MacM's uniKEF compresses matter into stars, BH, binds planets, comets etc. to stars, etc. and mass based gravity, usually thought to do this, does not exist.
Billy T (me) now tries to expose inconsistence in uniKEF, after recovering from his initial attraction caused by MacM's many claims for it.

This thread, created by James R's request, continues our battle without cluttering up other threads. All are welcome to comment, but please refrain from comments about posters here - stick to their ideas and Black Holes.

Perhaps other similar "limited topic uniKEF threads" will be started: uniKEF & (shape of sun), (& comet tails), (& adjacent atom attraction) (& etc.).

The original uniKEF thread is so long and active that things get pushed down by other things before any conclusions can be reached. We will see how this developes with the (& Black Holes)

In uniKEF thread, after dismissing “my algebraic argument against uniKEF” with:
“WOW!. What a load of double talk crap.”
MacM said (to me):
“…I ask once more that you explain the fact that the mass of a common flea can become a Black Hole! You claim mass is the root cause of gravity and that it is a local affect.”

Yes, I believe gravity is an intrinsic property of mass (or the “curvature” of space time is for Aer and others who think “gravity” is only a simple-minded view.) but its inverse square effect extends through out the universe, not just locally.
I never stated falsely that “it is a local affect.” ( If I had, I would have said “local effect.”)
I also agree flea mass BHs can briefly exist (much less than a micro second, I think, but I have not calculated, because I am lazy and don‘t know what the mass of a flea is.) before vanishing in an atom bomb magnitude explosion of gamma rays.

MacM also stated more about uniKEF (which is directly relevant to Black Holes):

Emperical data shows without arguement that mass alone does not generate gravity but that gravity is a function of mass density and total mass. That can only be the case if their is a variable other than mass alone. …
That variable is the attentuation of external energy penetrating the mass such that mass density and not merely the kg of mass produces the affect of gravity.

The logic of MacM’s second sentence is perfect, but its premise that “gravity depends upon density” has been shown to be false with torsion balance experiments that used lead vs. iron balls, or pendulum clocks with brass vs. lead disks at end of equal length pendulum arms, etc. etc. If MacM is finding a density effect in his experiments, we can dismiss all his results, without even looking at them. Perhaps small air current is moving his torsion bar?

I thank MacM for helping me notice that even simple pendulum clocks disprove uniKEF - show additional inconsistencies in uniKEF.

I want MacM to clarify what uniKEF says about density. (To hit a constantly moving target is much harder than one that can be pinned down.)

Also I also note that uniKEF’s lack any specific expression for the density function is one (of many) reasons why it is impossible* to calculate anything with uniKEF theory - Impossible to calculate even the force between a planet and sun. Certainly, it is impossible to calculation anything that supports any of MacM’s uniKEF statements about Black Holes!

Because uniKEF gravity depends on density, MacM must define how density enters the calculations before any numerical calculation can be attempted.

{{In my proofs that uniKEF is NOT consistent with experiments (or even the simple observation that comet tails point away from the sun)** I was forced to use “scaling arguments", “symmetry arguments", and “algebraic logic” since numerical analysis is impossible. As noted above, MacM thinks even rigorous, detailed, step-by-step, arguments based on these methods to be “a load of double talk crap", not worthy of pointing out at what step an error occurs. I had the same verbal “your full of crap” response from MacM, even when for his convenient reference, I numbered each step in the first post of thread “Is time universal - NO (math proof).”}}

Question to MacM:

If the Sun’s mass were concentrated sphere of half the current solar radius, how does the magnitude of solar gravity at Earth’s current 1AU location change?

I know you can not answer by calculation (none are possible). But please give a simple “scaling answer” such as: “It doubles", or “It is only half as larger", or “It decrease by square root of 2” etc.

If you can not even tell how your own theory scales, it is totally useless!

The standard gravity answer to this question is: "It does not change”

This is because, unlike uniKEF gravity, the standard gravity can be used to calculate the gravitational attraction force, Fse, between sun mass, Ms, and Earth mass, Me by:

Fse = GMsMe/r*r

Since, solar radius, Rs, does not even enter into the force equation, the answers “No change” given above, is obvious.
__________________________________________________ __________
*MacM does claims to have calculated one number (4.2E-9) but that calculation is “pure numerology“ that I repeated “better” in the sense that, unlike MacM, I did not need to claim that space as distant as the moon from the Earth/ Moon line was partly responsible. (All the space I used in my "geometric numerology" was much closer the the Earth / moon line. I also divided a small volume of space near moon by a much bigger volume near Earth to also get the 4.2E-9 number, observed earlier during a solar eclipse. "After the fact" prediction with numerology is usually easy, but proves nothing. I now predict a huricane called "Katrina" will damage New Orleans because K is the 11th letter and "New Orleans" has 11 characters in its name.)

** Essence of “comet tail argument” is that uniKEF gravity accelerates comet heads towards the sun, despite solar wind and sunlight pressure being 100% absorbed on them (any reflected transfers even more momentum), but an equal cross section of comet tail absorbs much less of thee solar streams as most paths thru comet tails is “particle-free” perfect vacuum. (We see stars behind the comet tail at essentially “full brightness” so at least 50% of the solar wind and photons must just pass thru without significant momentum transfer to tail.)
With less solar wind and photon pressure ( pressure is force /square meter and 50%< 100%) to counter act, uniKEF gravity on the tail should accelerate it TOWARDS the sun, more than the comet head. Thus, if uniKEF were true, comet tails should point towards the sun and lead the head around the sun.

In uniKEF thread, after dismissing “my algebraic argument against uniKEF” with:
“WOW!. What a load of double talk crap.”
MacM said (to me):
“…I ask once more that you explain the fact that the mass of a common flea can become a Black Hole! You claim mass is the root cause of gravity and that it is a local affect.”

Yes, I believe gravity is an intrinsic property of mass (or the “curvature” of space time is for Aer and others who think “gravity” is only a simple-minded view.) but its inverse square effect extends through out the universe, not just locally.

First, I am almost inclined to not participate due to continued distortion of what has or has not been said or is or is not part of UniKEF.

However, at this time I will attempt to respond to those issues which need correction.


I never stated falsely that “it is a local affect.” ( If I had, I would have said “local effect.”)

My meaning in saying local affect is not that the gravity force does not extend beyond some distance. That is ludricrus. Local affect means caused locally by the mass vs being caused by mass being penetrated by external energy universally wide.


I also agree flea mass BHs can briefly exist (much less than a micro second, I think, but I have not calculated, because I am lazy and don‘t know what the mass of a flea is.) before vanishing in an atom bomb magnitude explosion of gamma rays.

The duration of its existance is not an issue at all. Its properties are. One of the advantages of micro-Black Holes is indeed it's evaporation rate compared to the massive natural Black HOle which takes trillions of billions of years to evaporate.


MacM also stated more about uniKEF (which is directly relevant to Black Holes):

The logic of MacM’s second sentence is perfect, but its premise that “gravity depends upon density” has been shown to be false with torsion balance experiments that used lead vs. iron balls, or pendulum clocks with brass vs. lead disks at end of equal length pendulum arms, etc. etc. If MacM is finding a density effect in his experiments, we can dismiss all his results, without even looking at them. Perhaps small air current is moving his torsion bar?

MacM nor UniKEF say nothing about Black Hole density. My testing had nothing to do with density nor Black Holes. Please evaluate that test data for the purpose it was designed and demonstrated. Geometric affects.


I thank MacM for helping me notice that even simple pendulum clocks disprove uniKEF - show additional inconsistencies in uniKEF.

Interesting you keep throwing out these little bombs (fiat statements) and then say nothing about such issues. The facts are nothing you have said to date has in any way shown any flaw in UniKEF. In fact it has clearly shown you have no clue about what UniKEF is nor how it is considered to function.

In the other thread you flat stated that according to UniKEF two particles on the surface of the sun wouold only have gravity between them due to the non-parallel trajectory of their gravity toward the center of the sun.

That is absolute nonsense and completely inaccurate from a UniKEF perspective. So until you properly define how UniKEF works I do not think you have much to contribute in the way of some verbal invalidation.


I want MacM to clarify what uniKEF says about density. (To hit a constantly moving target is much harder than one that can be pinned down.)

Once again UniKEF has said noting about such issue. I simply noted that mass alone does not create the Black Hole but that even such small mass makes a Black Hole if sufficiently dense.


Also I also note that uniKEF’s lack any specific expression for the density function is one (of many) reasons why it is impossible* to calculate anything with uniKEF theory - Impossible to calculate even the force between a planet and sun. Certainly, it is impossible to calculation anything that supports any of MacM’s uniKEF statements about Black Holes!

Density is very much discussed in UniKEF. gravity is Fg = U^k * ~ * PM1 * PM2

You do not see density nor distance of seperation since they are inherent in the PM terms via the UniKEF integration. PM is Pseudo Mass which is the mass as viewed from the UniKEF integration. That integration is produces a PV or Pseudo Volume. The PV times density gives the PM value.

The value of the PV integration inherently varies as a function of the seperation distance "r".

Please don't come back and tell me I don't have a mass squared term. I know that and I want it that way. Mass squared is a nonsensical physics term and UniKEF seeks to eliminate it making gravity a fuction of collective mass.

BTW: The "~" term varies with density. :p


Because uniKEF gravity depends on density, MacM must define how density enters the calculations before any numerical calculation can be attempted.

I just have. And it is in the UniKEF abstract and manuscript had you read them you would know the answer to these questions. It is not that I have not considered these issues, it is that you have not read nor understand UniKEF.

That being the case I question why you continue to post these threads challeging UniKEF.


{{In my proofs that uniKEF is NOT consistent with experiments (or even the simple observation that comet tails point away from the sun)** I was forced to use “scaling arguments", “symmetry arguments", and “algebraic logic” since numerical analysis is impossible.

Correction. You have posted no proofs. You have posted a long irrelevant scenario making claims which are inconsistant with UniKEF and then claiming your own distorted view of UniKEF proves UniKEF wrong.

Certainly, in that thread where you gave example of algebraic arguement and concluded UniKEF showed no mutual gravity for the two particles at the surface of the sun, was primafacia evidence that your "Proof" was based on completely flawed suppositions.

Two particles at the surface of the sun have mutual gravity between them in addition to their gravity towards the center of the sun. So you are completely in left field here and nothing you have said or are saying has any merit what-so-ever.


As noted above, MacM thinks even rigorous, detailed, step-by-step, arguments based on these methods to be “a load of double talk crap", not worthy of pointing out at what step an error occurs. I had the same verbal “your full of crap” response from MacM, even when for his convenient reference, I numbered each step in the first post of thread “Is time universal - NO (math proof).”}}

I have made it clear why it is crap. Your statements about no gravity between the two particles at the surface of the sun is just that "Crap". UniKEF says no such thing. To the contrary each particle has a CoS to every other particle in the universe and the force of gravity between such particles must be and can be calculated. (Contrary to what you claim).

The problem is that yo are required to do calculus not just algebra.


Question to MacM:

If the Sun’s mass were concentrated sphere of half the current solar radius, how does the magnitude of solar gravity at Earth’s current 1AU location change?

Well if you knew UniKEF you would know that the CoS changes with geometry and that would produce some change. However the change you are suggesting would be extremely minor and perhaps not even measurable by today's technology. The Cos of the CoS would change from 0.999956 to 0.999989.

That is the greatest deviation from unity (the exact line of gravity force) changes slightly. The integrated value of that would be even less different since it includes all angles from zero (trig = 1.0000 to that trig value.

In very general terms the change in peak CoS value changes by 1/ 1.000033 and the average would be 1/1.0000165. But even that change give an incorrect impression in that the total universal volume capable of producing gravity has been reduced which the energy producing gravity has an increased trig advantage.

The real question asked and you are avoiding is this. To have sufficient gravity to entrap even light it certainly must be greater than 1 g or 1E6g's. The number og g's produced by mass in your (Newtonian) view is based soley on mass and not on its density.

That being the case how do YOU justify a flea becoming a Black Hole? UniKEF answers that question. You cannot. To suggest I (UniKEF) are wrong on this issue is to deny the existance of Black Holes.

UniKEF can become a Black Hole Fg = G m1*m2/ r² cannot.
So it is your view that is incorrect and not mine.


I know you can not answer by calculation (none are possible). But please give a simple “scaling answer” such as: “It doubles", or “It is only half as larger", or “It decrease by square root of 2” etc.

Answered above. BTW if you care to do the calculus all forces and density affects can be computed. Just take a hypothetical case compute the UniKEF integration between two sphereical masses at a given distance, divide the PV by a spheres actual geometric volume and then use that "ratio" to divide (U * ~)/ratio. You now have a new "G" term since U * ~ = G.

But at this point you will have to still use PM1 * PM2. The k term has not yet been resolved.

So do not continue to say UniKEF gravity cannot be calculated. It damn well can. You are just to lazy (and I am to dumb) to actually do it. Further more for most all cases UniKEF will give the same results.

Only in extreme density or extreme distances of seperation will you get noticable changes.


If you can not even tell how your own theory scales, it is totally useless!

Horseshit. If it were unscalable that would be true but it is calcuable and scalable, so your comment is unwarranted and false.


The standard gravity answer to this question is: "It does not change”

Don't bring up GR here, I am limiting my challenge to your insistance that gravity is a local mass affect. As I have pointed out your advocated view of gravity precludes microscopic Black Holes. Care to clarify that before you continue to make any more false statements about UniKEF?


This is because, unlike uniKEF gravity, the standard gravity can be used to calculate the gravitational attraction force, Fse, between sun mass, Ms, and Earth mass, Me by:

Fse = GMsMe/r*r

Since, solar radius, Rs, does not even enter into the force equation, the answers “No change” given above, is obvious.

Just who are you trying to dupe here? I have given you information above showing that indeed gravity MUST not only be based on mass but mass density and you just pretend that doesn't exist.

I have shown the Rs within everyday ranges would have immeasurable affect so you would not expect to see it in the conventional formula since such affect would not be obvious (except to those of us that actually think and don't just recite what is already in the books - :D )


*MacM does claims to have calculated one number (4.2E-9) but that calculation is “pure numerology“ that I repeated “better” in the sense that, unlike MacM, I did not need to claim that space as distant as the moon from the Earth/ Moon line was partly responsible. (All the space I used in my "geometric numerology" was much closer the the Earth / moon line. I also divided a small volume of space near moon by a much bigger volume near Earth to also get the 4.2E-9 number, observed earlier during a solar eclipse. "After the fact" prediction with numerology is usually easy, but proves nothing. I now predict a huricane called "Katrina" will damage New Orleans because K is the 11th letter and "New Orleans" has 11 characters in its name.)

Why are you insisting on repeating this nonsense? I have already responded to the 4.2E-9 issue. The specific value was no big deal. My prediction of the affect however is. My calculation was done according to the general UniKEF view. Your "Numerology" had nothing to do with UniKEF.


** Essence of “comet tail argument” is that uniKEF gravity accelerates comet heads towards the sun, despite solar wind and sunlight pressure being 100% absorbed on them (any reflected transfers even more momentum), but an equal cross section of comet tail absorbs much less of thee solar streams as most paths thru comet tails is “particle-free” perfect vacuum. (We see stars behind the comet tail at essentially “full brightness” so at least 50% of the solar wind and photons must just pass thru without significant momentum transfer to tail.)

With less solar wind and photon pressure ( pressure is force /square meter and 50%< 100%) to counter act, uniKEF gravity on the tail should accelerate it TOWARDS the sun, more than the comet head. Thus, if uniKEF were true, comet tails should point towards the sun and lead the head around the sun.

Absolutely false and shows your complete lack of understanding of UniKEF and frankly common sense - Sorry but it is fact in this case.

Each and every particle must be calculated as to the "U" and "~" terms that impede it and the collective CoS that can propel it.

You have introduced nothing that show any error in UniKEF since at these scales UniKEF and Newton are virtually indistinguishable.

Further you should be embarassed at how easily I have gotten you to deny:

Rgrav = 2GM/c² A formula which says the strength of gravity is a function not only of mass but of the volume it is concentrated in. The "Event Horizon". :D

....My meaning in saying local affect is not that the gravity force does not extend beyond some distance. That is ludricrus. Local affect means caused locally by the mass vs being caused by mass being penetrated by external energy universally wide.[/qyote]Good, at least we agree on this. If you had said has a local CAUSE instead of local EFFECT, I would never have questioned the words you put in my mouth even though I did not say them.
[QUOTE=MacM]...My testing had nothing to do with density nor Black Holes. Please evaluate that test data for the purpose it was designed and demonstrated. Again I never said it did. Clearly your experiments envolve table top sized objects, not black holes. However:

You said, and still do, in the post below, that the gravitational attraction of these object, both among themselves and by the Earth, depends on their density. Later in your post below, you are kind enough to indicate where in you "prescription" for computing the force of gravity (Fg = U^k * ~ * PM1 * PM2") the density depedance enters. - You say:

"The "~" term varies with density." and also that "You do not see density nor distance of seperation since they are inherent in the PM terms" I don't know what "U" is, but since you did not state density is part of it, I will (until you inform me otherwise) accept that density enters only in these three terms.

How density enters the calculation of Fg, I am not sure, but if it is linear in each of the three terms you indicate, then your uniKEF force of gravity is proportional to the cube of gravity. Any density dependancy seems to be another very serious conflict with reality. For example:

(1) Consider a mole of He in a 22 liter tank (approximately atmosphere pressure at room temperature).
(2) Assume that tank is connected to another identical one which has been perfectly evacuated but the valve between the tanks is closed.
(3) Open the valve so the mole is now contained in 44L and has half the density.
(4) uniKEF gravity predicts that Fg, which is function of density in three different terms of the Fg equation you give, has changed. If my guess that density apears linearly in each of the three terms you identified is correct, then Fg has gone down by a factor of 8, just by opening the valve! Note common people call Fg "weight."

Perhaps the dependence of the Fg equation is weaker, only linear over all - I.e Fg is proportional to density? If so the weight of a fixed number of He atoms has only been reduced 50% by opening the valve. IN any case, in you own words: "That is ludricrus." UniKEF is ludricrus.

This same conclusion was reached in my recent post in the uniKEF thread where, by equally simple math*, using only characteristic of uniKEF that you have stated, it is carefully proven, that the uniKEF gravitational attraction between two near-by atoms on the surface of a non-rotating, planet-less, spherical star, which is far from all other matter and thus by your own (not mine) assumption is in spherically symmetric "cosmic flux" INCREASES AS THE ATOMS SEPARATE and VANISHES AS THEY APPROACH EACH OTHER.

I did not call uniKEF "ludricrus" there, but did observe that it would be hard to find a theory of gravity that was so wrong. This observation is reinforced by the obeservation that open the valve between to tanks cnages the mass of the gas inside!

Must go to bed now, will look at the rest of your long post tomorrow if I find tme.
__________________________________________________ ______________
*The argument makes use of the symmetry inherent in uniKEF's "cosmic flux" and spherical shape of an isolated, planet-less, non rotating, star. The only math that proof uses is the fact that for very small angles, sin(A), where angle A is in radians, is A; and fact that the diameter D of a sphere is 2R, where R is the radius of the sphere. Surely, if you expect me to follow your above Fg equation math, I can expect you to follow this simple math and not just verbally reply "That is crap." as you usually do, but tell where the error in the derivation is. Note "near-by" was definded by (s/R) < < 1 where s is the separation of the two atoms. In the case mentioned there s = 1cm and the angle between 2 lines thru passing thru the center of the star and one line passing thru each atom is very very very small, so certainly sin(a) = a is OK.

....My meaning in saying local affect is not that the gravity force does not extend beyond some distance. That is ludricrus. Local affect means caused locally by the mass vs being caused by mass being penetrated by external energy universally wide.

Good, at least we agree on this. If you had said has a local CAUSE instead of local EFFECT, I would never have questioned the words you put in my mouth even though I did not say them.

Again I never said it did. Clearly your experiments envolve table top sized objects, not black holes. However:

You said, and still do, in the post below, that the gravitational attraction of these object, both among themselves and by the Earth, depends on their density.

Yep. And I would hope you being a physicist would not continue to disagree with that for to do so you are disavowing Black Holes and the event horizon. :D

Most clearly expressed by your agreement that even the mass of a common flea can become a Black Hole. How is it then that you persist to claim that the UniKEF view that density affects gravity magnitude proves it is in error when that is also what GR claims?

Are you also in disagreement with GR? If not then you are just flapping your gums and wasting our time.


