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space) is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction.
Space cannot be "unbound flowing energy" since energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy) is "a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law.". That is energy is a property of objects in space not of space itself.
Space does not have energy and so mass cannot be "compacted space".

But if you are going to go on about "compacted space" then you are heading into some quite interesting mathematics, e.g. Riemannian manifolds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemannian_manifold). I hope that you can handle it.

[RussDill]

Heck no. I made a general analogy and these people want to try and make it literal and precise. It is absurd. The point I was making was just as you have the E = mc^2 relationship that I propose that it applies to space. Where space is formed of unbound flowing energy and mass is compacted space. That is a large volume of energetic space is tied up in mass.

Can you please provide an example with numbers? Something in physics is either literal, or meaningless, anything in between would be metaphysics.

Also, have you performed the experiment with a light bulb and two sheets of paper?

[Ziggurat]

Can you please provide an example with numbers?

Of course he can't. He can't do it with units either. MacM has never done any math in the past, why should we expect that to change now? That stuff is for the little people, not great minds like his.

[MacM]

I think you have a misunderstanding of how the mathematical concept of "rotation" is being used here. Why do you think Terrell rotation applies to this discussion? What are you trying to say?

Perhaps because you raised the issue when contraction was being discussed.

"How is that even an argument? Its a rotation."

[MacM]

You are the one attempting to apply conventional physics to some unknown process by attempting to describe your theory by invoking Cherenkov radiation.

If the physical process you are attempting to explain has something in common with Cherenkov radiation (a wavefront of photons produced when a charged particle moves through an insulator faster than photons can traverse the insulator) then explain what it has in common. What stands in place of the charged particle?

Also note that light does not actually change speeds when moving through matter. It interacts with electrons. Photons get absorbed and re-emitted.

Additionally, photons are always produced when a charged particle moves through an insulator. Usually the photons interfere and cancel each out. In the case of Cherenkov radiation, the interference is constructive.

While on your high horse perhaps you might want to tell others here why charged particles sitting in a gravity well aren't emitting Bremsthraling since according to relativity they are accelerating.

[MacM]

Space does not have energy and so mass cannot be "compacted space".

REALLY. Perhaps it is time you go back to school.

[MacM]

Of course he can't. He can't do it with units either. MacM has never done any math in the past, why should we expect that to change now? That stuff is for the little people, not great minds like his.


Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

[Marcus]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.
Brief question from a lurker, MacM- I believe you about your training, I'm wondering why you aren't able to use any math on this thread? It would make your positions easier to follow for non-professionals like myself.

[Ziggurat]

Breach of Membership Agreement removed.

And yet, you have never done a calculation here to demonstrate anything you are saying. I ask you to show a calculation you said you did, and what's your response? To run away and hide from the issue. I really don't care what you say your training is: I care about what you can demonstrate here and now. And that has, so far, been basically nothing. I'm not the one who refuses to show the calculations he claims he did. Whenever I claim to have done a calculation, I can show it. You can't. That's been a consistent "feature" of your posts from the beginning. Getting mad at me for pointing out what everybody else already knows won't actually hide that fact.

[Reality Check]

REALLY. Perhaps it is time you go back to school.
Why?
Is it because I can read the definitions of space and energy and you cannot?

[MacM]

Brief question from a lurker, MacM- I believe you about your training, I'm wondering why you aren't able to use any math on this thread? It would make your positions easier to follow for non-professionals like myself.

It really isn't about being able or not. It is about not being side tracked since the isue is not about mathematics. What possible advantage would therevbe to doing abunch of math to show what SAR predicts? We know whatit predicts and to do so proves nothing.

The issue is the underlying physics assumptions. Also it has been 45 years since I have done calculus and to attempt to do so now would be wasted effort.

So it is not that I haven't or can't but it is not at issue and not worth the effort.

[MacM]

And yet, you have never done a calculation here to demonstrate anything you are saying. I ask you to show a calculation you said you did, and what's your response? To run away and hide from the issue. I really don't care what you say your training is: I care about what you can demonstrate here and now. And that has, so far, been basically nothing. I'm not the one who refuses to show the calculations he claims he did. Whenever I claim to have done a calculation, I can show it. You can't. That's been a consistent "feature" of your posts from the beginning. Getting mad at me for pointing out what everybody else already knows won't actually hide that fact.

Funny how you forgot how many times I provided relavistic calculations. Those went without comment because they don't agree with this negative innuendo.