Later in your post below, you are kind enough to indicate where in you "prescription" for computing the force of gravity (Fg = U^k * ~ * PM1 * PM2") the density depedance enters. - You say:

"The "~" term varies with density." and also that "You do not see density nor distance of seperation since they are inherent in the PM terms" I don't know what "U" is, but since you did not state density is part of it, I will (until you inform me otherwise) accept that density enters only in these three terms.

The absortion coefficient "~" varies with the energy level of "U". It is a compounding energy system simular to v² in kenetic energy.

The "d" of the mass alters the attenuation of the "U". The change in "U" alters the magnitude of "~". Density is only density in the mass calculation but the affects of density changes the cross-section of absorbtion and/or attenuation which is where the compound function occurs rather than in the mass squared term in your view.


How density enters the calculation of Fg, I am not sure, but if it is linear in each of the three terms you indicate, then your uniKEF force of gravity is proportional to the cube of gravity. Any density dependancy seems to be another very serious conflict with reality. For example:

(1) Consider a mole of He in a 22 liter tank (approximately atmosphere pressure at room temperature).
(2) Assume that tank is connected to another identical one which has been perfectly evacuated but the valve between the tanks is closed.
(3) Open the valve so the mole is now contained in 44L and has half the density.
(4) uniKEF gravity predicts that Fg, which is function of density in three different terms of the Fg equation you give, has changed. If my guess that density apears linearly in each of the three terms you identified is correct, then Fg has gone down by a factor of 8, just by opening the valve! Note common people call Fg "weight."

Perhaps the dependence of the Fg equation is weaker, only linear over all - I.e Fg is proportional to density? If so the weight of a fixed number of He atoms has only been reduced 50% by opening the valve. IN any case, in you own words: "That is ludricrus." UniKEF is ludricrus.

The only thing ludricrus is your repeated distortion of UniKEF. Density is not part of three terms which compound yielding a cube function. You simply made that up. I have described the function above. It is contained in the (4) page abstract. If you have not read the abstract I don't know why you are even commenting on UniKEF for you have no understanding of it.

The collective affect of U * ~ is "G" but the UniKEF G varies producing the square relationship to mass rahter than the mass being squared. Hence the mathematical result is the same but the function is total mass and not compounded mass or mass squared which is a ludricrus physics term.

Please tell use what is mass squared? How do you square mass and its affect unless it is an energy function and not a function of mass itselft. What is it about mass that you think compounds to yield a mass squared affect?

Come on tell us about your view. I have explained UniKEF and support it. Support your view.


This same conclusion was reached in my recent post in the uniKEF thread where, by equally simple math*, using only characteristic of uniKEF that you have stated, it is carefully proven, that the uniKEF gravitational attraction between two near-by atoms on the surface of a non-rotating, planet-less, spherical star, which is far from all other matter and thus by your own (not mine) assumption is in spherically symmetric "cosmic flux" INCREASES AS THE ATOMS SEPARATE and VANISHES AS THEY APPROACH EACH OTHER.

Total Billy T BS. Sorry, there is no other way to describe it for it certainly is not any part of UniKEF as defined.


I did not call uniKEF "ludricrus" there, but did observe that it would be hard to find a theory of gravity that was so wrong. This observation is reinforced by the obeservation that open the valve between to tanks cnages the mass of the gas inside!

You may not have called UniKEF ludricrus but you have falsely claimed it is so absolutely terribly invalid, yet your presentation if filled with false claims about UniKEF consequences and how it functions. So I will say your presentation thus far has been ludricrus.


Must go to bed now, will look at the rest of your long post tomorrow if I find tme.

Nite nite. :D Sweet dreams.

__________________________________________________ ______________

*The argument makes use of the symmetry inherent in uniKEF's "cosmic flux" and spherical shape of an isolated, planet-less, non rotating, star. The only math that proof uses is the fact that for very small angles, sin(A), where angle A is in radians, is A; and fact that the diameter D of a sphere is 2R, where R is the radius of the sphere. Surely, if you expect me to follow your above Fg equation math, I can expect you to follow this simple math and not just verbally reply "That is crap." as you usually do, but tell where the error in the derivation is. Note "near-by" was definded by (s/R) < < 1 where s is the separation of the two atoms. In the case mentioned there s = 1cm and the angle between 2 lines thru passing thru the center of the star and one line passing thru each atom is very very very small, so certainly sin(a) = a is OK.

You still do not get it. Gravity between these two particles is not related in any way to this Sin angle to the center of the sun. It is an independant calculation just between the particles by virture of their density, pseudo volume, the UniKEF field strength and the resulting absorbtion coefficient, by integrating the internal and external UniKEF CoS's by calculus.

Now since you still wrongfully continue to harp about the UniKEF conclusion that gravity is affected by density/geometry and that that proves it is invalid, lets stop dodging the bullet and answer this question:

1 - Do you accept GR and the principle of an event horizon? Yes or No.

2 - Does the formation of an event horizon constitute supper-gravity? Yes No?

3 - Does the mass of a common flea have the potential of becoming a Black Hole with an event horizon? Yes or No?

4 - Does not the formation of a Black Hole and an event horizon require that the mass of a flea generates an increase in gravity as it's density is increased since in it's natural state the same mass it is not a Black Hole? Yes or No.

Enough said. Come back when you have your physics straight.

I am not a an accredited scientist, and I do not wish to distract from the discussion, however, I would like to ask a (potentially stupid) hypothetical question:

Is it possible at all that this is being looked at backwards? It seems to me more logical that mass is actually nothing more than the absence of the spacetime medium (think quantum bubble voids in the medium), which experiences intertia due to the mediums resistence to tear (similar to surface tension, but multidimensional). If one considers the medium to be a kind of multidimensional meshwork of quantum length string, and that energy can be localized within this meshwork (as mass), or travel along its interconnect boundaries (as energy).

A black hole in this case would be an macro size void in spacetime created by massive localized energy concentration. Any mass or energy that falls into the black hole would be confined to travel along border of the black hole void (potentially increasing its rotation, or increasing the size of the void). Rotation in this case would would amount to the energy waves which travel along the boundary.

This would also imply that the 4 dimensional density of the medium gets lower as the universe expands.

Does this make any sense, or am i nuts?

...How is it then that you persist to claim that the UniKEF view that density affects gravity magnitude proves it is in error when that is also what GR claims? Somehow, MacM you don't stike me as an expert on what GR states. Your math knowledge is by your own admission so low compared to that required that you could not even read (out loud) the tensor equations of GR, much less understand them. I would now have difficulty doing so, but once understood the extremely compact notation used to be able to at least expand them into English and to fully understand them, burt never was good enought to work out solutions with to any without a lot of help. Your GR "knowledge" is a mix of what you have generally missunderstood or at the Readers Digest level.

Even if you were a "whizz at GR" what it states is not of concern to uniKEF gravity and how density sffects it. Because you are inventing uniKEF, you are the world's expert in uniKEF, but you seem unable to tell how the density of an object on Earth affects force Fg, commonly called "WEIGHT," of the object.

I persist in the view that uniKEF is nonsense, for many of the following reasons.

I have proven with "symmetry arguments" (calculations being impossible) that:
(1) assuming single planet & non spinning, isolated sun, and the uniKEF force of attraction bewteen two "near -by" atoms on surface of star INCREASES WITH THEIR SEPARATION and VANISHES as they approach each other. ("Near -by" or "small separtion" in the sense that the angle between lines from them to the center of the star, is small enough that the small angle approximation for sin(a) applies {sin(a) ~= a where a is in radians.} that means that if the particles that are 1cm apart are moved to 1000Km apart (R of sun is much larger still so small angle approx is OK still) the uniKEF force of gravity between them steadly increses!
I agree that is a ludricrus result. Your faith (and that is all it is, as no calculation is possible) in uniKEF tells you that something must be wrong in the analysis. My faith in the logic of math tells me the assumptions used in the math are wrong, not the math analysis. - This ludricrus result follows from only the symmetry characteristics of uniKEF, which you have stated are true (cosmic flux has spherical symmetry far form all matter). Thus it is uniKEF or at least that assumption of uniKEF which is "ludricrus".

(2, 3, 4, & 5) Will not give the details of the proofs here again.
(2) uniKEF gravity would make comet tails point to the sun.
(3) uniKEF gravity makes attraction between two paticle symetrically displaced 1 meter from center of sun a function of the angle between the line joining them and the line between the single planet assumed and the sun.
(4) uniKEF gravity makes pendulum clocks with identical center of mass and pendulums length geometry keep different time if one has lead and the other brass pendulums mass weights. (period of such locks is function of gravity, Fg, acting on their pendulums, and this varys, you say, with density.)
(5)weight of gas in a tank changes as the valve connecting it to an identical but evacuuated tank is opened.

Both (4) & (5) are simple non mathematical, obvious resullts because you claim uniKEF gravity equation depends on density.

You have five entirely different proofs that uniKEF is nonsense, and can not specifically tell where the "error" is in any!

Your verbal rebutals are based on you strong faith tht uniKEF is correct. All your rebutals boil down to following circular logic"

UniKEF is truth.
"Billy T's results are ludricrous, false , etc."
Therefore, Billy T has made a mistake, somewhere.
As Billy Y has made a mistake, somewhere, his proofs are worthless.
All Billy T's efforts have failed,and his results are false; therefore,
UniKEF is truth.

All I ask is that instead of this type rebutal, you tell me, SPECIFICALLY one step in the derivation / proofs I have presented that is false. Please stop putting word in my mouth to effect I am disputing Black Holes, event horizons, GR etc. I am not.

Chapter 8 of my book Dark Visitor not only tells about black hole properties, it suggest several non stellar collapse sources of black holes and present agrument as to why there may be many more in the few stellar mass range now than all the currently existing stars!


...Are you also in disagreement with GR? If not then you are just flapping your gums and wasting our time. No, I accept both GR and SR, which is sub set of GR. I do not accept you argument that anyone who accepts GR is just "flapping gums" and wasting the time of smart people's, like you. If I accepted your anti-GR position, I would be to calling at least 90% of Ph.D. Physicists "gum Flappers," but again I have not said anything about GR. I am not qualified, despite Ph.D. in Physics, to dispute GR or even SR extensively, which you know I vigorious defend.


...The only thing ludricrus is your repeated distortion of UniKEF. Density is not part of three terms which compound yielding a cube function. You simply made that up. I have described the function above. It is contained in the (4) page abstract. If you have not read the abstract I don't know why you are even commenting on UniKEF for you have no understanding of it. I stated that I had no idea how uniKEF force depends on density. Yes I made two illustrations to help you understand what type of expression you need to supply - one example was cubic and the other linear.
I can not find anything even resembling a mathematical expression discription of the integrad that needs to be integrated for evaluations of uniKEF force. (Trying to be helpful, I have explained what the "integrand" is for you in another post as I know you are not familiar with calculus.) I still have no idea what your "U" is or how to write down any of your terms as function taht can be integrated. For example: I can not integrate "a function of density" or "varies with density" etc but if For example, you tell me Fg is proportional to density which is given by d(x) = K + x^2 then Ican tell you the integral of this density is Kx+ (1/3)x^3 and if you further tell me the upper and lower limits of the integration ore respectively 0 and 1, then the value of the integral is K + (1/3). NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH YOUR NON-EXPLICIT, VERBAL DISCRIPTION OF Fg.

I will now answer your numbered questions:
1) yes I support GR - more already said above.

2 - Does the formation of an event horizon constitute supper-gravity? Yes No?

Question is not clear and seems to reflect too little undestanding of BHs and EHs. The EH does not "form," it "expands" as the BH captures mass, and yes the gravity ate the EV is supper strong by standards seen in our solar system, but 100,000 times LESS than at some point that still closer to the singularity than the EH. You will need to define what yu consider "supper-gravity>"


3 - Does the mass of a common flea have the potential of becoming a Black Hole with an event horizon? Yes

4 - Does not the formation of a Black Hole and an event horizon require that the mass of a flea generates an increase in gravity as it's density is increased since in it's natural state the same mass it is not a Black Hole?

Again question is not clear, but I think I can state some relivant things. Far from a flea, the gravity will be alwasy be inverse r^2 and maximal some where on the "flea surface" at points inside on line to the center of mass of the flea gravity steadly decreases to zero at CoM. If the flea could become a BH, this volume of space tht was "inside flea" has a steadily increasing gravity strength. Since there is now more gravitational energy at least in the previously "interior of flea space" which is outside the "flea BH's EH, the mass of the Flea BH is slightly less than the mass the flea had before becoming a BH! Thus at one mile from the flea's CoM, the strength of gravity actually drops a little as the flea becomes a BH. All of this is "classical thinking and likely to be wrong in some aspects - I don't do GR (or windows).

I you look at appendix 3 of book Dark Visitor you will find a somewhat related, almost calculus like, analysis (don't be scared, even if you were weak in algebra, you can follow proof there) by what I called the "Zeno approach" infinite series of ever smaller steps, cnverted into a math series, that proves the energy added to a BH by eating only one hydrogen atom is an infinite increase in its energy and infinite energy in zero volume certainly resembles the "big bang" - So I suggest (not the first to do so, by far) that every BH creates a new universe. -Probaly false proof and idea as I don't do GR and if any problem requires it, this one does! I think you should learn calculus. appendix 3 will help, but not near as much an introductory calculus book. Send PMs to me and if I can I will help you,get to the stage where you at least understand why no one can currently calculate any thing with unKEF and if we work together at it, you will be able to do the integrations yourself, at laes for the single planet/ sun interaction and see if it is inverses square (or not) with mathematical rigor.

I would like to propose a procedure for making some progress in this discussion. Let's focus on some simple cases and get some agreed upon basic results.

MacM,

Since UniKEF is your theory, let me ask you the following. I observe a single small object in the presence of an arbitrary UniKEF type flux. I don't care why the flux looks the way it does be it because of shadowing or whatever.

I would like you to tell me, in precise terms, how my test object moves in this arbitrary UniKEF flux. For instance, I would imagine that if the flux is uniform then the test object doesn't move. But what if the flux isn't uniform?

I am not a an accredited scientist, and I do not wish to distract from the discussion, however, I would like to ask a (potentially stupid) hypothetical question:

Is it possible at all that this is being looked at backwards? It seems to me more logical that mass is actually nothing more than the absence of the spacetime medium (think quantum bubble voids in the medium), which experiences intertia due to the mediums resistence to tear (similar to surface tension, but multidimensional). If one considers the medium to be a kind of multidimensional meshwork of quantum length string, and that energy can be localized within this meshwork (as mass), or travel along its interconnect boundaries (as energy).

A black hole in this case would be an macro size void in spacetime created by massive localized energy concentration. Any mass or energy that falls into the black hole would be confined to travel along border of the black hole void (potentially increasing its rotation, or increasing the size of the void). Rotation in this case would would amount to the energy waves which travel along the boundary.

This would also imply that the 4 dimensional density of the medium gets lower as the universe expands.

Does this make any sense, or am i nuts?
Welcome.I answer your final question first> NO & no, but there are some well established observatons that are hard (IMHO) to fit into your emerging theory of mass. I mass is more in the "medium" than in the particle, then consider a particle alread tearing thru the medium at 99.99% of the speed of light. It can be made more massive (at least resist more strongly changing its momentum, but at level I think you are lets not wory to much about this increase in mass/energy.) by now tearing thru the medium at 99.999% of c. The mass increase is much more percentagewise that the rate of "tearing medium" I think that should cause you to at least question if you are on the right track with this new idea about mass being a property of the medium.

I also think you conceive of this medium as being something fixed in space time if not space time itself. If so, because sun is moving wrt fixed stars and Earth is going arround the sun, Earth is "tearing thru the medium" at very different speeds every 6 months. The force action on your body that even MacM and I agree is proportional to the mass of the Earth. If the Earth's mass is related to the "tear rate" why has my weight been almost constant for nearly 60 years?

Summary: if you are going to be imaginative, which i certainly encourage, you take on a great burden. You, and you alone, must consider the thousands of things that are known to be true to besure your new theory does not contradict even one of them. Just off the top of my head, I think I have shown two where yours, even without telling me any details of math about is "In deep yogurt" as was the common expression where I would and we had a sick satellite. I you were to insist you new theory was correct, it will not be just you looking for conflicts of it with nature. - You will find guys (and gals) like me, telling you "that is ludricrus nonsense, and proving it.

Billy,

I appreciate your kid-glove response. I was just wondering if a similar notion of mass had come under consideration by anyone with a more formidable understanding than myself. I have no inclination to assert that it is anyway correct.

That being said, and notwithstanding the fact that it is most definitely a flawed proposition, I think you may have misunderstood me (I should not have used the word "tear," but rather "deformation," and one needs to adjust one's perspective on how mass travels vs photons and fields). I would try to explain better, but I doubt it would be worth the time. If I come up with a more comprehensive and understandable way to outline my thoughts, I will try in another forum.

Thanks again.

...I should not have used the word "tear," but rather "deformation," and one needs to adjust one's perspective on how mass travels vs photons and fields.... Amazing what changing a word can do.

Now you sound like you are way advanced of me. Mass/Inertia may well be some "translational drag of deformations" in space time. Gravity appears to be a "curvature" in space time and mass and gravity for most of us, MacM expcepted (I think), believe mass, gravity, and inertial are very closely related.

I am now over my head in "deep yogurt." Perhaps Physics Monkey can help you. - I agree with comment Pete said about PM - one smart monkey! It seems quite possible to me that inertial, gravity and mass may better be understood in the tensors of general relativity.

PS by edit: I read again my post you said was "kid-glove" kind (to see if I could do it more) and the particle going from v =99.99% to 99.999% c even now does not seem so strong a challenges. - true the mass increased a lot more than the speed, but if it is just some deeper deformation of Space Time, and there is some "translational drag" to move these depression thru space time, it might be harder to move a bigger one - this is the seed of an idea as to why inertial mass is (as far as we can tell) identical with gravitational mass.

But if there is any thing here, it not go further with me. Perhap when you are as well versed as Physics Monkey you will remember your thoughts and work it all out, write lots of GR papers, etc.

sleeper555,

The connection between elementary particles and the curvature of spacetime is still very much an open question. Without a fully working theory of quantum gravity, we can only speculate.

Here are some approaches:
In classical general relativity, any truly point particle must be surrounded by a black hole. Now we know that classical black holes are described by mass, charge, and angular momentum, but this sounds a lot like an elementary particle! Some people have taken this a starting point and have tried to understand elementary particles as black holes.

However, our modern understanding of elementary particles is in terms of quantum field theories. So what happens if we throw this into the mix? We can couple classical gravity to a quantum field theory and see what happens. The result is that the point particle nature gets smeared out and we don't have a world full of little black holes running around after all.

Nevertheless, this calculation doesn't include quantum effects in the treatment of gravity, so it too is suspect. So like I said at the start, we just don't know. I have been brief and left out a lot of details. If you would like, I would be happy to tell you more about the way physicists are attacking the problem right now.

Gravity appears to be a "curvature" in space time and mass and gravity for most of us, MacM expcepted (I think), believe mass, gravity, and inertial are very closely related.

Where in the hell do you get off speaking for me. Of course I see mass, inertia and gravity closely related.

Somehow, MacM you don't stike me as an expert on what GR states. Your math knowledge is by your own admission so low compared to that required that you could not even read (out loud) the tensor equations of GR, much less understand them.

Let us start this reply by clearing the air. It is starting to smell.

READERS: Please note:

1 - The above statement is completely irrelevant to issues being discussed.

2 - I have never claimed to be an expert in GR but I damn well understand it general premises and ceertainly can and have done algebraic formulas.

3 - The above attacks me and my intelligence rather than respond to (answer) the questions I posed of Billy T regarding GR.

4 - He has claimed that since I had indicated that in UniKEF density affects gravity and that gravity is not merely mass as portrayed by Fg = G * m1 * m2 / r² that his stated view was invalid.

His response was that density has nothing to do with gravity. I then merely posted the event horizon formula R_gravity= 2 * G * M / c²; which simply states that the super gravity which causes an event horizon is not merely mass but mass confined to a particular volume (hint: "density").

Notice this simple algebra formula has nothing to do with tensors. That is irrelevant and off topic.

I then asked a series of Yes or No questions. Rather than respond to those questions I am attacked. That should tell you something.

Further more, I too once did some calculus and I am formally educated in mechnaical, electrical and nuclear engineering. So your attack is misleading and false.


I would now have difficulty doing so, but once understood the extremely compact notation used to be able to at least expand them into English and to fully understand them, burt never was good enought to work out solutions with to any without a lot of help. Your GR "knowledge" is a mix of what you have generally missunderstood or at the Readers Digest level.

Screw you and your slander.


Even if you were a "whizz at GR" what it states is not of concern to uniKEF gravity and how density sffects it.

Correct but it has one hell of a lot to do with your mis-statements regarding the issue of grvity and mass density. Why are you so anxious to shift the discussion away from your errors?


Because you are inventing uniKEF, you are the world's expert in uniKEF, but you seem unable to tell how the density of an object on Earth affects force Fg, commonly called "WEIGHT," of the object.

Again screw you and your slander.


I persist in the view that uniKEF is nonsense, for many of the following reasons.

And I persist that you have stated a lot of complete irrelevant crap that is not directly or indirectly part of UniKEF. You have made up your own corrupt version and then say see it is wrong. You have even claimed that UniKEF produces increasing gravity with increased distance of seperation; which is outrageous nonsense.

That is deliberate lies on your part or a sign of complete and total lack of understanding of UniKEF.


I have proven with "symmetry arguments" (calculations being impossible) that:
(1) assuming single planet & non spinning, isolated sun, and the uniKEF force of attraction bewteen two "near -by" atoms on surface of star INCREASES WITH THEIR SEPARATION and VANISHES as they approach each other. ("Near -by" or "small separtion" in the sense that the angle between lines from them to the center of the star, is small enough that the small angle approximation for sin(a) applies {sin(a) ~= a where a is in radians.} that means that if the particles that are 1cm apart are moved to 1000Km apart (R of sun is much larger still so small angle approx is OK still) the uniKEF force of gravity between them steadly increses![/qluote]


NO. You have only proven that you can make up crap which is not part of UniKEF and claim it works backwards. My God man, you have no knowledge of this subject and many other physicist have looked at it in some depth. How is it that they were all so bliend and you after seeing (you claim) (4) page abstract are an expert and find numerouos flaws and gapping holes?

Pure horseshit.

[quote]I agree that is a ludricrus result. Your faith (and that is all it is, as no calculation is possible) in uniKEF


More lies. I have given a detailed explanation how to calculate gravity in UniKEF. You are either to lazy or inept to do so. That is entirely different than it not being possible.


tells you that something must be wrong in the analysis. My faith in the logic of math tells me the assumptions used in the math are wrong, not the math analysis. - This ludricrus result follows from only the symmetry characteristics of uniKEF, which you have stated are true (cosmic flux has spherical symmetry

I have never once used the term spherical symmetry. That has been your invention and it is not a good description of what I have said which is that UniKEF is a uniform omnidirectional flow of eneergy from every planck ordinate point in the universe.


form all matter). Thus it is uniKEF or at least that assumption of uniKEF which is "ludricrus".

Totally assinine and unsupported statements.


(2, 3, 4, & 5) Will not give the details of the proofs here again.
(2) uniKEF gravity would make comet tails point to the sun.

False. UniKEF gravity function completely identical with conventional gravity within measurement capabilities within such short ranges. Only at galatic scales can obvious differances begin to become demonstrated. You have been told this many times.


(3) uniKEF gravity makes attraction between two paticle symetrically displaced 1 meter from center of sun a function of the angle between the line joining them and the line between the single planet assumed and the sun.

Absolute nonsense. For at least the fourth time each particle has mutual gravity between them as a function of the UniKEF integration process along THEIR line of gravity and has nothing to do with some remote planet,

If the planet is in their line jof gravity then you have a three body system and then and only then is their an affect and that affect is exactly what we see emperically during eclipses of the moon etc with the sun and earth. A pertabation (which is predicted in UniKEF) in the gravity force.


(4) uniKEF gravity makes pendulum clocks with identical center of mass and pendulums length geometry keep different time if one has lead and the other brass pendulums mass weights. (period of such locks is function of gravity, Fg, acting on their pendulums, and this varys, you say, with density.)

You once again distort facts. Just as every day veloicties are devoid any noticable affects of relativity, so the density affect is not so noticable within common ranges of density. Black Holes is another matter as I have correctly pointed out.


(5)weight of gas in a tank changes as the valve connecting it to an identical but evacuuated tank is opened.

Absolute nonsense and you stated this before but never gave any support to the arguement. It is irrelevant crap.


Both (4) & (5) are simple non mathematical, obvious resullts because you claim uniKEF gravity equation depends on density.

Only according to you the illiterate one with regard to UniKEF.


You have five entirely different proofs that uniKEF is nonsense, and can not specifically tell where the "error" is in any!

False and False. You have provided NO proofs and I have pointed out your distortions and falicies in every case.


Your verbal rebutals are based on you strong faith tht uniKEF is correct. All your rebutals boil down to following circular logic"

My replies are based on the fact that your comments are distortions of or completely contrary to UniKEF and has nothing to do with my confidence of validity of UniKEF.


UniKEF is truth.
"Billy T's results are ludricrous, false , etc."
Therefore, Billy T has made a mistake, somewhere.

Not somewhere but every where.


As Billy Y has made a mistake, somewhere, his proofs are worthless.
All Billy T's efforts have failed,and his results are false; therefore,
UniKEF is truth.

UniKEF may or may not be truth but what is truth is that Billy T has not said one thing which is consistant or is in compliance with actual UniKEF structure or function. So yes you are in error and you have failoed. That is becoming most obvious since you are now turning to personal attacks and innuendo and deliberately avoid answering my quetions regarding Black Holes.


All I ask is that instead of this type rebutal, you tell me, SPECIFICALLY one step in the derivation / proofs I have presented that is false. Please stop putting word in my mouth to effect I am disputing Black Holes, event horizons, GR etc. I am not.

Then answer the question. "Does mass density have a role in the creation of a Black Hole"?


Chapter 8 of my book Dark Visitor not only tells about black hole properties, it suggest several non stellar collapse sources of black holes and present agrument as to why there may be many more in the few stellar mass range now than all the currently existing stars!

Oh, I forgot you are an expert on Black Holes. Why then did you falsely argue agains any affect of mass density?


No, I accept both GR and SR, which is sub set of GR. I do not accept you argument that anyone who accepts GR is just "flapping gums" and wasting the time of smart people's, like you.

Now we have gotten to the bottom of this on slaught of attacks. You are a relativist and relativists are smarter than everybodyelse, therefore you can just claim anything and people should listen to you since all your opponents are inferior?

Boy have I got news for you.


If I accepted your anti-GR position, I would be to calling at least 90% of Ph.D. Physicists "gum Flappers," but again I have not said anything about GR. I am not qualified, despite Ph.D. in Physics, to dispute GR or even SR extensively, which you know I vigorious defend.

So your defense is one of unqualified and unjustified origin other than riding the coat tails of others you believe? If you don't know such things then how in the hell can you defend them?

Oh, I can answer that myself. "The same way you can attack a concept you also do not understand and are not qualified to discuss".


I stated that I had no idea how uniKEF force depends on density. Yes I made two illustrations to help you understand what type of expression you need to supply - one example was cubic and the other linear.

Yes and you claimed density hadf a cube afect. Which is does not and I clarified why it did not and why ALL of your analysis have been in complete error.


I can not find anything even resembling a mathematical expression discription of the integrad that needs to be integrated for evaluations of uniKEF force.

It has been agreed that the mathematics have not been completed but the process has been finely detailed. Anybody actually qualified could do the calculations. Your ignorance or lazyness in that regard is NOT the same as you claim that it cannot be done.


(Trying to be helpful, I have explained what the "integrand" is for you in another post as I know you are not familiar with calculus.)

Pardon me but screw you. I damn well am familiar with calculus, I have done calculus at one time (over 40 years ago) so save you put downs for somebody that can't bite back.


I still have no idea what your "U" is or how to write down any of your terms as function taht can be integrated.

For anyone that is competent in mathematics it doesn't seem to be a problem. It is true that UniKEF is not a ready made "UniKEF for Dummies" handbook.

I say again. "U" is the energy component which combined with "~", the absorbtion coefficient, which collectively comprises "G". The only thing is "G" in UniKEF is not the same value and units as "G" in conventional gravity, although it can be calculated.


For example: I can not integrate "a function of density" or "varies with density" etc but if For example, you tell me Fg is proportional to density which is given by d(x) = K + x^2 then Ican tell you the integral of this density is Kx+ (1/3)x^3 and if you further tell me the upper and lower limits of the integration ore respectively 0 and 1, then the value of the integral is K + (1/3). NO ONE CAN DO ANYTHING WITH YOUR NON-EXPLICIT, VERBAL DISCRIPTION OF Fg.

Unfortunately the values must be emperically determined. That has not been done yet although I have descrbed how to proceed with doing so.


I will now answer your numbered questions:
1) yes I support GR - more already said above.

Then do not claim again that UniKEF is invalid because I said density affects gravity.


2 - Does the formation of an event horizon constitute supper-gravity? Yes No?

Question is not clear and seems to reflect too little undestanding of BHs and EHs. The EH does not "form," it "expands" as the BH captures mass, and yes the gravity ate the EV is supper strong by standards seen in our solar system, but 100,000 times LESS than at some point that still closer to the singularity than the EH. You will need to define what yu consider "supper-gravity>"

No. You simply need to stop waffeling. I think most any intelligent person would agree that an EV constitutes super gravity.


3 - Does the mass of a common flea have the potential of becoming a Black Hole with an event horizon? Yes

Good then do not once again assert UniKEF is falisfied because I state that density affects gravity.


4 - Does not the formation of a Black Hole and an event horizon require that the mass of a flea generates an increase in gravity as it's density is increased since in it's natural state the same mass it is not a Black Hole?

Again question is not clear, but I think I can state some relivant things. Far from a flea, the gravity will be alwasy be inverse r^2 and maximal some where on the "flea surface" at points inside on line to the center of mass of the flea gravity steadly decreases to zero at CoM. If the flea could become a BH, this volume of space tht was "inside flea" has a steadily increasing gravity strength. Since there is now more gravitational energy at least in the previously "interior of flea space" which is outside the "flea BH's EH, the mass of the Flea BH is slightly less than the mass the flea had before becoming a BH! Thus at one mile from the flea's CoM, the strength of gravity actually drops a little as the flea becomes a BH. All of this is "classical thinking and likely to be wrong in some aspects - I don't do GR (or windows).

Oh but you do defend it though huh? :bugeye: You need to learn how to stand on your won two feet and defend your own physics.


I you look at appendix 3 of book Dark Visitor you will find a somewhat related, almost calculus like, analysis (don't be scared, even if you were weak in algebra, you can follow proof there)

So now you want to infer that I don't do algebra? HeHe. You are desperate.


go by what I called the "Zeno approach" infinite series of ever smaller steps, cnverted into a math series, that proves the energy added to a BH by eating only one hydrogen atom is an infinite increase in its energy and infinite energy in zero volume certainly resembles the "big bang" - So I suggest (not the first to do so, by far) that every BH creates a new universe. -Probaly false proof and idea as I don't do GR and if any problem requires it, this one does! I think you should learn calculus. appendix 3 will help, but not near as much an introductory calculus book.

Based on your comprehension abilities demonstrated thus far I think I will forgo your offer to be assisted in calculus since you have already stated you are no good at it.


Send PMs to me and if I can I will help you,get to the stage where you at least understand why no one can currently calculate any thing with unKEF and if we work together at it, you will be able to do the integrations yourself, at laes for the single planet/ sun interaction and see if it is inverses square (or not) with mathematical rigor.

Sorry but others do not seem to have the same problem you have with doing mathematics with the concept. Also something every good business mans learns is that he does not need to do every step of his business, he merely needs to understand the business and give directions to his underlings.

I have owned and operated my own research corporation and I hire engineers and mathematicians. I do not have the time, nor the interest in doing the details.

MacM, according to UniKEF, what about mass makes it interfere with this "flux of energy?" In what way does it interfere? absorption? Is the energy itself attracted to mass? And lastly, does the energy travel at c?

PhysicsMonkey,

Thank you for the reply. Although I lack your educational background and mathematical training, I have spent a good amount of time contemplating these kind of issues in my own head since I was young. I tend to revert to simplicity and consistency whenever possible. Many of my ideas are probably wildly inaccurate, but it is interesting to ponder... I do like the concept of mass as spacetime deformation.. anyway... I am always interested to learn from those who know more than I. So if you care to share your thoughts on current work, I would be very intersted to hear. For my own part, I have some things that I've batted around at different points, feel free to shoot them down.

1. True "point" particles are an idealization rather than a reality.

2. The notion that mass (matter/particles) and timespace are separate entities may be a fallacy based on our grounding in everyday observation.

3. Certain hypotheses surrounding quantum mechanics are just plain wrong (ie multiple realities). There must be a better way to understand the true nature of subatomic interaction and the wave function. The collapse of the wave function under observation may be due to observation itself adding energy and creating a kind of "path of least resistence" through timespace.

4. Since the speed of light is not infinite, and something cannot travel through nothing (seems logical, although not the conventional wisdom), a medium must be involved (timespace, which is both mass and vacuum).

5. Matter cannot travel at the speed of light, so there must be a fundamental difference in the manner in which particles and photons/fields "travel."

6. Since matter and timespace are but different states of the same thing, which encompasses the entire universe, the "percieved" motion of mass would not violate relativity, even though a "medium" is involved.

7. Mass may or may not actually move, but could, (imvho) in theory, be a different modus of energy transmission through timespace (deformations in the medium).

8. Mathematical elegance is rarely wasted, so it is likely that a good portion of quantum and string theory formulas carry some weight, even though I dislike many of the explanations as to why.

9. Black holes as macro "point particles" makes some sense to me as there are similarities. However, point particles as miniature black holes makes no sense to me. That point particles are not mini black holes (imo) must be due to something inherent in timespace itself, since I believe that particles are simply a different manifestation of energy in timespace.

10. Anything traveling at the speed of light is actually energy traversing the timespace medium in its most fundamental way (hitching a ride on the fabric of spacetime itself). How and why this works is something I think a lot about. For all I know, a photon could actually be asorbed into the medium and only re-appear when observed.

11. I believe that there is some insight to be gleaned from fractal/chaos theory. Systems that are comprised from basic interactions of the tiny will manifest themselves in similar patterns at the macro scale, varying with orders of magnitude (given an element of randomness).

I could go on, but I have probably put my foot im my mouth enough for one day :D

If you want to take this discussion elsewhere so as to not "disturb the continuity" (heh) of this thread, let me know.

MacM, according to UniKEF, what about mass makes it interfere with this "flux of energy?"

UniKEF is considered "Unbound Flowing Energy". Mass is considered "Compacted Bound Energy". That is energy moving in relavistic orbs. The compaction is typified by the E = mc² relationship.

That is mass IS energy but in the form of a harmonic standing waves in orbs.

As UniKEF flows through mass the relavistic motion (cross current) presents a formidable barrier to passage. Visualize a picket fence with wind and dust blowing through it. The dust passes freely but now move the fence orthogonal to the wind.

The faster you move the fence the more it impedes the free flow of the wind and dust. The relavisitic velocities of the bound energy forming what we call mass makes it difficult for the UniKEF to pass through without some interacton.


In what way does it interfere? absorption?

Absortion (inelastic) only to an extremely minor degree. Predominately by scattering or (elastic) reaction. The minor absorbtion component causes limited heating of massive boides as a function or in proportion to the roduction of gravity. That affect was predicted in 1954 and in 1964 it was actually measured by NASA.


Is the energy itself attracted to mass?

No. The energy is merely flowing uniformaly (generally speaking) in an omnidirectional manner from every planck ordinate point in the universe.

It is the energy we now see in the voids or vacuum of space which also accounts for virtual particles, etc.


And lastly, does the energy travel at c?

Yes and No. What you percieve travels at 'c' but EM and light is only produced at 'C" withing a carrier energy that covers a vast spectrum of energies (velocities). It is this FTL carrier flow that provides the affect of particle entanglement and tunneling affects.

UniKEF is simular to RCM:
http://renshaw.teleinc.com/index.asp

But is more closely defined by Emmission Theory:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/http://www.extinctionshift.com/

However, it is the impedance by mass to the flow of UniKEF through it that results in gravity. That is as mass attenuates UniKEF flow in a given vector it casts a shadow and two particles shodows which intersect in the Cones of Sources (CoS) to a centerline of gravity between them shows a deminished push apart between the particles vs the push together by the sources thorughout the universe.

So particles are being pushed together not attracting each other. The calculus integration of the CoS shows the appropriate inverse square function and logically as the distance of seperation increases there becomes more UniKEF sources inbetween the particles wich begins to offset the inverse square function which would cause the distant stars circling a galaxy to have more gravity than would be predicted by the Newtonian view.

That is what we actually observe. Further as you expand the distance of seperation you reach a point where the source inbetween the particles exceeds the sources available in the "Finite" universe such that UniKEF becomes repulsive and can account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.

It is my opinion that what they now call Dark Energy is in fact what I have called UniKEF in 1954 but they have not realized the complete process where Dark Energy (or UniKEF) can cause the gravity we observe over the entire spectrum.

I could go on, but I have probably put my foot im my mouth enough for one day :D


Actually I believe you have done a fairly good job of being pragmatic.

MacM, I have trouble understanding what you are trying to convey in some instances.
Your terminology sometimes seems confusing to me. Perhaps you could clarify what
you mean in a few examples.

by MacM:


"UniKEF is considered "Unbound Flowing Energy". Mass is considered "Compacted Bound Energy". That is energy moving in relavistic orbs. The compaction is typified by the E = mc2 relationship.

That is mass IS energy but in the form of a harmonic standing waves in orbs."
================================================== ===========

I assume unbound flowing energy is an energy that is emitted from all 'points' in the
vacuum flowing in all directions from each point. The energy emitted from one point
does not interfer with the energy emitted from a different point, kind of like photons
that can pass through other photons without interference, correct?

Now, your 'compacted bound energy' is this same energy in a condensed sphere, or
'orb', correct? Then you say that energy is moving in RELATIVISTIC orbs. I assume you don't mean the orbs are moving at relativistic velocities, but the energy inside
the orb, correct? It seems to me you are stating the energy is moving in a circle inside the orb (sphere) at relativistic speeds. But you then say the energy is in the form of
harmonic standing waves. That is a vibrating 'string' from string theory, correct? A
quantum string is a short string that is 'fixed' at both ends and vibrates or oscilates
in the middle. I suppose your orb is a condensed sphere of these vibrating strings
circling around at relativistic velocities, correct? It sounds like this is a fundamental particle in UniKEF, and this particle is given mass by interaction with other 'strings'
that constitute the flowing energy passing through it. Do you have a mechanism by
which these 'orbs' are condensed in the first place? Since these are 'massive' particles,
I assume this energy is not electromagnetic in nature since photons don't gain mass
from the UniKEF field. The very name says it is kinetic energy, so kinetic energy can
be condensed by some mechanism to form orbs, according to UniKEF, correct? Don't
let me put words in your mouth if my scenario is incorrect, but maybe you could correct it if it is wrong.

MacM, I have trouble understanding what you are trying to convey in some instances.
Your terminology sometimes seems confusing to me. Perhaps you could clarify what
you mean in a few examples.

by MacM:


"UniKEF is considered "Unbound Flowing Energy". Mass is considered "Compacted Bound Energy". That is energy moving in relavistic orbs. The compaction is typified by the E = mc2 relationship.

That is mass IS energy but in the form of a harmonic standing waves in orbs."
================================================== ===========

I assume unbound flowing energy is an energy that is emitted from all 'points' in the
vacuum flowing in all directions from each point. The energy emitted from one point
does not interfer with the energy emitted from a different point, kind of like photons
that can pass through other photons without interference, correct?

Basically correct. In UniKEF there is some minimal interferance of the field within itself and causes what I have termed the "Quantitative Domain Limit". It is simular to the "Tired Light" view for photons.

Since dimension in UniKEF is the quantity of UniKEF within your 'c' regime over vast distance that attenuates and forms a finite boundry. Moving in any direction extends the boundry in the direction of motion and receeds the boundry in the direction you moved from.

Move a sufficient distance and you exist in a totally seperate universe.


Now, your 'compacted bound energy' is this same energy in a condensed sphere, or
'orb', correct?

Yes.


Then you say that energy is moving in RELATIVISTIC orbs. I assume you don't mean the orbs are moving at relativistic velocities, but the energy inside the orb, correct?

Yes. It would be simular to a vortex where the energy is swirling around at v = c in sub-atomic diameters.


It seems to me you are stating the energy is moving in a circle inside the orb (sphere) at relativistic speeds. But you then say the energy is in the form of harmonic standing waves. That is a vibrating 'string' from string theory, correct?