[MacM]

Why?
Is it because I can read the definitions of space and energy and you cannot?
No because your head is stuck in one concept that of relativity only and not the more recent efforts in quantuum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84_kXpsDJEk

[Ziggurat]

Funny how you forgot how many times I provided relavistic calculations. Those went without comment because they don't agree with this negative innuendo.

Those went without comment because the only times I've seen you provide such calculations, you were showing something everyone already knows. You have yet to provide any calculations to support your ideas. In particular, I've asked you several times to show your volume conversion calculations. You have yet to do so. Stop making excuses.

[Reality Check]

No because your head is stuck in one concept that of relativity only and not the more recent efforts in quantuum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84_kXpsDJEk
Nice video about the space/time foam. It is a good summary of the space/time geometry that I already know about and is taught in undergraduate physics students.

He does not state that space/time geometry is energy. He talks about a theory where universes emerge from space/time foam. This may or may not be correct.

The facts remain is that the defintion of space is that it is a geometry. A geometry does not have energy.
The things contained in the geometry do have energy because the definition of energy is that it is a property of objects measuring their ability to do work (not geometry).

The hypothetical universes created from space/time foam are objects and do have energy. But this energy is zero which is a problem for your "compacted space" idea. Everything has zero mass! Don't worry though you can still use the idea if you add negative mass to it (n.b. this is not antimatter). Then you have to explain where this negative mass is in teh universe.

[MacM]

Those went without comment because the only times I've seen you provide such calculations, you were showing something everyone already knows. You have yet to provide any calculations to support your ideas. In particular, I've asked you several times to show your volume conversion calculations. You have yet to do so. Stop making excuses.

I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.:confused:

[UncaYimmy]

I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.:confused:

Been too busy the last 40 years?

Mac, this is degenerating into a "look at me" thread. You jump all over the place with your ideas. You use terms in an unconventional manner, but you don't explain what they mean to you. You act like it's a real theory that has made real predictions verified by experiment, but you won't show your work.

Pick one thing, who cares what it is, just pick one thing. Explain it well. Back it up with evidence. Accomplish something. Because right now you've done little to convince anyone you have anything valid to offer.

[RussDill]

Perhaps because you raised the issue when contraction was being discussed.

Can you please be a bit more specific as to how Terrell rotation applies in the current situation? Do you think that when I mentioned rotation I was referring to Terrell rotation?

[RussDill]

While on your high horse

Would you like to explain how I am on a "high horse"? Is this some of friendly banter you are attempting to engage in, or is in an attempt to "knock me down a peg". Its difficult to tell on the Internet.

perhaps you might want to tell others here why charged particles sitting in a gravity well aren't emitting Bremsthraling since according to relativity they are accelerating.

Ok, a few things here. I think you mean "gravity field" and not "gravity well". Second, I'm pretty sure you are indicating a situation where the charged field is mounted on a stable body and is thus resisting the force of gravity (eg, a charged something mounted on a stand that is sitting on a planet).

A few problems. How are you setting a charged particle on the Earth? If you set it on the ground, its not going to just sit there. Perhaps you want to put it into a vertical particle accelerator that accelerates the particle at 9.8m/s^2 to counteract the force of gravity, yes?

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with Bremsstrahlung radiation. Maybe you can help me out. My understand is that accelerating a charged particle (by use of em fields) causes the particle to emit photons. My understanding of Bremsstranhlung radiation is that you start to see it with the acceleration of electrons with energies in the neighborhood of 50keV. I don't think you'll get nearly those energies with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

Can you devise an experiment that would show a lack of braking radiation where theory predicts that braking radiation would occur?

[RussDill]

I've stated more than once that my concept has not been formalized mathematically. I guess you missed that too.:confused:

I'm confused too. Are you attempting to show that SR and GR are somehow invalid or attempting to explain your concept. If you are attempting to show that SR and/or GR are invalid, a non-formalized concept doesn't really help. Anyone can generate their own non-formalized concept that says anything.

Are you attempting to explain your non-formalized concept to us separately from SR and GR? If you are, then laying out the definitions for the terms you use would be quite helpful. Thanks.

[MacM]

Nice video about the space/time foam. It is a good summary of the space/time geometry that I already know about and is taught in undergraduate physics students.

He does not state that space/time geometry is energy. He talks about a theory where universes emerge from space/time foam. This may or may not be correct.

The facts remain is that the defintion of space is that it is a geometry. A geometry does not have energy.
The things contained in the geometry do have energy because the definition of energy is that it is a property of objects measuring their ability to do work (not geometry).