String theory hadn't been thought of in 1954. The concept of what we call mass or a solid is ultrahigh frequency energy waves that complete an orb in synchronous fashion to continue to circle and vibrate continuously. It would seem to be quite simular to a closed loop string. Yes.


A quantum string is a short string that is 'fixed' at both ends and vibrates or oscilates in the middle. I suppose your orb is a condensed sphere of these vibrating strings circling around at relativistic velocities, correct?

Not that it has to do with string theory but basically it sounds correct except it would be the closed loop string.


It sounds like this is a fundamental particle in UniKEF, and this particle is given mass by interaction with other 'strings' that constitute the flowing energy passing through it. Do you have a mechanism by
which these 'orbs' are condensed in the first place? Since these are 'massive' particles, I assume this energy is not electromagnetic in nature since photons don't gain mass from the UniKEF field.

I haven't gotten that far as to the composition or nature of the field but I believe it efudes from the vacuum as pure energy or configured like virtual particles.

When a Black Hole consumes one of a virtual particle pair the other particle remains as actual mass.


The very name says it is kinetic energy, so kinetic energy can
be condensed by some mechanism to form orbs, according to UniKEF, correct?

Yes.


Don't let me put words in your mouth if my scenario is incorrect, but maybe you could correct it if it is wrong.

You seem to have a very good view of it in general. What you are missing is the spectrum of such UniKEF energy in that it trancends v = c by many magnitudes (See RCM and Emmission Theory) which explains the invariance of light but means that invariance doesn't mandate relativity as we know it.

When you move or the source of light moves relative to you it appears invariant since you are not seeing the same photon. Photons are generated at v = c only. In UniKEF it was viewed as a form of quantum energy affect where the production of a photon at v = c relative to you is actually c+v or c-v relative to the source. It was believed to be a form of dimensional binding energy release at the Lorentz Dimensional Contraction point to zero.

Thanks, MacM, but you are jumping ahead a bit by discussing light. Let's try to get a
massive particle's nature down first. My key statement was about the fundamental
particle being given 'mass' by interaction with the UniKEF energy field. Is the particle
given mass by the interaction, or gravity? If gravity, it would seem gravity was a local
property. If mass, here comes the part I don't understand. If the particle 'absorbs' a
small part of the kinetic energy passing through it to form mass, what is to keep the
mass from increasing and increasing....until a black hole is formed. A monstrous black
hole that is feeding off vacuum energy, (UniKEF energy) growing until it consumes all
the vacuum energy in the universe? If the UniKEF energy is 'annuated', or reduced in
intensity, as it passes through the particle, doesn't that imply some of the energy is
absorbed in the process? It would seem to me that this 'absorbed' energy would have to be radiated away from the particle as another form of energy to keep the particle
from increasing in mass. If it were gravitational energy being radiated, then gravity
would be local to the particle. Does UniKEF explain WHAT KIND of energy is radiated
away? And remember conservation of energy, that is led me to wonder about the
flowing energy passing through the orb in the first place. These are just questions that
popped into my mind when reading your discription above.

Thanks, MacM, but you are jumping ahead a bit by discussing light. Let's try to get a
massive particle's nature down first. My key statement was about the fundamental
particle being given 'mass' by interaction with the UniKEF energy field.

No. The particle is compacted energy in the harmonic standing wave. The UniKEF flow through it only produces gravity and some heat. The interaction also give the mass what we call inertia. The is the resistance to change in motion within the UniKEF.


Is the particle
given mass by the interaction, or gravity?

Neither. The gravity is produced by the interaction of UniKEF with the mass form of energy.


If the UniKEF energy is 'annuated', or reduced in
intensity, as it passes through the particle, doesn't that imply some of the energy is
absorbed in the process?

Very little and it becomes heat. Gravity is primarily a momentum transfer by elastic reaction. But that redirects the flux such that it leaves an energy density shadow behind the mass in the vector of the impeeding flux.


It would seem to me that this 'absorbed' energy would have to be radiated away from the particle as another form of energy to keep the particle
from increasing in mass.

Heat. But it is a very small component of the energy in gravity.

Does UniKEF explain WHAT KIND of energy is radiated
away? And remember conservation of energy, that is led me to wonder about the
flowing energy passing through the orb in the first place. These are just questions that
popped into my mind when reading your discription above.[/QUOTE]

The only thing radiated is heat. The UniKEF flux is deflected and continues on in another vector.

1. True "point" particles are an idealization rather than a reality.

This may very well be. Nevertheless, a very small lower bound on the electron's radius has been set experimentally and we have never observed the electron to have any internal structure. Contrast this with the proton which has a small but finite size and does have internal structure. What are some of the options? If string people are right, electrons might be little vibrating strings. Alternatively, the point particle singularity might be ameliorated by some kind of discreteness to spacetime. On a less speculative note, when doing quantum field theory coupled to classical gravity, the point particle nature of the electron is not visible to gravity so no black holes form. It's seems pretty clear that any theory claiming to be fundamental must somehow deal with the infinities associated with point particles.



2. The notion that mass (matter/particles) and timespace are separate entities may be a fallacy based on our grounding in everyday observation.

I would certainly agree that a lot of misunderstanding about physics comes from the baseless assumption that the way things seem to work for big slow objects is the way everything works. There have been for some time a number of ideas floating around about how matter is really "scrunched up" spacetime or little black holes or spacetime disturbances, etc.



3. Certain hypotheses surrounding quantum mechanics are just plain wrong (ie multiple realities). There must be a better way to understand the true nature of subatomic interaction and the wave function. The collapse of the wave function under observation may be due to observation itself adding energy and creating a kind of "path of least resistence" through timespace.

When declaring quantum theory too wacky to be true, I think a lot of people tend to apply the prejudice against "classically counter-intuitive behavior" that you warned against in the previous comment. The bottom line on quantum theory is that it is incredibly predictive and that despite a century of trying, no one has come up with anything better.



4. Since the speed of light is not infinite, and something cannot travel through nothing (seems logical, although not the conventional wisdom), a medium must be involved (timespace, which is both mass and vacuum).

Light is a certain kind of field configuration of the electromagetic field.



5. Matter cannot travel at the speed of light, so there must be a fundamental difference in the manner in which particles and photons/fields "travel."

There is in some sense a fundamental difference massive and massless particles in that photons, unlike all massive particles, have no rest frame. This leads to a number of non-trivial consequences in quantum field theory.



6. Since matter and timespace are but different states of the same thing, which encompasses the entire universe, the "percieved" motion of mass would not violate relativity, even though a "medium" is involved.

As I said above, I don't tend to think they are different aspects of the same thing. That being said, even assuming they were, I don't think I understand what you mean here.



7. Mass may or may not actually move, but could, (imvho) in theory, be a different modus of energy transmission through timespace (deformations in the medium).

I'm not sure I follow. Mass doesn't move but energy does?



8. Mathematical elegance is rarely wasted, so it is likely that a good portion of quantum and string theory formulas carry some weight, even though I dislike many of the explanations as to why.

I agree that elegance and simplicity have been powerful guides thus far.

Here are some quick responses to your points. I will try to hit the others if I have time. If you want to continue discussing, I suggest we pick one or two of these ideas and go from there.

What is the source of "gravity" in UniKEF logic ?

MacM,

Can you tell me how a small test object would move in an arbitrary UniKEF flux field?

Thanks again... your help is greatly appreciated.

Narrowing down a bit, this is way out in left field and probably total nonsense, but I am interested in exploring the possibility that the string theorists are on to something, but that they have it inverted. What if spacetime itself is composed of a multidimensional meshwork of interconnected "strings" and that the manner in which energy vibrates and propagates through the meshwork of spacetime determines the properties we percieve? Energy can move through spacetime, and the meshwork itself can deform as a result, but the meshwork itself does not "move." Discrete spacetime would operate more like quantum cellular automata. I think that discrete spacetime may also be able to account for variabilities in the fundamental forces.

An electron could result from "vibrational energy" being confined to the smallest discrete self-contained construct within the meshwork (measuring below this distance would be futile) which would explain their lack of internal structure. A photon would be a unconfined packet of energy that (for some reason I am not smart enough to figure out) has the ability to traverse traverse the discrete hops in the meshwork unhindered (perhaps via the propagation of the electro-magnetic field and its effect on spacetime substructure). Massive particles, on the otherhand, may somehow deform or distort the meshwork. A black hole would result from having so much bounded energy that a discreet quantum cell or "blob" expands or is stretched to macro scales (the black hole would have no internal structure, and there would be nothing inside, which means that mass that falls in would be converted to energy that would only be able to propagate along the boundary of the black hole).

I have some ideas on how this could relate to quantum mechanics and wave function.. but I will stop here for fear that I am already too far off base. However, with respect to this, I would like to know why people believe that observation impacts the outcome in the double slit experiment.

Anyhoo... getting back to things that are more concrete, I would be very interested to hear how mass creation works, what experiments have been done in this area, and what the current theories provide as explanations. I believe that fully understanding the process of exactly how energy converts to mass (and vice versa) is a crucial piece of the puzzle (at least for me). Furthermore along these lines, why do photons travel slower through a non-vacuum (ie glass). In the case of a photon slowly moving through a bose-einstein condensate, would it have more mass while photon was en-route?

What is the source of "gravity" in UniKEF logic ?

UniKEF is a unifrom omnidirectional energy flow from every planck ordinate oint in the universe. As it penetrates mass a minor some of it is either deflected by elasric reaction or an even smaller amount is absorbed producing some heating.

This interaction is a source of momentum transfer and the attenuated flux in the vector between two masses forms an energy shadow (deficet) causes less UniKEF pushing them apart than is pushing them together.

At cosmic distances the UniKEF sources inbetween the particles is greater than those pushing them together and it becomes repulsive causing the accelerated expansion of the universe. This is based on the understanding tha the UniVerse is finite in size.

MacM,

Can you tell me how a small test object would move in an arbitrary UniKEF flux field?

Actually some testing has been done and you might find the results interesting.

A test was designed which produced a change in gravity even though there was no change in center of mass, nor the amount of mass.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm

An electron could result from "vibrational energy" being confined to the smallest discrete self-contained construct within the meshwork (measuring below this distance would be futile) which would explain their lack of internal structure.

Quarks are smaller yet?

Thanks MacM

I like this

>> **********************
------------- Science Today, April 1964 issue. GEOLOGY -------------------
"For example, a global analysis of heat flowing to the surface from the planet's interior shows a remarkable similarity to a world-wide analysis of the earth's gravitational field from satellite observations. Scientist have no idea why the patterns should be similar and they've gone eagerly to work on the problem."
*********************** >>

indeed I find the same with Jupiter and the pioneer anomaly...

Energy is the key, IMO

I have a thread called L1 and L2

I would be interested in the values your theory would predict for the Earth-Sun three body problem.

thanks

Thanks MacM

I like this

>> **********************
------------- Science Today, April 1964 issue. GEOLOGY -------------------
"For example, a global analysis of heat flowing to the surface from the planet's interior shows a remarkable similarity to a world-wide analysis of the earth's gravitational field from satellite observations. Scientist have no idea why the patterns should be similar and they've gone eagerly to work on the problem."
*********************** >>

indeed I find the same with Jupiter and the pioneer anomaly...

Energy is the key, IMO

I have a thread called L1 and L2

I would be interested in the values your theory would predict for the Earth-Sun three body problem.

thanks

Well, thank you. As you can tell around here those are kind words. :D

UniKEF has not been formally completed mathematically. Only a limited amount of calculus has been done. But in theory in ranges less than a few light years UniKEF will result in numerical values consistant with the inverse square rule and hence the L1 - L5 points would be the same within our ability to measure.

>> But in theory in ranges less than a few light years UniKEF will result in numerical values consistant with the inverse square rule >>

well I have kind words and unkind words.

from what I have seen (read) your theory has some valid point,

but, it also has some invalid points....... but then again what theory doesn't....

If you agree with the inverse square law at distances under light years, well that is IMO a very bad point.

Thanks

Sleeper555,

Forgive me for suggesting that you’re wasting your time. I have spent over two decades desperately trying to put forward to various people my “ideas” related to the true nature of the universe. The problem lies with the fact that science requires proof and evidence and yours and my ideas are nothing more than shots in the dark.

I have used this forum to put forward some of my own ideas but there are a number of problems associated with feedback.

1. If you ask a valid scientific question regarding textbook physics, you can’t guarantee that the answer is correct. Quite often, people have a stab at answering your questions when they don’t really have the capacity to do so. Then an argument breaks out regarding who is right and who is wrong - trying to establish the truth is somewhat frustrating.
2. Any subject outside the realms of textbook physics is easily attacked and some forum members wallow in the satisfaction of participating in the onslaught upon those with alternative theories. It’s a daunting experience.
3. There is never enough time to explain your theories over the net if you have a life.
4. You are immediately labelled as a crackpot despite most of the giants of science having been labelled a crackpot at one time or another.
5. If you ask really hard questions regarding ideas that nobody can refute, they just ignore you.
6. If you suggest that anything like the MM experiment could be flawed due to the fact that there MIGHT be a dynamic aether, they just WILL NOT accept that this could be the case and that is that. It was established decades ago and science has based all of its theories on this and they work and there is no reason to look for an alternative.
7. You need to realise that many people are like sheep and parrots. They are great followers and some are exceptionally good at preaching textbook physics.
8. You need to understand that relativity is nothing more than a model that matches observation with algebraic manipulation. There’s nothing particularly clever about it and it does its job. The problem is that you can’t argue with something that is formed on some very fundamental assumptions which you are forced to agree with simply because there ARE NO OTHER valid assumptions from which we can start work. (just read that and I know what I mean even if you don’t).
9. If you make a statement about a thought that you think could be truly ground-breaking, nobody has the inclination to move forward with that idea anyway. This is particularly true when ideas are impossible to prove or disprove.


I could go on and on but I’ll spare you from more of the same. Basically, you’ll find out for yourself.

The way I see science at present is that it has hit a brick wall. Although we can observe and predict most of what is around us to quite a high degree of accuracy, and although we get some amount of comfort from knowing and understanding the effects of what we see, we are hopelessly in the dark regarding the true causes behind the effects.

There are number of problems which I hope I live long enough to see the answer to.

What is mass?
What is inertia?
What is spacetime?
Why is light always observed to be of the same speed?
Why is there gravity and what causes it?
Why is the universe expanding?
Why does time dilate?
Why does light have a dual nature?


Funnily enough, my theory answers ALL of these questions in one foul swoop and one day science is going to get egg on its face. I agree that my theory is not as yet attestable but I’m closer to understanding the real universe than science is.

I think that science should stop taking the piss out of crackpots and instead concentrate on answering the questions listed above.

Sorry Sleeper555, just needed to give you a head start.

>> But in theory in ranges less than a few light years UniKEF will result in numerical values consistant with the inverse square rule >>

well I have kind words and unkind words.

from what I have seen (read) your theory has some valid point,

but, it also has some invalid points....... but then again what theory doesn't....

If you agree with the inverse square law at distances under light years, well that is IMO a very bad point.

Thanks

Thanks again. As I said the actual scale has not been computed yet but by adjusting the diameter of the finite universe the value of gravity for galatic star rotation can be made correct (greater gravity than predicted by Newtonian inverse square) without Dark Matter.

It remains to be seen if such diameter is equal < > current observed universe diameter.

If equal or greater everything would be fine. If less then there is a problem with the concept. If it computes OK then it could account for the accelerated expansion without Dark Energy.

After that we need to compute Mercury's orbit and see if it also computes corectly. So there is a lot of work left to be done.

Dav57,

I sincerely appreciate your helpful hints. I am aware that much of what you say is true. However, I tend to approach things a bit differently.

1. I know that my ideas are probably nonsense and I am just looking to people more educated than I to tell me where the inconsistencies lie (or at least point me in the right direction). I try to keep within the bounds of current work, as the predictive models created have been too effective, imo, to be baseless. However, I like to use my intelligence creatively to look at things from new angles.... It helps me learn. I am not familiar with your theory, but if I'm going to take a "shot in the dark," as you say, it is probably full of holes. That being said, I would be more than happy to look at it and send my thoughts, for whatever they are worth.

2. I am grateful for any time and effort spent by people here responding to my posts. I know just enough to be both stupid and dangerous :D

I know just enough to be both stupid and dangerous :D

I doubt very much that you are stupid and good luck with your theory, but remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, extraordinary claims don't require any evidence.

No, extraordinary claims don't require any evidence.

They do if you want your claims to be taken seriously. If not, then you're right.

I wouldn't call my idea a theory... it's just a supposition. The impetus behind it is an effort to think of a construct that may allow for the following:

1. Discrete spacetime
2. Conceptual coherence of mass and vacuum
3. Complicity with observable relativistic and quantum formulas and phenomena
4. String theory

(should be simple, no?)

Again, it is probably just mental masturbation, but if there is anything at all to it, it seems to me that experimental evidence would lie in the realm of mass>energy and energy>mass conversion (hence my questions on this subject).

MacM,

Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, all empirical searches for "free quarks" and fractional charge have come up empty.

Perhaps certain vibrational energy patterns are only stable within a set a of adjacent discrete nodes, rather than one. This would explain why neutrons decay fairly quickly when freed of the bonds of the strong nuclear force.

UniKEF is a unifrom omnidirectional energy flow ... As it penetrates mass a minor {part} of it is either deflected by elastic reaction or an even smaller amount is absorbed, producing some heating. ...
MacM I have explained it to you before, but you are still confused about “elastic” and “absorption” interactions and although no longer ignoring scattering, which normally has a much larger cross section than “absorption,” you are not evaluating it correctly, even in general terms. For ANY flux traveling thru a collection of ions/ atoms like the sun or Earth, “elastic interaction” is not possible.

Even when an electron, proton or other ion, “flux ray” or unexcited atom collides with a neutral atom in its “ground state” and has insufficient kinetic energy to excite the “hit atom” to even the first excited level, the collision will not be “elastic” in the Center of Mass, CoM, frame of the sun or Earth, unless the hit particle is at rest wrt that CoM.

Momentum is transferred to the hit atom and this changes its kinetic energy state. The incident particle/ hit particle system can retain its initial kinetic energy in ONLY the CoM frame of the “hit atom” and the “incident particle” (This is because momentum is conserved in all frames, but kinetic energy is not.) This “two particles CoM frame" can not be the same frame of all the different hit atoms in the sun or Earth. Thus the appropriate frame to use when speaking about kinetic energy transfer to the sun or Earth etc. is their CoM frame, not an infinite set of “two particle” CoMs!

Individual particles have no temperature. It is not even meaningful to speak as you do about particles “heating.” I understand that what you mean is the comic flux absorption heats the sun or Earth by increasing the average kinetic energy (the temperature) of the sun or Earth but you seem to fail to understand (1) this kinetic energy (temperature, heating etc.) must be measured in the CoM of the sun or Earth, not in some two particle CoM. Only in the two particle CoM is an “elastic interaction” possible. and (2) in correct frame, what you call "elastic interaction" is not, but also heats the sun or Earth.

In the sun or Earth’s CoM, scattering without absorption not only makes the hit ion or atom “recoil” it normally is the primary mechanism for both momentum and energy transfer, because the scattering section (in barns if you like) is normally much greater than the absorption cross section. I can not tell how either the uniKEF flux scattering or absorption cross section varies with impact parameter or with flux velocity (flow rate?) and you refuse to do so. (This absence of information is one of the many reasons why it is impossible to actually calculate any “uniKEF gravity.”)

I consequently recommend that you modify uniKEF theory to include heating by scattering. I have also noted scattering is one way to justify your assumption that (after many scattering interactions) the “cosmic flux” far from matter in empty space is isotropic but of course "scattering heating" will cause the uniKEF flux to have various velocities or "non constant flow rates." To my knowledge, uniKEF flow rates or velocity distribution has never been described. This may be important. For example neutron cross sections on most atoms for absorbtion are much higher for "thermal neutrons" than "fast neutrons." You can not postulate that the dominate interaction of the cosmic flux is "elastic" as you do and must recognize that after "elastic" interaction in a body like the sun, the cosmic flux velocity/ energy content of the "elastically" scattered rays is lower.

I will not try to remove your confusion about “elastic interactions” not heating the sun or Earth again.

As a member of the "establishment" I would like to chime in here.

dav57,

You said, "Funnily enough, my theory answers ALL of these questions in one foul swoop and one day science is going to get egg on its face. I agree that my theory is not as yet attestable but I’m closer to understanding the real universe than science is." Now I ask you, what does this mean? If you can't predict the result of single experiment, in what way have you understood the universe? I will argue all day long that, given a system, if I can tell what's going to happen and you can't, then my understanding is greater regardless of the elegance or philosophical beauty or whatever of your understanding. Understanding is always functional, at least in principle.

I will admit that many scientists don't treat "crackpots" very well, and that is not excusable. But many "crackpots" don't treat scientists very well either, they tell us that our science is wrong based on their misconception about a theory or their personal philosophical beliefs about "the way the world really is".

You do have to be careful in a place like this. Many people here can answer your questions, but many cannot. There are more than a few people here who act like they know a lot but really don't.

"one foul swoop"

I believe he meant "one fell swoop"... or perhaps it was a freudian slip?

or maybe he meant "one fowl swoop" to further the egg-on-face analogy.

:D

They do if you want your claims to be taken seriously. If not, then you're right.

What is mass? - the magnetic energy of particles
What is inertia? - nothing really
What is spacetime? - a sensation
Why is light always observed to be of the same speed? - because the consciousness of humans is about the same
Why is there gravity and what causes it? - things are magnetic so they start to rotate and the rotation generates gravity
Why is the universe expanding? - cos it's coming closer to its goal
Why does time dilate? - because of our thoughts
Why does light have a dual nature? - the wave effect is because of the north and south poles of particles

....There are number of problems which I hope I live long enough to see the answer to.
What is mass?
What is inertia?
What is spacetime?
Why is light always observed to be of the same speed?
Why is there gravity and what causes it?
Why is the universe expanding?
Why does time dilate?
Why does light have a dual nature?...I would bet you die first, but don't as then I can not collect. :(

sleeper555,

You are correct that, to date, no free quarks have been observed. Something like fractional charge has been observed in fractional quantum hall systems, but the meaning of this fractional charge is somewhat complicated and is not associated with real particles of fractional charge.

Also, I will try to reply to your other post in more detail later. But something to chew on: up here at MIT there is a fellow in condensed matter theory by the name of Xiao-gang Wen who is a strong proponent of the notion of emergence. He has shown that starting from a lattice of spins (your discrete spacetime?), a kind of string description can emerge that contains in the low energy limit some of the physics of the standard model. I don't know if this is exactly what you had in mind, but your post made me think of it.

...I would be interested in the values your {MacM's uniKEF} theory would predict for the Earth-Sun three body problem. thanksYour "thanks" are premature. No one can exactly solve the "three body problem."
even with gravity given simply by F = GMm/r*r

MacM's theory can not give even an approximate solution to the two body problem of an isolated star and single planet !!!! - Calculate the force of gravity between these two bodies.

...but, it {uniKEF} also has some invalid points...If you {MacM} agree with the inverse square law at distances under light years, well that is IMO a very bad point. Gee. I must be really stupid! I have been wasting my time constructing several mathematical proofs that MacM's uniKEF is non-sense, when I could have just stated my opinion as you do.

PM,

I look forward to reading your comments when you have time to respond.

I think Mr. Wen and I may very well be on the same page (or at least reading from the same book). I would love to learn more about his work.

Edit: I found some of his work online: http://www.iphy.ac.cn/Chinese/zgclt/WenXiaoGang-05iop.pdf

http://dao.mit.edu/8.514/oup-prefintr.pdf

MacM,

Correct me if I am wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, all empirical searches for "free quarks" and fractional charge have come up empty.

Perhaps certain vibrational energy patterns are only stable within a set a of adjacent discrete nodes, rather than one. This would explain why neutrons decay fairly quickly when freed of the bonds of the strong nuclear force.
I'm no expert on quarks but I believe you are correct.

MacM I have explained it to you before, but you are still confused about “elastic” and “absorption” interactions and although no longer ignoring scattering,

Perhaps it is just your personality but you say things in a manner which are frankly insulting.

1- You do not have to explain "elastic" and "inelastic" reactions to me. To write what you wrote conotates you have been teaching. Frankly I have been trying to teach you but you refuse to listen.

2 - I never ignored scattering in the first place. Why would you state "No longer ignore"? Your writings makes self-serving statements which are simply false innuendo.


which normally has a much larger cross section than “absorption,” you are not evaluating it correctly, even in general terms. For ANY flux traveling thru a collection of ions/ atoms like the sun or Earth, “elastic interaction” is not possible.

So now you presuppose to tell us all about the UniKEF and its properties.


Even when an electron, proton or other ion, “flux ray” or unexcited atom collides with a neutral atom in its “ground state” and has insufficient kinetic energy to excite the “hit atom” to even the first excited level, the collision will not be “elastic” in the Center of Mass, CoM, frame of the sun or Earth, unless the hit particle is at rest wrt that CoM.

You seem to be viewing UniKEF as a bunch of pellets. The fact is nobody including me, have any idea what it is like and how it functions in any detailed manner. All UniKEF suggestions are made as "By Way of Example" and what the anticipated consequences would be.


Momentum is transferred to the hit atom and this changes its kinetic energy state. The incident particle/ hit particle system can retain its initial kinetic energy in ONLY the CoM frame of the “hit atom” and the “incident particle” (This is because momentum is conserved in all frames, but kinetic energy is not.) This “two particles CoM frame" can not be the same frame of all the different hit atoms in the sun or Earth. Thus the appropriate frame to use when speaking about kinetic energy transfer to the sun or Earth etc. is their CoM frame, not an infinite set of “two particle” CoMs!

Just how do you go from a one particle interaction which the function will be the same for every particle, to claiming infinite sets of CoM's? It is an unjustified leap.


Individual particles have no temperature. It is not even meaningful to speak as you do about particles “heating.” I understand that what you mean is the comic flux absorption heats the sun or Earth by increasing the average kinetic energy (the temperature) of the sun or Earth but you seem to fail to understand (1) this kinetic energy (temperature, heating etc.) must be measured in the CoM of the sun or Earth, not in some two particle CoM.

Damn it. Please show where I have said anything about a particle heating. I have only said the production of gravity causes minor heating of massive bodies.

That statement is nothing like you are inferring. You just keep making up your own concept of UniKEF and keep putting words in my mouth.


Only in the two particle CoM is an “elastic interaction” possible. and (2) in correct frame, what you call "elastic interaction" is not, but also heats the sun or Earth.

In the sun or Earth’s CoM, scattering without absorption not only makes the hit ion or atom “recoil” it normally is the primary mechanism for both momentum and energy transfer, because the scattering section (in barns if you like) is normally much greater than the absorption cross section. I can not tell how either the uniKEF flux scattering or absorption cross section varies with impact parameter or with flux velocity (flow rate?) and you refuse to do so. (This absence of information is one of the many reasons why it is impossible to actually calculate any “uniKEF gravity.”)

Absolute nonsense. UniKEF gravity does not require such detail. The mathematical process for the calculus integration and the multiplication of applicable terms is fully detailed. None require knowing the precise ratio and how scattering or absorbtion actually occurs.


I consequently recommend that you modify uniKEF theory to include heating by scattering. I have also noted scattering is one way to justify your assumption that (after many scattering interactions) the “cosmic flux” far from matter in empty space is isotropic but of course "scattering heating" will cause the uniKEF flux to have various velocities or "non constant flow rates." To my knowledge, uniKEF flow rates or velocity distribution has never been described.

Wrong again. The UniKEF velocity is stated to transend many multiples of v = c and accounts for not only the invariance of light but is the carrier for particle entanglement and tunneling affects at FTL.


This may be important. For example neutron cross sections on most atoms for absorbtion are much higher for "thermal neutrons" than "fast neutrons."

Gee :o as a formally trained nuclear engineer I'm glad you brought that to my attention.


You can not postulate that the dominate interaction of the cosmic flux is "elastic" as you do and must recognize that after "elastic" interaction in a body like the sun, the cosmic flux velocity/ energy content of the "elastically" scattered rays is lower.

I do believe you have just said that a scattered UniKEF ray has reduced energy. Imagine that penetrating a mass attenuates UniKEF casting an energy shadow. :bugeye:


I will not try to remove your confusion about “elastic interactions” not heating the sun or Earth again.

Nice that you know so much more about the UniKEF field than I could have ever surmised. :bugeye:

Have you ever considered that perphaps you don't know as much as you want others to believe? For example how the hell do you know that UniKEF is not simular to light in that moving in relation to its source its frequency doppler shifts changing its energy but not it's velocity. How the hell do you think you can apply what you think you know to something as yet not measured but merely inferred by the affects it produces?

It's properties are more appropriately described by it's affects than by conventional physics.

You have made it more than clear you do not like UniKEF, which is fine. But stop spamming the UniKEF thread and this forum with anti-UniKEF arguements which you simply fabricate based on things you do not know nor understand.

If you can't predict the result of single experiment, in what way have you understood the universe? I will argue all day long that, given a system, if I can tell what's going to happen and you can't, then my understanding is greater regardless of the elegance or philosophical beauty or whatever of your understanding. Understanding is always functional, at least in principle.


Like I said before, and I reiterate......
"Although we can observe and predict most of what is around us to quite a high degree of accuracy, and although we get some amount of comfort from knowing and understanding the effects of what we see, we are hopelessly in the dark regarding the TRUE causes behind the effects"

So don't get me wrong, I'm happy that we can predict the outcome of experiments and I'm completely happy with the methods that science has provided us with. To use what we have developed so far in science (for the purpose of measurement) is OK by me.

But, Physics Monkey, I'm NOT happy with the interpretation, if any in some cases, of the causes behind the effects of what we observe. And, to be perfectly honest, it's laughable that we are still so dumb in these departments!

So when will orthodox science answer my questions and satisfy my curiosity? How long will it be before we can answer these questions with respect to the TRUE cause and not just the effects.


What is mass?
What is inertia?
What is spacetime?
Why is light always observed to be of the same speed?
Why is there gravity and what causes it?
Why is the universe expanding?
Why does time dilate?
Why does light have a dual nature?

"one foul swoop"

I believe he meant "one fell swoop"... or perhaps it was a freudian slip?

or maybe he meant "one fowl swoop" to further the egg-on-face analogy.

:D

Freudian with a capital "F"

FYI.....


"In MacbethMacduff expresses stunned disbelief when told about the murder of his wife and children by Macbeth:

What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?
The phrase at (orin) one fell swoop has now been Betty Martined to ‘at (orin) one foul swoop’ because the meaning of fell has largely been lost. Fell originally meant ‘fierce, savage; cruel, ruthless; dreadful, terrible’ when applied to animals and men, or to their actions and their attributes. Thus in c.1400 in his The buke of John Maundeuille being the travels of Sir J. Mandeville knight 1322-56,the good knight quite rightly gives that mass infanticide Herod the Great the following hefty serve: ‘Herode was a full wikkid man and a fell’. And in 1688 Randle Holme in his The academy of armory, or a storehouse of armory and blazontells us that ‘The... Ban-dog’ [i.e. a mastiff kept constantly chained up because of its ferocity] ‘...is fierce, is fell, is stout, is strong’. A fell swoop, therefore, is a savage and murderous swoop, a thoroughly beastly swoop, a deadly swoop of the sort one might expect from a felon. (Fell and felon would seem to be closely related words.)
So much for a fell swoop. What would a foul swoop be? It is unlikely, I think, that users would have in mind a swoop that ‘causes disgust because it has an offensive smell or taste’, or a swoop that is ‘morally evil, filthy, or obscene’ (some of the commoner senses of the word). Perhaps foul in the sense ‘unfair, against the rules of a game’ is uppermost in users’ minds. A foul swoop would therefore be tantamount to a foul stroke and Macduff speaking today would probably complain that Macbeth’s slaughter of his wife and kids was most unfair and just not cricket!"

To MacM:

I was not speaking of uniKEF. That is why I included “normally.” I was merely noting that all known interactions of particles, beams, fluxes etc.
( I must be allowed to use some such term, without being told by you that I am asserting things about uniKEF, which I do not understand, etc.)
have larger scattering cross sections in atomic interactions with matter than absorption cross sections. The sun, Earth, etc. - All bodies of gravitational significance, are made of atoms, you know. :bugeye:

For example, the photon incident on black paint typically is scattered several times before one atom “eats it” / is excited by it. Perhaps uniKEF flux is an exception to this very general pattern. It clearly is exceptional in other ways. For example, since it is still here (gravity is not getting detectably weaker) and since you say uniKEF flux is heating things, it is violating conservation of energy.

which normally has a much larger cross section than “absorption,” you are not evaluating it correctly, even in general terms. For ANY flux traveling thru a collection of ions/ atoms like the sun or Earth, “elastic interaction” is not possible.

…So now you presuppose to tell us all about the UniKEF and its properties. No I don’t - See above. I would like a direct answer from you, as you claim it is possible to calculate with your theory. The simplest calculation of interest I can think of is the gravity force between the sun and Earth. We know the correct result, so we can check the calculation. To do this accurately, you must tell to what extent absorption cross section in solar core (by Helium) differs from Hydrogen’s absorption cross section. There is much more He in the core than in the outer layers as “fusion ash.” I have asked this question several times, with no reply. This lack of information is but one of many reasons why no calculation with uniKEF is possible.

Much more serious is the fact that you still do not understand what is required for integrations over your CoS etc., despite my prior attempts to explain. I even offered to help you with calculus and defined several common calculus terms and concepts for you.

It is not possible to integrate a verbal or symbolic intergrand (see my prior definition and explanations of this term). As I have illustrated with specific example, it is possible to integrate f(x)dx both in general or between two limits, WHEN and only when, f(x) is specified.

To repeat my prior example, if f(x) = 1 +x^2 is integrated the general result is x +(1/3)x^3. In the case of upper limit one and lower limit zero the definite intergal is (4/3).

You only give integrands of the form "U*~*PM1*PM2." Etc. They are impossible to integrate. You have not told the functional form or even what is (are) the variable (s)!

Your theory is totally useless.

...In MacbethMacduff expresses stunned disbelief when told about the murder of his wife and children by Macbeth:
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam At one fell swoop?...In prior post, I predicted you would die prior to getting any answer to your "why questions." I liked this post, as I learned from it. Hope you are in good health, and will do more of the same.

My favorite example, (not as erudite as yours) of the drift of the meaning of words is - The cop telling the the desk clerck at the station house:

"Book this Lady. She was drunk in the gutter again tonight."

dav57,

You have emphasized the word "true" when speaking of causes and indicate that science should be pursuing these true causes. I would suggest that it is possible for the notion of cause to become philosophical rather than scientific. Any scientific theory is based on assumptions. You can "explain" these assumptions in terms of other assumptions, but isn't it possible that at some level your explanations provide no new physical content?

What if the behavior of objects at the quantum level, for instance, does not have a cause. In other words, what if any "explantion" of quantum theory was in terms of unobservable quantities like in Bohmian QM. Such an explanation would not be scientific since it doesn't admit experimental verification.

I am certainly not saying that all your questions fall into this category, in fact many of them are at last becoming experimentally relevant. However, in some cases, the answer may be "just because it does". Thoughts?

... what if any "explantion" of quantum theory was in terms of unobservable quantities like in Bohmian QM. Such an explanation would not be scientific since it doesn't admit experimental verification....I was initially attracted to Bohm's view, but think I have a disproof of it. Very briefly, as it is off thread:

It is possible to send two electon waves(one slightly behind the other in launch time) thru two path inteferometer with differnet path lengths, such that the second electron's "guiding wave" gong thru the shorter path overlaps with the first's "guiding wave" going the longer path. Each must know which electron is its own to guide. Therefore, every electron must have a "unique name on it," as I put it, but all electrons are identical.

Been a few years since I read Bohm when this objection occured to me. If you can understand my drift, and have comment on this thought, or others about Bohmian QM, consider starting a thread.

BTW thanks for the display of "physics jewels" / std model accuracy i another thread.

You have emphasized the word "true" when speaking of causes and indicate that science should be pursuing these true causes.

That’s what science is paid to do, isn’t it?


I would suggest that it is possible for the notion of cause to become philosophical rather than scientific.

Yes, a very convenient ‘get-out clause’ when the going gets tough. If a notion of cause becomes philosophy, I would argue that philosophy becomes science.



What if the behaviour of objects at the quantum level, for instance, does not have a cause.

Everything has a cause.


However, in some cases, the answer may be "just because it does". Thoughts?

Physics Monkey, I’m too used to hearing these kinds of responses and I’m afraid I just can’t seem to buy in to them. I guess I’m just frustrated that I might not be around when we find the answers.

I guess my very small contribution to science is to get people to realise that the truth IS important. Forgive me, but I’ve got a weird brain and something tells me there is something very wrong with the fundamental assumptions regarding the model. There’s something weird going on out there and I’d love to get to the bottom of it.

dav57,

No, that isn't what science is paid to do. Science is paid to predict the results of experiments. To predict the most the with least. Science is not paid to "explain" anything unless this explanation has some testable consequences. Philosophy can explain whatever it wants because the explanation doesn't have to be testable. Science has a fixed definition in terms of predicting the results of experiments, if philosophy is to become science, then it is philosophy that must agree to be bound by testable things. I think most scientists would resent the notion that they are giving up on tough questions of science and using some "get-out clause".

Finally, you say the truth is important. In science, "the truth" must always be testable in principle. So I ask you, what is "the truth"?

dav57,

No, that isn't what science is paid to do. Science is paid to predict the results of experiments. To predict the most the with least. Science is not paid to "explain" anything unless this explanation has some testable consequences. Philosophy can explain whatever it wants because the explanation doesn't have to be testable. Science has a fixed definition in terms of predicting the results of experiments, if philosophy is to become science, then it is philosophy that must agree to be bound by testable things. I think most scientists would resent the notion that they are giving up on tough questions of science and using some "get-out clause".

Finally, you say the truth is important. In science, "the truth" must always be testable in principle. So I ask you, what is "the truth"?

You are entitled to your opinion, just as anybody is, but in my opinion, which I don't expect you to care about, you are wrong about some of your points. Humanity has long seeked explanations for the purpose of furthering our knowledge and making new discoveries. Science is just a tool for achieving our goals and it IS paid to seek the truth.

Read the first line at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

So if you, PM, are a follower of your beliefs, I trust you have no inclination to discover the truth and that you are happy to accept that measurements of observation and prediction of experiments are all we need to worry ourselves with. And that the causes behind the effects are of little or no consequence to humanity?

dav57,

I'm not sure why you insult me with the accusation that I am unconcerned with truth. You do, however, treat the "measurements of observations and prediction of experiments" far too trivially. This is the way science works, science is fundamentally experimental. I simply stated that not every truth is a scientific truth. No matter what your scientific theory, you always have assumptions. This is the nature of any logical system, and you cannot eliminate the assumptions. True, a sufficiently clever person could probably continue the chain of explanantion as far as they want, but you make the rather baseless assumption that at every layer these explanations will be scientifically testable. An example: there seems to be a finite amount of energy E available to us, and so even assuming this entire energy could be used at once, spacetime could only be explored with a resolution of roughly hc/E. Once an "explanation" requires a finer spacetime structure than this resolution can probe, we could never test it. I'm not claiming this example is actually applicable, maybe spacetime is already "discrete" well above this scale, but the point is that there are very probably limits to what science can test and thus limits to scientific truth.

Note also that the next line of your link says, "Such an investigation is normally felt to be necessarily methodical, or according to scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge;" emphasis mine.

dav57,

I'm not sure why you insult me.....


No, no, no, I don't mean to insult you. Don't take my comments as anything other than just an interesting discussion. I know you are very knowledgeable and I wouldn't disrespect you for that. I admire your knowledge, so don't get the wrong end of the stick. It's just that I search for the truth and I guess I expect science to serve me in my quest :)

dav57,

Thanks, and don't worry about my wild claims of being insulted. I agree that science can help you look for truth, that's a big part of why I do it. However, I think that some truth might be beyond science, if science is viewed as being based in experiment.

Thoughts?

You of course are quite right in that every answer raises further questions. However, I happen to believe that it is paramount of science to trace such questions as far back as is possible in search of such answers. However, many, if not most, physicists have opted to believe that no such questions are useful. I happen to vementaly disagree.

UniKEF is considered "Unbound Flowing Energy". Mass is considered "Compacted Bound Energy". That is energy moving in relavistic orbs. The compaction is typified by the E = mc² relationship. The phrase "relativistic orbs" means nothing to me. Also, how is the bound energy moving?


That is mass IS energy but in the form of a harmonic standing waves in orbs.Can you define a standing wave?



Absortion (inelastic) only to an extremely minor degree. Predominately by scattering or (elastic) reaction. The minor absorbtion component causes limited heating of massive boides as a function or in proportion to the roduction of gravity. That affect was predicted in 1954 and in 1964 it was actually measured by NASA.OK, work with me here. If a massive object suddenly appears (think of superluminal's Earth created from the muon frame example..), why wouldn't the scattering be equal in all directions? In other words, how then does another object recieve less UniKEF because of the scattering of UniKEF by the massive object.