The hypothetical universes created from space/time foam are objects and do have energy. But this energy is zero which is a problem for your "compacted space" idea. Everything has zero mass! Don't worry though you can still use the idea if you add negative mass to it (n.b. this is not antimatter). Then you have to explain where this negative mass is in teh universe.

Funny how you compute. "Boiling", "Powerful", "10^144 Universes in each planck bubble!!!! "

Regardless of your attempt to obscure the truth here that is NOT zero energy. It is incredable energy in each planck volume of space - Sorry you stuck your foot in your mouth this time. Back off.

[MacM]

Been too busy the last 40 years?

Mac, this is degenerating into a "look at me" thread. You jump all over the place with your ideas. You use terms in an unconventional manner, but you don't explain what they mean to you. You act like it's a real theory that has made real predictions verified by experiment, but you won't show your work.

Pick one thing, who cares what it is, just pick one thing. Explain it well. Back it up with evidence. Accomplish something. Because right now you've done little to convince anyone you have anything valid to offer.


Unconventional ideas require unconventional terms. This is not about me it is about getting people to stop looking inward and to look around and think.

[MacM]

Can you please be a bit more specific as to how Terrell rotation applies in the current situation? Do you think that when I mentioned rotation I was referring to Terrell rotation?

Absolutely sine it supposedly replaces the old contraction view..

[RussDill]

Absolutely sine it supposedly replaces the old contraction view..

No, my comment had nothing to do with Terrell rotation. Additionally, Terrell rotation does not replace "the old contraction view".

[MacM]

I'm pretty sure you are indicating a situation where the charged field is mounted on a stable body and is thus resisting the force of gravity (eg, a charged something mounted on a stand that is sitting on a planet).

A few problems. How are you setting a charged particle on the Earth? If you set it on the ground, its not going to just sit there. Perhaps you want to put it into a vertical particle accelerator that accelerates the particle at 9.8m/s^2 to counteract the force of gravity, yes?

Keep in mind the earth isn't the only gravitating body in the universe. So your 9.8m/s^2 is not at issue also if you believe in GR then you don't need an accelerator an object on the surface is accelerating due to EEP.

Unfortunately, I'm not all that familiar with Bremsstrahlung radiation. Maybe you can help me out. My understand is that accelerating a charged particle (by use of em fields) causes the particle to emit photons. My understanding of Bremsstranhlung radiation is that you start to see it with the acceleration of electrons with energies in the neighborhood of 50keV. I don't think you'll get nearly those energies with an acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.

Good of you to admit you don't know something

Can you devise an experiment that would show a lack of braking radiation where theory predicts that braking radiation would occur?

Have you found ANY evidence of Bremsstranhlung on any gravitating surface in the universe?

[Reality Check]

While on your high horse perhaps you might want to tell others here why charged particles sitting in a gravity well aren't emitting Bremsthraling since according to relativity they are accelerating.
After a little research (thank you Google), I think that the consensus is that stationary charged particles in a gravitational field do emit Bremsstrahlung radiation. For example see this thread on Physics Forums - Radiation's equivalence principle (http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-8259.html%253Cbr%2520/t-109841.html). The power of the radiation is tiny and the wavelength is of the order of light years. Thus detecting it on Earth would be like detecting the Hawking radiation from a stellar back hole - not possible.

[MacM]

I'm confused too. Are you attempting to show that SR and GR are somehow invalid or attempting to explain your concept. If you are attempting to show that SR and/or GR are invalid, a non-formalized concept doesn't really help. Anyone can generate their own non-formalized concept that says anything.

Are you attempting to explain your non-formalized concept to us separately from SR and GR? If you are, then laying out the definitions for the terms you use would be quite helpful. Thanks.

Not show SR and GR ARE flawed but are LIKELY flawed and how and why.

1 - Anything physical must be physical in every frame.

2 - Under #1 above that means any clock with a dilated tick rate due to having gone under an acceleration (frame switching) IS ticking slower than a resting clock.

3 - That physical condition must be retained when switching frame views. That is velocity is a computed value of the ratio of change in physical distance per change in measured time or v - ds/dt.

4 - Given t1 = 1, t2 = 0.5t1 and ds=1 then:

v1 = ds/t1 = 1 / 1 = 1

v2 = ds / t2 = 1 / 0.5 = 2

5 - When comparative tick rates are properly retained can trip time be correct is if ds remains unchanged and observer 2 computes a different relative velocity.