The phrase "relativistic orbs" means nothing to me.

WEBSTER:

ORB

n

1 - a sphere or globe

5 - a sphere of activity.

7 - anything circular in form

vt

1 - to form a sphere or circle

2 - to enclose or encircle.


RELAVISTIC

I assumed most would know that means having a velocity in the realm upwards and towards v = c.


Also, how is the bound energy moving?

In an orb. :D


Can you define a standing wave?

A sinusoidal wave moving in an orb such that the nodes harmonically overlap producing a continuous unchanging wave which could be visualized as not having motion.


OK, work with me here. If a massive object suddenly appears (think of superluminal's Earth created from the muon frame example..), why wouldn't the scattering be equal in all directions? In other words, how then does another object recieve less UniKEF because of the scattering of UniKEF by the massive object.

Visualize two oranges some minor distance apart and two shot guns loaded a mixture of foam particles and lead pellets.

Now fire both guns towards the oranges in opposite directions along the line of gravity between the two oranges.

Where the foam scatters and hits only one orange, the lead pellets penetrate the first orange and penetrate the second orange with less energy. In the case of the first orange (a vector view respective of each gun) the full charge delivers momentum or force but in that vector only the lead pellets deliver less momentum in that vector to the second orange.

I hope that you can see that since an unequal moving energy carrying UniKEF along a given vector interacts with both oranges then the oranges become pushed together in that the second orange is only getting impeded by what energy was left after having interacted with the first orange.

...Everything has a cause.....Perhaps this is too philosophical for this thread. I would like to think this is not true. If true, you decide nothing. Best you can be is a random biological machine, but given what we know about biology (Brain cells dying al the time, many excitory and inhibitory synaptic inputs to each nerve that sum to make or not an action potential, etc.) withou a causeless "will" you are much more likely to be just a complex deterministic biological machine. I have additional thought (A theory of "free will" consistent with physics.) on this. If asked, I will post in a differnt forum.

WEBSTER:

ORB

n

1 - a sphere or globe

5 - a sphere of activity.

7 - anything circular in form

vt

1 - to form a sphere or circle

2 - to enclose or encircle. I know what an orb is. I still do not know


RELAVISTIC

I assumed most would know that means having a velocity in the realm upwards and towards v = c. what a 'relativisitic orb' is. If I assume relativisitic means "having a velocity in the realm upwards and towards v=c" then your 'relativisitic orb' would be an orb moving with velocity near c. I don't think that is what mass is.




In an orb. :D What does it mean to move in an orb? If you are thinking of spherical rotation, then your assumption is wrong. Mass is not rotating bound energy.



A sinusoidal wave moving in an orb such that the nodes harmonically overlap producing a continuous unchanging wave which could be visualized as not having motion. Close enough.





Visualize two oranges some minor distance apart and two shot guns loaded a mixture of foam particles and lead pellets.

Now fire both guns towards the oranges in opposite directions along the line of gravity between the two oranges.

Where the foam scatters and hits only one orange, the lead pellets penetrate the first orange and penetrate the second orange with less energy. In the case of the first orange (a vector view respective of each gun) the full charge delivers momentum or force but in that vector only the lead pellets deliver less momentum in that vector to the second orange.

I hope that you can see that since an unequal moving energy carrying UniKEF along a given vector interacts with both oranges then the oranges become pushed together in that the second orange is only getting impeded by what energy was left after having interacted with the first orange. Your example only works when the energy is absorbed, not scattered.

Your example only works when the energy is absorbed, not scattered.

Really. Interesting. Ever go to a carnival and throw the baseball at the milk bottles? Well I have and guess what when the ball hits the bottles and is deflected the bottle moves in the direction hit by the ball. So scattered UniKEF is a series of baseballs and the mass that did the scattering is the bottles.

Now set up two bottles some distance apart and have two people throw baseballs toward the bottles from opposite directions. Since the curtains are arranged such that the balls must hit the first bottle before reaching the second the two bottles are projected toward each other.

You are not thinking this through clearly. The scattered UniKEF transfers momentum to the first bottle and not hitting the second causes the two bottles to become pushed together.

Now arrange the same setup such that they throw grains of rice and some rice can get by the first bottle and hit the second bottle. In this case the reaction of the bottles is to move toward each other as long as more hits bottle one than bottle two. Just as a beam of UniKEF becomes attenuated by the first bottle before the weakened beam then hits the second bottle. Same result, just less total force applied to the bottles being pushed together.

BTW: Since you seem to claim to know that mass is not compacted energy in the form of a standing wave then perhaps you will educate us.

Tell us:

What is energy?

What is mass?

What is gravity? (and give a sound physical cause).

UniKEF would be a reasonable cause and the UniKEF CoS calculus integration matches observation.

Really. Interesting. Ever go to a carnival and throw the baseball at the milk bottles? Well I have and guess what when the ball hits the bottles and is deflected the bottle moves in the direction hit by the ball. So scattered UniKEF is a series of baseballs and the mass that did the scattering is the bottles. Scattering in and of itself is not what causes the decrease in kinetic energy. That energy is passed onto something else which is what I meant when I said "absorbtion". If the energy is only scattered, the outflow would essentially be the same as the inflow.


You are not thinking this through clearly. The scattered UniKEF transfers momentum to the first bottle and not hitting the second causes the two bottles to become pushed together. OK - call it transfering energy, that is a better term than absorbtion but the idea is the same.



BTW: Since you seem to claim to know that mass is not compacted energy in the form of a standing wave then perhaps you will educate us. I never said that it was not, I said that it was not rotational energy. As far as I know, physicists have ruled out mass as being rotational bounded energy.




Tell us:

What is energy?

What is mass?

What is gravity? (and give a sound physical cause). Don't be silly. I've never claimed to know what mass is beyond stating that it is a form of energy.




UniKEF would be a reasonable cause and the UniKEF CoS calculus integration matches observation. How about for a photon. How does UniKEF predict the path of a photon near a massive object?

Scattering in and of itself is not what causes the decrease in kinetic energy. That energy is passed onto something else which is what I meant when I said "absorbtion". If the energy is only scattered, the outflow would essentially be the same as the inflow.

If out flow does not impinge the second mass it contributes no force in the second mass and it is the in flow that is pushing the masses together.


I never said that it was not, I said that it was not rotational energy. As far as I know, physicists have ruled out mass as being rotational bounded energy.

Please provide a link to any such findings about what mass is.


Don't be silly. I've never claimed to know what mass is beyond stating that it is a form of energy.

No you specifically stated it was not rotating bound energy in a standing wave.


How about for a photon. How does UniKEF predict the path of a photon near a massive object?

You might be surprised to learn that UniKEF is quite simular in some ways to GR. UniKEF predicts a form of curved space. Distance varies with gravity and so does clock tick rate.

Please provide a link to any such findings about what mass is.

No you specifically stated it was not rotating bound energy in a standing wave.
standing wave &ne; rotating bound energy




You might be surprised to learn that UniKEF is quite simular in some ways to GR. UniKEF predicts a form of curved space. Distance varies with gravity and so does clock tick rate. You are quite right, I would be very surprised to learn such a thing. Unfortunately taking your word for it is not learning..

standing wave &ne; rotating bound energy

All I see here is an unsupported opinion.


You are quite right, I would be very surprised to learn such a thing. Unfortunately taking your word for it is not learning..

Since these are clearly expressed in UniKEF you have just made it clear you have not read it or understand it. So why are you commenting instead of learning?

******************* Extract fro Abstract **************

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/page4.htm

Fig's don't "Cut & Paste" click link to see it

Fig # 14: Distance as a Function of UniKEF Energy Density.

[067] Distance in the universe is a function of a quantity of UniKEF energy between points and hence varies with density. Gravity varies density between masses hence distance.

[068] Because a Bowling Ball (a) and a Ping Pong Ball (b) have different gravities to a common Golf Ball (c) the distances between a and c is different than the distance between b and c, even when they are arranged in what appears to us as an Isosceles Triangle formation.

[069] This is not as strange as it might first appear and is in fact merely another way of looking at the meaning of curved time-space of Relativity. Gravity by Relativity's GR warps or curves time-space and so does UniKEF.

[070] However, GR's field intensity contour lines representing "Field Depth Markers", would form static concentric circles (or spherical shells) around spheres since gravity is viewed as a local property based on the Center of Mass (COM).

[071] UniKEF intensity contour lines form dynamic distortions which have a maximum defect along the line of gravity, which constitutes the energy separation that is distance. Gravity is an externally induced phenomena by energy flow and attenuation of the masses.

Fig's don't "Cut & Paste" click link to see it

Fig # 14b: UniKEF Depth of Field Contours vs Variable Distance.

[072] In Relativity's GR "Depth of Field" describes the amount of time-space curvature and impacts time-dilation and is depicted as a gravity well or curvature of space around a massive body.

[073] It should be noted that energy density in UniKEF not only creates gravity and spatial dimension but that the flow of the energy causes the illusion of time flow. Diminishing the energy density in the production of gravity (distance or curving space) also reduces the illusion of time flow rate (dilates time).

[074] The difference is in viewing time as a 4th dimension vs as a property of an energetic space.

[075] The results are the same. While the GR view regarding curved space might be suitable for some purposes, it fails to encompass the variable distance consequences.
************************************************** ***

All I see here is an unsupported opinion. How can a standing wave be rotational energy?


Since these are clearly expressed in UniKEF you have just made it clear you have not read it or understand it. So why are you commenting?
I've seen your UniKEF website, it is lacking any tools from which one can calculate anything. Therefore I was asking you to demonstrate the calculation that leads to UniKEF accurately predicting the path of a photon passing by a massive object.

How can a standing wave be rotational energy?

I take it you have never played with a rope. If the rope is attached, with slack, between two spacecraft in the vacuum of space and they are in forward motion if the leading craft pilot jiggles the rope up and down causing it to wave and the frequency is matched to the forward velocity the wave stands still but moves from the leading craft to the trailing craft.


I've seen your UniKEF website, it is lacking any tools from which one can calculate anything.

There is a differance between saying it cannot be calculated and that it would require some diligent effort.

UniKEF is not ready to be spoon fed but the method for calculation is demonstrated in the calculus section and fully described inthe text. The fact of variable distance (curved space) and time dilation are expressed in clear language.


Therefore I was asking you to demonstrate the calculation that leads to UniKEF accurately predicting the path of a photon passing by a massive object.


Certainly it is logical since UniKEF matches GR or Newton gravity locally then it is simple logic to suggest that the curvature (hence photon path) is the same.

I take it you have never played with a rope. If the rope is attached, with slack, between two spacecraft in the vacuum of space and they are in forward motion if the leading craft pilot jiggles the rope up and down causing it to wave and the frequency is matched to the forward velocity the wave stands still but moves from the leading craft to the trailing craft. That is not rotational energy.




There is a differance between saying it cannot be calculated and that it would require some diligent effort.

UniKEF is not ready to be spoon fed but the method for calculation is demonstrated in the calculus section and fully described inthe text. The fact of variable distance (curved space) and time dilation are expressed in clear language.
That is not what I asked for. I am not going to just take your word for it, show me the calculations that demonstrate what you say. If you cannot show any calculations, then everything you are saying is just speculation on your part.





Certainly it is logical since UniKEF matches GR or Newton gravity locally then it is simple logic to suggest that the curvature (hence photon path) is the same. You have not demonstrated how UniKEF matches GR or Newton's predictions. Also GR does not match Newton's predictions.

That is not rotational energy.

If you cannot correlate such an example then you are beyond assistance.


That is not what I asked for. I am not going to just take your word for it, show me the calculations that demonstrate what you say. If you cannot show any calculations, then everything you are saying is just speculation on your part.

If you are to lazy or in capable of doing the calculation (since the method is explained) then your comments are without merit.


You have not demonstrated how UniKEF matches GR or Newton's predictions. Also GR does not match Newton's predictions.

I guess you missed the term "locally". I am rather glad that UniKEF does not match neither Newton nor GR since they are both false. I am rather pleased that it is only a matter of scaling the diameter of a finite universe to make UniKEF correct at galatic distances where GR and Newton have failed and require an AD HOC theoretical 5 - 10 times the observed mass. :p

If you cannot correlate such an example then you are beyond assistance. There is no correlation :rolleyes:




If you are to lazy or in capable of doing the calculation (since the method is explained) then your comments are without merit. If you provided the mathematical theory, I'd do the calculations. But all you've provided is rhetorical arguments without any supporting mathematical theory.




I guess you missed the term "locally". I am rather glad that UniKEF does not match neither Newton nor GR since they are both false. I am rather pleased that it is only a matter of scaling the diameter of a finite universe to make UniKEF correct at galatic distances where GR and Newton have failed and require an AD HOC theoretical 5 - 10 times the observed mass. :p Is Mercury locally close to the Sun? Does GR and Newton give the same prediction for Mercury's orbit?

There is no correlation :rolleyes:

I didn't think you had the vison, now we are sure.


If you provided the mathematical theory, I'd do the calculations.

So you need to be spoon fed and cannot think theoretically or cannot write equations given text problem descriptions? You make a poor theoretician.


But all you've provided is rhetorical arguments without any supporting mathematical theory.

See the Calculus section. Your statement is false.


Is Mercury locally close to the Sun? Does GR and Newton give the same prediction for Mercury's orbit?

One must use a common sense interpretation of "Local" in this situation. Neither Newton, GR nor UniKEF give precisely the same answers over various ranges of distance.

However, it remains to be determined if matching UniKEF to mercury's orbit, also continues to match the star rotational anomaly at galatic distances. But that is the current effort being undertaken.

As yet there is no mathematics showing it is not valid and what little does exist seems to be more valid than other theories.

I didn't think you had the vison, now we are sure. I am sure the both of you are quite sure and wrongly sure at that.



So you need to be spoon fed and cannot think theoretically or cannot write equations given text problem descriptions? You make a poor theoretician. This is stupid. It is not up to me to develop the mathematical theory for your theory. The fact that you do not present any mathematics to support your arguments makes YOU a very pathetic theoretician.



See the Calculus section. Your statement is false.
That section would be better served if you used the pages to wipe your ass. Not only is it hard to read, it is not even general enough to predict anything



One must use a common sense interpretation of "Local" in this situation. Neither Newton, GR nor UniKEF give precisely the same answers over various ranges of distance. What is the common sense interpretation of "Local". Mercury is more local to the Sun than the Earth.. Perhaps by "Local" you mean the gravity of Earth.. well that is pretty stupid.



However, it remains to be determined if matching UniKEF to mercury's orbit, also continues to match the star rotational anomaly at galatic distances. But that is the current effort being undertaken. By whom is this being undertaken?



As yet there is no mathematics showing it is not valid and what little does exist seems to be more valid than other theories. A theory lacking the quantity of mathematical predictions compared to other theories does not make it better.

I am sure the both of you are quite sure and wrongly sure at that.

I'll let my observation stand on it's own merit (which it clearly has).


This is stupid. It is not up to me to develop the mathematical theory for your theory. The fact that you do not present any mathematics to support your arguments makes YOU a very pathetic theoretician.

The mathematics are not theory. The mathematics describe the theory. The theory is detailed verbally and the method of calculation is demonstrated with calculus.

I suspect my abilities in the theoretical realm are superior to yours. But that is simply based on your responses and statements here.


That section would be better served if you used the pages to wipe your ass. Not only is it hard to read, it is not even general enough to predict anything

It would be best served if people such as yourself actually took time to understand what has been presented and used it rather than whine that the complete theory hasn't been spoon fed to you mathematically.


that is the common sense interpretation of "Local". Mercury is more local to the Sun than the Earth.. Perhaps by "Local" you mean the gravity of Earth.. well that is pretty stupid.

The only thing stupid here is your continued knit picking terminology. I have already expressed the fact that neither Newton, GR nor UniKEF predicts the same affects over all ranges. The fact that UniKEF predicts a more correct
star motion at galatic distances based on a calculated universe diameter and is valid locally puts it above the other two.

It does remain to be seen if the diamter is a sensiable one and if it then also matches Mercury's orbit. I damn well expect it will based on knowledge of how it deviates from the other two.

But certainly the absence of any falsification mathematics makes your statements totally arbitrary and unwarranted.


By whom is this being undertaken?

I will only assure you that they are more than sufficiently qualified in physics and mathematics.


A theory lacking the quantity of mathematical predictions compared to other theories does not make it better.

A theory that by simple math matches local gravity and galatic star rotation; plus predicts an accelerating expansion of the universe is far better than either alternative which are known (even with their mathematics) to fail.

I'll let my observation stand on it's own merit (which it clearly has). You observed that a standing wave was rotational energy. (Good Job by the way). Tell me, what about a vibrating rope is rotating? Show the merit of your observation.



The mathematics are not theory. The mathematics describe the theory. The theory is detailed verbally and the method of calculation is demonstrated with calculus. This is a beautiful display of ignorance. Have you ever heard of theoretical predictions? They are used not only in science but in engineering as well. Guess from where the "theoretical predictions" come from. If you guessed "parsing words together", you are very wrong. It comes from purely mathematics.



I suspect my abilities in the theoretical realm are superior to yours. But that is simply based on your responses and statements here. If only you knew what theory was, you might be able to get an argument off the ground. Unfortunately, this is not the case.



It woudl be best served if people such as yourself actually took time to understand what has been jpresented and used it rather than whine that the complete theory hasn't been spoon fed to you mathematically. I do not regard rhetoric as theory.



The only thing stupid here is your continued knit picking terminology. I have already expressed the fact that neither Newton, GR nor UniKEF predicts the same affects over all ranges. The fact that UniKEF predicts a more correct
star motion at galatic distances based on a calculated universe diameter puts it above the other two. I did not bring any of this up. I just wanted to know what UniKEF predicts as far as photons are concerned, that is all.



But certainly the absences of any falsification mathematics makes your statements totally arbitrary and unwarranted. What? I was responding to your claim: "As yet there is no mathematics showing it is not valid and what little does exist seems to be more valid than other theories." which is total horseshit for the reason I outlined.



A theory that by simple math matches local gravity and galatic star rotation; plus predicts an accelerating expansion of the universe is far better than either alternative which are known (even with their mathematics) to fail. So you claim. Show that your theory predicts what you say it predicts mathematically.

You observed that a standing wave was rotational energy. (Good Job by the way). Tell me, what about a vibrating rope is rotating? Show the merit of your observation.

I did not say I observed rotational energy as a standing wave. I said I view mas as a standing wave in rotationally bound energy.

I gave an example of a rope in motion carrying a wave which becomes standing. The fact that you lack the understanding that the rope moving in a straight line is the same as a rope moving in a circle with an infinite radius is not my problem. It properly describes a standing wave produced by energy with a frequency moving in a circle.

Describing spaceships moving in a circle with a rope connected seem a bit more complicated. The example stands.


This is a beautiful display of ignorance. Have you ever heard of theoretical predictions? They are used not only in science but in engineering as well. Guess from where the "theoretical predictions" come from. If you guessed "parsing words together", you are very wrong. It comes from purely mathematics.

Try guessing where mathematical formulas come from. The base theory and data. The base theory (along with an example of the mathematics) and descritptions of how the mathematics are to be calculated are given.

What you want is to be spoon fed. Those that actually understand the process don't need to be spoon fed they can do the calculations.


If only you knew what theory was, you might be able to get an argument off the ground. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Your arguement is the only thing grounded.


I do not regard rhetoric as theory.

I regard your posts as baseless rhetoric.


I did not bring any of this up. I just wanted to know what UniKEF predicts as far as photons are concerned, that is all.

And I told you.


What? I was responding to your claim: "As yet there is no mathematics showing it is not valid and what little does exist seems to be more valid than other theories." which is total horseshit for the reason I outlined.

Right. The fact that the inverse square has now been verified by a number of physicists and a calculus presentation made and the fact that it is simple mathematics to show that the function will deterioate with diatance as a ratio of the internal and external CoS calculus which is dependant upon the diameter of the universe, making galatic star rotation prediction a match, is not horseshit.

As I have already stated it remains to be seen if te calculated diameter is reasonable and if having done that UniKEF also matches Mercury's orbit. If not then I has stated UniKEF (without some bandaids like SRT has been given) would be dead. But that has not been done. What has been done is show the principle works at lease locally and at galatic distances.


So you claim. Show that your theory predicts what you say it predicts mathematically.

As I said that is being done but that does not alter the simply logic available to anyone willing to consider it. Your refusal to do so only shows a lack of judgement.

To recognize the facts as I have stated them is not to accept the theory. I will not accept the theory until it is mathematically demonstrated over the entire range. But to claim local inverse square and galatic star rotational match is assured. The prediction of an accelerting expansion of the universe is assured.

Only the mathematical verification that ALL points over the entire range fit remains to be demonstrated.

Further more UniKEF gravity testing has yielded data strongly suggesting it is the correct view and that GR is out. So my work, though not yet proven is much more than a bunch of parsed words.

It is much more than a bunch of baseless horseshit remarks by those that have not read it and do not understand it.

by MacM:

"To recognize the facts as I have stated them is not to accept the theory. I will not accept the theory until it is mathematically demonstrated over the entire range. But to claim local inverse square and galatic star rotational match is assured. The prediction of an accelerting expansion of the universe is assured.

Only the mathematical verification that ALL points over the entire range fit remains to be demonstrated."
================================================== ==============

You keep claiming your theory explains 'galactic star rotation'. Can you explain exactly
how you define your term? How are the stars rotating in the galaxy?

To begin with, the Milky Way galaxy is calculated to be composed of 90% dark matter.
A slight strengthing of gravitational effects over inverse square does not explain the
rotation of the stars within the galaxy.

Have you read of VIRGOHI21? It is about 50 million lightyears away in the Virgo cluster,
near the location of the 'Great Attractor' to which the Milky Way is being gravitationally attracted. It is thought to be the first 'dark galaxy' discovered. VIRGOHI21 contains NO visible stars. It was discovered by the observation of Hydrogen
gas in the RADIO frequency wavelength, nothing in the optical frequency range. The
rotational velocity of the Hydrogen gas suggests the galaxy contains 1000 times as
much dark matter as it does the hydrogen gas. Remember, hydrogen gas is NOT 'dark
matter' as it is detected in the radio frequency wavelength. Dark matter cannot be detected in ANY known wavelength, not just optical. We have telescopes that can
'see' in wavelengths from the new gamma-ray telescopes to the radio frequency wavelength.

Need more evidence for dark matter? The 'dark galaxy' VIRGOHI21 is interacting with
another galaxy gravitationally, galaxy NGC 4254. It has created a long 'tail' on galaxy
NGC 4254 through tidal action. And no, there is no signature of a massive black hole
in galaxy VIRGOHI21, at least not one with an accreation disk.

I did not say I observed rotational energy as a standing wave. I said I view mas as a standing wave in rotationally bound energy. Well that is stupid, there is no need for both. However, if that is your view, then so be it. I do recall there being strong evidence against rotational bound energy.


I gave an example of a rope in motion carrying a wave which becomes standing. The fact that you lack the understanding that the rope moving in a straight line is the same as a rope moving in a circle with an infinite radius is not my problem. It properly describes a standing wave produced by energy with a frequency moving in a circle. What I said is still correct. Standing wave &ne; Rotational bound energy. You are changing your story by now saying that mass is both and that each are not one in the same.


Describing spaceships moving in a circle with a rope connected seem a bit more complicated. The example stands. The example does not relate a standing wave to being "rotationally bound energy" as I had originally said correctly that they are not the same thing.


Try guessing where mathematical formulas come from. The base theory and data. The base theory (along with an example of the mathematics) and descritptions of how the mathematics are to be calculated are given.

What you want is to be spoon fed. Those that actually understand the process don't need to be spoon fed they can do the calculations. I am not asking to be spoon fed, I am merely pointing out the lack of mathematical theory supporting your rhetoric.


Your arguement is the only thing grounded. Grounded in reality, correct.


I regard your posts as baseless rhetoric. Well, there is no denying that there is no mathematical theory supporting your rhetoric, so your regard is baseless.


And I told you. You just posted rhetoric, not any mathematical theory.



Right. The fact that the inverse square has now been verified by a number of physicists and a calculus presentation made and the fact that it is simple mathematics to show that the function will deterioate with diatance as a ratio of the internal and external CoS calculus which is dependant upon the diameter of the universe, making galatic star rotation prediction a match, is not horseshit.

As I have already stated it remains to be seen if te calculated diameter is reasonable and if having done that UniKEF also matches Mercury's orbit. If not then I has stated UniKEF (without some bandaids like SRT has been given) would be dead. But that has not been done. What has been done is show the principle works at lease locally and at galatic distances. This is stupid.



As I said that is being done but that does not alter the simply logic available to anyone willing to consider it. Your refusal to do so only shows a lack of judgement. I did not ask for rhetoric. I asked you for the mathematical theory to back up your rhetoric. There is a difference.

Aer,


Well that is stupid, there is no need for both

So I assume by that that you can give an alternative description of what is energy and what is mass plus how they are related by E = mc².


However, if that is your view, then so be it.

It is until you or someone gives a better one. :D


I do recall there being strong evidence against rotational bound energy.

Ah, how could we have missed that. I think I recall you saying you read UniKEF but you aren't taking my word for it. Now you make a simple statement and we should take your word for it. :bugeye: I don't think so. I can't imagine that any research or study has addressed the issiue of mass being a standing wave interacting with a flowing energy.


What I said is still correct. Standing wave ≠ Rotational bound energy.

The fact that you lack the vision to understand it does not make it so. I have given a perfect example of a rope in motion with a wave which becomes stationary.


You are changing your story by now saying that mass is both and that each are not one in the same.

I have changed noting. Perhaps you are only now starting to read what I have posted.


The example does not relate a standing wave to being "rotationally bound energy" as I had originally said correctly that they are not the same thing.

Since you don't know anything qabout rotational energy with a frequency which can become a standing wave, I suggest your fiat statements are BS.


I am not asking to be spoon fed, I am merely pointing out the lack of mathematical theory supporting your rhetoric.

It is a misnomer to refer to a mathematical theory. Mathematics is no longer theory but a factual tool describing a theory. Mathematics are nothing more than shorthand for verbal descriptions. The verbal description is presented along with an example of the mathematical process. The fact that you lack the capacity to perform it doesn't make it non-existant.


Grounded in reality, correct.

Selfserving rhetoric.


Well, there is no denying that there is no mathematical theory supporting your rhetoric, so your regard is baseless.

If yo chose to say that complete mathematical support is not presented then I would agree. But your absurd use of the term "Mathematical Theory" and complete disregard of the fact that verbal description is the basis of a mathematical description shows your lack of understanding.


You just posted rhetoric, not any mathematical theory.

Once again it is not mathematical theory but mathematical support of a theory.


This is stupid.

Only if you chose to act stupid.


I did not ask for rhetoric. I asked you for the mathematical theory to back up your rhetoric.

It is not mathematical theory but mathematical support of a theory. That mathematics comes from the verbal description.


There is a difference.

Yes the differance is you seem think that a mathematical theory becomes reality (such as SRT) rather than mathematics which describe a theory which verball describes observations.

In the case of SRT theoretical descriptions are given for things never observed and unfortunately you and others seem to then believe the mathematics makes it become reality even though never observed.

What a joke. A verbal thory is much more sound than mere mathematics. Of course a verbal theory ultimately must be supported by mathematics.

But a mathematical expression can predict many things which have and never will become reality. Get your feet on solid ground and your head out of the clouds.

So I assume by that that you can give an alternative description of what is energy and what is mass plus how they are related by E = mc². I certainly wouldn't say that mass must be a type of rotating energy. Just because it is the only explanation you have thought of, doesn't make it the correct explanation.



It is until you or someone gives a better one. :D Then your view flies directly in the face of data that suggests that mass is not rotational energy



Ah, how could we have missed that. I think I recall you saying you read UniKEF but you aren't taking my word for it. I've never said 'I read UniKEF'. In fact, I've repeatedly told you that I have not.



Now you make a simple statement and we should take your word for it. :bugeye: I don't think so. I can't imagine that any research or study has addressed the issiue of mass being a standing wave interacting with a flowing energy. I did not say anything about a standing wave. I said that mass energy was not rotational. Why do you think a standing wave and rotational energy go hand in hand?



The fact that you lack the vision to understand it does not make it so. I have given a perfect example of a rope in motion with a wave which becomes stationary. I know what a standing wave is. I'll also note for you that you can have a standing wave without forward motion. I'll ask again, why do you need to have rotational energy with a standing wave?



I have changed noting. Perhaps you are only now starting to read what I have posted. Perhaps it is the other way around. You are just now startig to understand what I have posted. I said that a standing wave &ne; rotational bound energy. That statement is completely correct. The two concepts are completely separate.



Since you don't know anything qabout rotational energy with a frequency which can become a standing wave, I suggest your fiat statements are BS. I never said that you couldn't have a standing wave with rotation. I said it is not necessary to have the rotation. I will repeat my question again. Why do you necessitate the need for rotating bound energy?



It is a misnomer to refer to a mathematical theory. Mathematics is no longer theory but a factual tool describing a theory. Mathematics are nothing more than shorthand for verbal descriptions. That is absurd. I asked you for the mathematical model which would describe the path of a photon from the theory of UniKEF. Your "UniKEF Manifesto" does not talk about photons. I thought I'd present an opportunity for you to show how UniKEF works with a very simple example involving a photon.


The verbal description is presented along with an example of the mathematical process. The fact that you lack the capacity to perform it doesn't make it non-existant. It is obvious that you are the one that lacks the capacity to perform the mathematics. The theory is not mine, it is yours. It is up to you to show that it makes accurate predictions. And guess what, the predictions can only come from the mathematics, not the a crystal ball from which you may or may not pull "verbal descriptions".



Selfserving rhetoric. Selfserving horseshit.



If yo chose to say that complete mathematical support is not presented then I would agree. But your absurd use of the term "Mathematical Theory" and complete disregard of the fact that verbal description is the basis of a mathematical description shows your lack of understanding. Your arguing over semantics has reached a new low. Fine, call it "mathematical support". Where is the "mathematical support" for you theory.



Once again it is not mathematical theory but mathematical support of a theory. This is a BS semantics argument made up by you.



Only if you chose to act stupid.Who is acting stupid? Hint: you.



Yes the differance is you seem think that a mathematical theory becomes reality (such as SRT) rather than mathematics which describe a theory which verball describes observations.

In the case of SRT theoretical descriptions are given for things never observed and unfortunately you and others seem to then believe the mathematics makes it become reality even though never observed. No. I never said that the mathematical theory was the accurate description of anything. But at least relativity has the mathematical theory developed from which to make predictions. Your UniKEF clearly does not have any mathematical theory developed to predict anything.



What a joke. A verbal thory is much more sound than mere mathematics. Of course a verbal theory ultimately must be supported by mathematics.

But a mathematical expression can predict many things which have and never will become reality. Get your feet on solid ground and your head out of the clouds. The problem is, with out any mathematical theory, how am I to know what UniKEF predicts? Surely I am not going to accept your rhetoric that it predicts everything "correctly" without mathematical verification.

MacM you are wrong when you say that there is not mathematical disproofs of your uniKEF theory - I have given several, but rather than point out errors in the math, you reply: Bull Shit - that is crap etc.

I have patiently explained calculus terms and concepts to you even giving examples of both definite (limits were 0 to 1) and general integration of f(x) = 1 + x^2 which is {x + (1/3)x^3} in the general case or 4/3 in the definite case to help you understand that only functional expressions, not verbal descriptions, can be integrated (With ridicule, I corrected myself and admited that sometimes integration of words was possible (example “hot” and “dog” can be integrated to make “hotdog“.) It seems you are finnally realizing this truth as now you are calling others stupid, incompetent, etc. and say they should not need to be “spoon feed” with the math, as you have described how it should be done.

Well you must, at least, tell how your “verbal theory” depends on the terms you say it does. I have repeatedly asked how does it depend upon the density of the two objects attracted by “uniKEF gravity“. In case you did not know what type of answer I was looking for, I gave two possible answers:

(1) proportional to density. I.e . in the equations for uniKEF force there would be a simple factor multiplying the others (typically for density &rho; is used)

(2) because you said the dependency on density is in the terms “U” , “PM1” and "PM2" I also suggested (only as example) the dependency might be as {&rho;}^3.

Your response, instead of telling the answer, was to complain that I was making unjustified assumptions about uniKEF as I did not understand it. / Must read more of your web page. (I have found that it is not necessary to eat all of a rotten egg, before concluding it is rotten, so it is true that I have not read it all. At best it is ill define verbiage.)

If I were to expand your words into equations (show I do not need to be "spoon feed") I would need to postulate how uniKEF depends upon &rho; and many other things. If you cite my two examples as proof that I do not understand uniKEF, what on Earth would you say if I expanded your words into math that could be integrated by stating mathematically that uniKEF gravity includes a {&rho;}^2 multiplicative term??? !!!!! NO ONE CAN INTEGRATE UNTIL YOU TELL HOW THE MASS AND DENSITY TERMS ARE EXPRESSED. - don’t blame us as incompetent because you fail to even answer specific questions.

Now for the fourth time I ask: How does uniKEF force depend upon the &rho;1 and &rho;2 in the terms PM1 and PM2 and in the “U” term? I don’t need to be “spoon feed” but I can not invent “your” theory for you.

I expect that for the fourth time you will avoid this question with some new diversion, but please do better than last time when you took me to task for stating in words that the same number of He atoms in a box as H2 molecules would have “twice” the density of the H2 box by listing the atomic masses of the different isotopes of He, & H to many decimal places and asking me to prove that it was "twice". - that was you most silly diversion yet. And please stop bring up SRT, GR, etc that have nothing to do with this question as other diversions - You really do “duck and weave”

ANSWER THIS SIMPLE QUESTION. How does uniKEF force depend upon the density of the two bodies? (&rho;1 and &rho;2 raised to what power?)

Aer,


I certainly wouldn't say that mass must be a type of rotating energy. Just because it is the only explanation you have thought of, doesn't make it the correct explanation.

I would not hold that my view is THE correct answer. I do hold it may well be the correct answer.


Then your view flies directly in the face of data that suggests that mass is not rotational energy

What data. I asked you to post or link any such data. You have not done so. The most recent data I am aware of shows that atoms have the same particle/wave duality as photons.

Now that certainly suggests that mass in nothing more than bound-compacted energy. Perhaps you can give us a better description of how energy could be so bound other than being compacted into a swirling harmonic closed loop.


I've never said 'I read UniKEF'. In fact, I've repeatedly told you that I have not.

I'll go back ad link the post where you said you had and that you would not take my word for it, you wanted to see mathematical proofs.


I did not say anything about a standing wave. I said that mass energy was not rotational. Why do you think a standing wave and rotational energy go hand in hand?

Don't be silly they don't except under the tighest of conditions. Conditions which I described and that is the velocity of the orb, the circumferance of the orb and the frequency of the energy must be precise for it to form such a wave. It is nothing more than my speculation that mass has the form jof a standing wave. A standing wave is not necessary for mass to be compacted rotational energy.


I know what a standing wave is. I'll also note for you that you can have a standing wave without forward motion. I'll ask again, why do you need to have rotational energy with a standing wave?

As I just said above "You don't" but neither does rotational energy forming a standing wave violate anything in physics. It is my speculatin that is the case with mass. You are free to form you own views but your view does not trump my view. My view is consistant with other indications such as the duality of atoms and the generally accepted view of atomic physics where the atom is comprised of motion of its sub-parts.


Perhaps it is the other way around. You are just now startig to understand what I have posted. I said that a standing wave ≠ rotational bound energy. That statement is completely correct. The two concepts are completely separate.

But not incompatiable. And you have posted nothing to indicated it is not so or even that it is not likely so.


I never said that you couldn't have a standing wave with rotation. I said it is not necessary to have the rotation. I will repeat my question again. Why do you necessitate the need for rotating bound energy?

As I have stated it is not a necessity but it is more likely than not under the circumstance of other know features of atomic physics.

Perhaps you don't realize that the quantum jumps made when a photon are ejected from an atom are descrete as are the changes in energy level.

Those descrete steps suggest that the frequency remains fixed and that the radius of the moving energy components simply goes to the next or some other integer of frequency/circumferance.


That is absurd. I asked you for the mathematical model which would describe the path of a photon from the theory of UniKEF. Your "UniKEF Manifesto" does not talk about photons. I thought I'd present an opportunity for you to show how UniKEF works with a very simple example involving a photon.

I have told you before UniKEF does indeed discuss the curvature issue and that for all practical purposes at those ranges it is comperable to GR.

I
t is obvious that you are the one that lacks the capacity to perform the mathematics.

That has been a selfacknowledged issue. However, UniKEF has been reviewed by many physicists, mathematicians and other scientists. None of which have ever responded in the manner that members here have.

I have posted elsewhere a series of e-mails of a physicist that contacted me because he found interest in UniKEF and how he has asked my opinion on a number of issues. For the most part I had to give qualified answers since I do not have sufficient qualifications. But your (and others here) attitude is way out of line and inconsistant with the real world views of UniKEF.

True scientists see the merit and do not require the spoon feeding that you demand.


The theory is not mine, it is yours. It is up to you to show that it makes accurate predictions. And guess what, the predictions can only come from the mathematics, not the a crystal ball from which you may or may not pull "verbal descriptions".

It isn't my falut that you lack the ability to understand that it has been demonstrated by calculus that it does indeed produced the inverse square and that the process clearly alters that function with distance. Further that it is only a matter of sizing the universe to cause it to match galatic star rotation without Dark Matter. (Or size it to match Mercuy's orbit). that it further predicts an accelerating expansion of the universe at larger distances.

I have already stated that having done so it must result in a diameter that is equal to or larger than what we observe or UniKEF is falsified. It must also match both the galatic star rotation and Mercury's orbit to remain valid.

But there is simply no question that what I have claimed is true because it is nothing more than a matter of forcing the correct answer for one by selecting the diameter of a finite universe and then computing the other to see if it holds.

Am I saying it does? "No". Have I said it should "Yes". If it fails then I will be the first to acknowledge that UniKEF is not the answer. But we are not there yet nor are your complaints valid yet.


Selfserving horseshit.

Your postings are evidence enough. No comment.


Your arguing over semantics has reached a new low. Fine, call it "mathematical support". Where is the "mathematical support" for you theory.

Good. At least you are now using jproper terminology. The issue of mathematical support has been addresed many time. It is sparse but what is there supports the concept. It is further true that any mathematician worth their salt can do the calculations.


This is a BS semantics argument made up by you.

Not BS and not symantics. Facts.


Who is acting stupid? Hint: you.

More posting which requires no response.


No. I never said that the mathematical theory was the accurate description of anything. But at least relativity has the mathematical theory developed from which to make predictions. Your UniKEF clearly does not have any mathematical theory developed to predict anything.

Simply False. It is just that you (as well as I) lack the ability to use the information in a mathematical way. A mathematician good in calculus damn well can. Other physicists have demonstrated that fact.


The problem is, with out any mathematical theory, how am I to know what UniKEF predicts? Surely I am not going to accept your rhetoric that it predicts everything "correctly" without mathematical verification.

I have never claimed it predicts everything correctly. have been very specific as to what I claim. I have claimed and do claim that it has been proven to correctly predict an inverse square reslut locally. I have claimed that it is merely a mater of scaling the diameter of the universe so as to make the prediction of the galatic star rotation correct without Dark Matter. I have claimed and do claim that at greater distances UniKEF becomes repulsive and provides a bsis for the accelerted expansion of the universe without Dark Energy.

To these claims there is simply no question. Will the overall result support the view of UniKEF. Who the hell knows. I have said that if the diameter of the universe is less than observed then UniKEF is falsified. I have said if the universe is scaled to fir galatic star rotatin and Mercury's orbit doesn't compute correctly then there is a problem. I have said that if the universe is scaled to compute Mercury's orbit and galatic star rotation is not within reason then UniKEF is falisified.

To this there is simply no question.

Where do you have a problem with these statements?

nice job MacM - this long post of yours to Aer has by itself pushed my embarsing fourth request for aswer to simple queston: How does uniKEF gravity depend upon the density parameter &rho; ?- i.e what is the exponent of the &rho; factor? - out of sight!

I would not hold that my view is THE correct answer. I do hold it may well be the correct answer.

What data. I asked you to post or link any such data. You have not done so. The most recent data I am aware of shows that atoms have the same particle/wave duality as photons.

Now that certainly suggests that mass in nothing more than bound-compacted energy. Perhaps you can give us a better description of how energy could be so bound other than being compacted into a swirling harmonic closed loop.

MacM, if you believe mass is fundamentally rotating bound energy - I am not going to argue that you do not believe that. I was merely pointing out that even if mass is fundamentally a standing wave type of energy, this does not mean it has to rotate. Standing waves can exist without forward or rotational motion. That is all I am trying to tell you.



I'll go back ad link the post where you said you had and that you would not take my word for it, you wanted to see mathematical proofs.

Looks like you forgot to do this. Perhaps you realized that I never said that I read UniKEF.




Why do you think a standing wave and rotational energy go hand in hand?
Don't be silly they don't except under the tighest of conditions.
They only go hand in hand when you state that they both exists. Each can exist independent of the other.



My view is consistant with other indications such as the duality of atoms and the generally accepted view of atomic physics where the atom is comprised of motion of its sub-parts.
As I told you, just because there is motion, doesn't mean the motion is rotational. For instance, it is plausible for all the motion to be contained in the standing wave.


But not incompatiable. And you have posted nothing to indicated it is not so or even that it is not likely so.
I never said it was not compatible. I only asked you why you assume there is rotationally bound energy. Your response was that because matter is fundamentally a standing wave. That is not a valid reason because matter can fundametally be a standing wave without rotational bounded energy.



As I have stated it is not a necessity but it is more likely than not under the circumstance of other know features of atomic physics.

Perhaps you don't realize that the quantum jumps made when a photon are ejected from an atom are descrete as are the changes in energy level.

Those descrete steps suggest that the frequency remains fixed and that the radius of the moving energy components simply goes to the next or some other integer of frequency/circumferance. And why must we have rotational bounded energy for any of this?


I have told you before UniKEF does indeed discuss the curvature issue and that for all practical purposes at those ranges it is comperable to GR.

That is a sorry answer to my question regarding photons. Basically you are piggy-back riding on GR?

MacM, regarding the mathematics in UniKEF. It is clear that you do not have any sound mathematical support to provide any predictions. Your claim that I should do the math myself is rather retarded. I am asking you to prove your theory. I am not trying to prove your theory myself.

nice job MacM - this long post of yours to Aer has by itself pushed my embarsing fourth request for aswer to simple queston: How does uniKEF gravity depend upon the density parameter &rho; ?- i.e what is the exponent of the &rho; factor? - out of sight!

You have the audacity to comment about long posts. :bugeye:

MacM, regarding the mathematics in UniKEF. It is clear that you do not have any sound mathematical support to provide any predictions. Your claim that I should do the math myself is rather retarded. I am asking you to prove your theory. I am not trying to prove your theory myself.

I have no problem with your clarified comment. However, the assertion was that mass "Was not" a standing wave in rotationally bound energy. That was my objection to your post. I certainly cannot say it is. I do suspect that it is but that is two different positions.

However, the assertion was that mass "Was not" a standing wave in rotationally bound energy. That was my objection to your post. I certainly cannot say it is. I do suspect that it is but that is two different positions. I never objected to mass being a standing wave energy. I objected to the requirement of their being rotational bounded energy in order for mass to be a standing wave energy.

I have good reasons to suspect that mass is a form of standing wave energy, but I do not believe there is any evidence for or against it.

You keep claiming your theory explains 'galactic star rotation'. Can you explain exactly how you define your term? How are the stars rotating in the galaxy?

Star rotation is the term generally applied and it has to due with the orbit veloicty of stars (and gas, etc) circling the galaxy.


To begin with, the Milky Way galaxy is calculated to be composed of 90% dark matter. A slight strengthing of gravitational effects over inverse square does not explain the rotation of the stars within the galaxy.

To the contrary. The evidence for Dark Matter in the case of star rottinal velocities is the gravity required to hold thier orbits. These orbits are lightyears distant and gravity is virtually nill. Have you ever considered computing the centrifugal force of a star circling the galaxy over milliions of years? Not much there huh?

A slight change in the inverse square makes a world of differance.


Need more evidence for dark matter? The 'dark galaxy' VIRGOHI21 is interacting with another galaxy gravitationally, galaxy NGC 4254. It has created a long 'tail' on galaxy NGC 4254 through tidal action. And no, there is no signature of a massive black hole in galaxy VIRGOHI21, at least not one with an accreation disk.

You generally post well but you do have a tendancy to tell only one side of a story. In the past you have claimed MOND has been disproven. While yes there have been evicence which was inconsistant with MOND as advocated, I have also posted a table of question which shows that MOND answer far more questins correclty than does Dark Matter.

Neither are completely valid in all cases.

In fact here is the other side of the story.
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.edu/old_content/papers/moore/nature/natp1.gif

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/seri/ApJ../0346//0000648.000.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011013/bob13.asp

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/09/08/MN115389.DTL

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/astron/AST181.HTM
***********************************************

Even Dark Matter is being questioned. It is NOT the totasl answer. That is not to say that Dark Matter does not exist but it is to say that it may not be the answer to the star rotational anomaly. Its existance in that case is simply based on gravity required to maintain observed orbits and UniKEF can do that.

It also has problems as pointed out here. So don't be so cock sure all the time. :D

I never objected to mass being a standing wave energy. I objected to the requirement of their being rotational bounded energy in order for mass to be a standing wave energy.

I have good reasons to suspect that mass is a form of standing wave energy, but I do not believe there is any evidence for or against it.

Good. Then we are in basic agreement. I don't take the impression of such as being evidence of such.

MacM, regarding the mathematics in UniKEF. It is clear that you do not have any sound mathematical support to provide any predictions. Your claim that I should do the math myself is rather retarded. I am asking you to prove your theory. I am not trying to prove your theory myself.

I have stated what has been formalized and what has not. I have staed what is obvious and inferred. Enough said.

MacM, regarding the mathematics in UniKEF. It is clear that you do not have any sound mathematical support to provide any predictions. Your claim that I should do the math myself is rather retarded. I am asking you to prove your theory. I am not trying to prove your theory myself.

I have no problem with your clarified comment. However, the assertion was that mass "Was not" a standing wave in rotationally bound energy. That was my objection to your post. I certainly cannot say it is. I do suspect that it is but that is two different positions.





MacM, regarding the mathematics in UniKEF. It is clear that you do not have any sound mathematical support to provide any predictions. Your claim that I should do the math myself is rather retarded. I am asking you to prove your theory. I am not trying to prove your theory myself.

I have stated what has been formalized and what has not. I have staed what is obvious and inferred. Enough said.

So which is it?

So which is it?

You are now obliged to link us to these edited cut and paste versions of what was said where.

by MacM:


In fact here is the other side of the story.
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.ed...ature/natp1.gif
================================================== ============

I have only looked at this link so far. You did not read the article, did you Mac? The
title of the article was "The Evidence Against Dissipation-Less Dark Matter From Observation Of Galaxy Haloes". You obviously used a google search for something like
'evidence against dark matter' in which those words were contained within the title.
The article was not against dark matter, dark matter was accepted as a fact in the article. It was about the TYPE of dark matter, such as axions vs. light neutrinos. In
other words cold dark matter vs. hot dark matter. BTW, cold dark matter and hot dark
matter is NOT a description of their thermal temperature, either. Cold Dark Matter (CDM) does not lose energy through electromagnetic radiation.

by MacM:


In fact here is the other side of the story.
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.ed...ature/natp1.gif
================================================== ============

I have only looked at this link so far. You did not read the article, did you Mac? The
title of the article was "The Evidence Against Dissipation-Less Dark Matter From Observation Of Galaxy Haloes". You obviously used a google search for something like
'evidence against dark matter' in which those words were contained within the title.
The article was not against dark matter, dark matter was accepted as a fact in the article. It was about the TYPE of dark matter, such as axions vs. light neutrinos. In
other words cold dark matter vs. hot dark matter. BTW, cold dark matter and hot dark
matter is NOT a description of their thermal temperature, either. Cold Dark Matter (CDM) does not lose energy through electromagnetic radiation.

Oh, yes I did read it but combine it with the others and you will see that all forms of Dark Matter have some problems.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...000648.000.html
================================================== ============

This article is against BARYONIC dark matter in elipital galaxies from 1989. Baryonic
matter is ordinary matter, the article is supporting NON-BARYONIC dark matter. Again, you did not read what you linked to in your google search, Mac. This is a common habit
of yours. I have noticed it before, as has anyone else who has followed your links.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...000648.000.html
================================================== ============

This article is against BARYONIC dark matter in elipital galaxies from 1989. Baryonic
matter is ordinary matter, the article is supporting NON-BARYONIC dark matter. Again, you did not read what you linked to in your google search, Mac. This is a common habit
of yours. I have noticed it before, as has anyone else who has followed your links.

Stop making false assumptions. I did read it and when you finish, if you actually do, you will find that some links talk about CDM (Cold Dark Mater) and others about hot Dark Matter.

I saw clearly that they are now making up all sorts of Dark Matter as required to fit observation.

PS: You have not responded to the table I had posted showing MOND answering many more questions correctly than DM.

Are you really trying to suggest here that DM is proven absolutely correct. I would hope not.

Nor have you resonded to the fact that I stated DM may exist but it need not exist for an explanation in any specific case exclusive to some alternative explanation.

It is simply amazing how easy people get used to giving AD HOC matter AD HOC properties to satisfy a need for an explanation.

by MacM:

In fact here is the other side of the story.
http://www-hpcc.astro.washington.ed...ature/natp1.gif

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...000648.000.html

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20011013/bob13.asp

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...08/MN115389.DTL

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newto...tron/AST181.HTM
***********************************************

Even Dark Matter is being questioned. It is NOT the totasl answer. That is not to say that Dark Matter does not exist but it is to say that it may not be the answer to the star rotational anomaly. Its existance in that case is simply based on gravity required to maintain observed orbits and UniKEF can do that.
================================================== ============

Again, Mac, they were not questioning the existence of dark matter, only attempting
to narrow the parameters of its properties. And, no, modification of the inverse square
rule does not explain dark matter. UniKEF is a verbal ascertain that the inverse square
rule is 'incorrect'. UniKEF cannot explain gravitational lensing caused by some unseen
dwarf galaxies, nor the intense gravity generated by clouds of hydrogen gas with no
associated visible matter. UniKEF does not explain the 'vacant' areas of space where
immense quanities of ultra high energy gamma-rays are being emitted. If you knew more about 'galactic star rotation', you would understand that just stating gravity
decreases at less than inverse square does not explain the anomalies either. Are you
aware that ALL galaxies do not 'rotate too fast'? Some rotate in accordance with
convential gravitational theory since they contain little, if any, dark matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

by MacM:

"I saw clearly that they are now making up all sorts of Dark Matter as required to fit observation."
================================================== =============

I found this statement funny, Mac! I thought that was the way science was SUPPOSED to work. Make the theory to fit the observation, not the other way around.
Anyone can make up a theory that does not describe actual observation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by MacM:

"PS: You have not responded to the table I had posted showing MOND answering many more questions correctly than DM."
================================================== ===========

I embarked on a wild goose chase looking for your 'MOND table' through all six pages
of this thread. I found nothing. You mentioned MOND on the last page, but did not
post anything to respond to, let alone a 'table' or any answers given by MOND.

You are now obliged to link us to these edited cut and paste versions of what was said where. No I'm not.

Again, Mac, they were not questioning the existence of dark matter, only attempting to narrow the parameters of its properties. And, no, modification of the inverse square rule does not explain dark matter.

I have said Dark Matter may exist but it appears unrealistic to assume it is many different kinds with unique distribution and/or properties. It is being used as a bandaid in absence of actual knowledge of other explanations.

Specifically it may not be the answer of star rotation anomaly but may exist in spedific regions and configurations. But the likely hood is other explanations account for the majority of what appears to be missing matter and what is missing is a smaller amount of conventional matter which we cannot see.


UniKEF is a verbal ascertain that the inverse square rule is 'incorrect'.

We already know it is incorrect. UniKEF offers to make the required correction.


UniKEF cannot explain gravitational lensing caused by some unseen dwarf galaxies,

Now just how would you claim to know that. I certainly don't it has not been calculated and UniKEF does predict curved (distorted) space (not space-time).


nor the intense gravity generated by clouds of hydrogen gas with no associated visible matter. UniKEF does not explain the 'vacant' areas of space where immense quanities of ultra high energy gamma-rays are being emitted.

Perhaps not. But then I have never claimed it is the answer to all questions. Only an answer to what gravity is, how it functions and the accelerating expansion of the universe.


If you knew more about 'galactic star rotation', you would understand that just stating gravity decreases at less than inverse square does not explain the anomalies either. Are you aware that ALL galaxies do not 'rotate too fast'? Some rotate in accordance with convential gravitational theory since they contain little, if any, dark matter.

Specific detailed calculations must be made to determine the viablility of UniKEF in each galaxy type. Remember geometry and mass distribution results in different consequences and pertabations in gravity.

I have indicated before that UniKEF is not a uniform decrease but is a non-inverse square decrease which results in greater gravity and is full of pertabations.


I found this statement funny, Mac! I thought that was the way science was SUPPOSED to work. Make the theory to fit the observation, not the other way around.

Anyone can make up a theory that does not describe actual observation.

I believe you missed the important issue of AD HOC. That is the outright creation of things completely unknown that are then claimed to be real.


I embarked on a wild goose chase looking for your 'MOND table' through all six pages of this thread. I found nothing. You mentioned MOND on the last page, but did not post anything to respond to, let alone a 'table' or any answers given by MOND.

It may have been in one jof the other threads. I will repost it.

I'll repeat what has been said before and if necessary post an extract from UniKEF which states it correctly produces the local inverse square and by scaling the diameter of the universe can account for the star rotation anomaly where Dark Matter is mitigated or eliminated and can give cause to the accelerating expansion of the universe without Dark Energy.

I have also stated that I suspect that what they call Dark Energy is in fact UniKEF but they do not realize that it not only is repulsive but accounts for gravity.

Now no where in here have I claimed UniKEF accounts for all observations. Nor does Dark Matter or MOND. So your challenge to UniKEF is unfounded.

Replying to 2inqusitive (I think) or someone who said:
"UniKEF cannot explain gravitational lensing caused by some unseen dwarf galaxies."
MacM said:

...Now just how would you claim to know that. I certainly don't it has not been calculated and UniKEF does predict curved (distorted) space (not space-time).... This reminded me that I never got around to the reason for this thread's question.

I won't go into details or math (I don't want to be refuted by "That is crap" or called "a lying sack of shit," when MacM can not respond to the math.) so I will just note that as a large star shrinks down to a Black Hole, it is gaining enormus energy from its own gravity field. (Just like it did much earlier when it as a gas cloud it was shrinking and heating to fusion temperatures.) Yet the quanity of uniKEF flux it can intercept is proportional to its cross sectional area.

If the temperature is anything like a hot gas /plasma, then the density is increasing by factor of 8 with each 50% reduction of diameter, so it would seem to imply that eventually too much of a great increase in temperature and pressure would occur for an ever decreasing capture of uniKEF flux to continue the compression to the Black Hole.

Note also Zeno established a long time ago, that there are an infinite number of these "50% shrinkings" before it becomes a Black Hole. Thus, as the uniKFE flux intercepted VANISHES, the temperature and pressure go to infinity. - Must be tough for that tiny bit of flux still intercepted when the star is no bigger than the period at end of this sentence to compresse such a hot high-pressure object down 50% more, an infinite number of times still !!! But of course anything I note is just crap. :( So I will come to the point of this post:

MacM, please say a little more about how uniKEF "distorts space."

I am just guessing, but since the flux is isotropic far from all matter, I bet it has something to due with (and the distortion occurs in) the "shadow," however, even that shadow is still spherically symmetric, if there is only one mass.

Thus, would I be correct to think that the distortion of space only occurs in the "mutual shadow region" between two (or more obviously, but lets keep it simple and consider only two, OK?)?

I did not previously see any reference of yours to how this distortion of space modifies the "inverse square law." You claim that law is reproduced by ONLY the geometric analysis using CoS integrations etc.

Are you thus claiming distorted space has no effect on gravitational attracion? I thought it was well extablished (during solar eclipse the star field with rays passing near the sun's distortion of space even acted on photons. Einstine's big test etc.) Surely, "distored space" can act on planets if it can act on light. Yet your "proof" of the inverse squaare law ignores this. - Frankly, the more I learn about UNIKEF the less it seem to make any sense.

BTW what is taking your NASA fiend so long to refute a simple short math proof that the uniKEF gravity between two atoms on the spherical star's surface VANISHES as they apporach each other?

Sorry about all these questions, but uniKEF provokes them, if one tries to take it seriously - Perhaps I should follow Chroot and just use it for chuckes, when I need them.

Replying to 2inqusitive (I think) or someone who said:
"UniKEF cannot explain gravitational lensing caused by some unseen dwarf galaxies."

MacM said:

This reminded me that I never got around to the reason for this thread's question.

I won't go into details or math (I don't want to be refuted by "That is crap" or called "a lying sack of shit," when MacM can not respond to the math.) .

I had responded and you chose to ignore it and continue to post your false claims deliberately lying. That is why you have earned the title "lying sack of shit".

You started your mathematics claiming that the only force was that directed toward the center of the star. I pointed out that violates the UniKEF omnidirectional flow and you were not computing mutal gravity of the two jparticles at the surface. But you ignore that fact. Do not ignore the e-mail reply that I posted which also pointed out that there is gravity between every particle and it is not correct to claim otherwise.


so I will just note that as a large star shrinks down to a Black Hole, it is gaining enormus energy from its own gravity field.

Oh, goody, now you want to claim gravity is an energy contributor. Otherwise where is you energy conservation Mr physicist?


(Just like it did much earlier when it as a gas cloud it was shrinking and heating to fusion temperatures.) Yet the quanity of uniKEF flux it can intercept is proportional to its cross sectional area.

And density twit.


If the temperature is anything like a hot gas /plasma, then the density is increasing by factor of 8 with each 50% reduction of diameter, so it would seem to imply that eventually too much of a great increase in temperature and pressure would occur for an ever decreasing capture of uniKEF flux to continue the compression to the Black Hole.

So now yo know UniKEF precludes Black Holes? :bugeye: Amazing how you mind works (or doesn't work).


Note also Zeno established a long time ago, that there are an infinite number of these "50% shrinkings" before it becomes a Black Hole.

I think you are really messed up. There are no infinite anythings physical.


Thus, as the uniKFE flux intercepted VANISHES, the temperature and pressure go to infinity. - Must be tough for that tiny bit of flux still intercepted when the star is no bigger than the period at end of this sentence to compresse such a hot high-pressure object down 50% more, an infinite number of times still !!! But of course anything I note is just crap. :( So I will come to the point of this post:

Unfortunately you are assuming things based on your ojwn concepts.

1 - As crosection shrinks, density increases.

2 - UniKEF support the more realiztic view that there is a finite amount of UniKEF and at some superdensity it vbecomes completely blocked and further concentration of mass does not increase gravity.

Hint there are no singularities, where density goes to infinity and dimensions equal zero. Imagine that no such ridculus consequences an in your view. Hmmmmm.


MacM, please say a little more about how uniKEF "distorts space."

I am just guessing, but since the flux is isotropic far from all matter, I bet it has something to due with (and the distortion occurs in) the "shadow," however, even that shadow is still spherically symmetric, if there is only one mass.

Correct. But of course the reality is that there is always more than one mass. However, distance is a function of the quanity of UniKEF between points. Since UniKEF is attenuated in the jprduction of gravity the distance between objects varies as a function of their mutual gravity.

If you had reead the (4) page abstract you would have seen that explained.


Thus, would I be correct to think that the distortion of space only occurs in the "mutual shadow region" between two (or more obviously, but lets keep it simple and consider only two, OK?)?

I did not previously see any reference of yours to how this distortion of space modifies the "inverse square law." You claim that law is reproduced by ONLY the geometric analysis using CoS integrations etc.

Are you thus claiming distorted space has no effect on gravitational attracion?[/qluote]

Of courrse it does but in distances of day to day understanding and measureablility and in gravities we can comphrend it it wuld be virtually unnoticeable.

Read the abstract.

[quote] I thought it was well extablished (during solar eclipse the star field with rays passing near the sun's distortion of space even acted on photons. Einstine's big test etc.) Surely, "distored space" can act on planets if it can act on light. Yet your "proof" of the inverse squaare law ignores this. -

No it doesn't. You simply are oblivious to what is involved and how it is treated.


Frankly, the more I learn about UNIKEF the less it seem to make any sense.

Frankly the more you talk the clearer it is that you have no idea about UniKEF.


BTW what is taking your NASA fiend so long to refute a simple short math proof that the uniKEF gravity between two atoms on the spherical star's surface VANISHES as they apporach each other?[/qluote]

He already did. Did you miss it. Perhaps the comment about there must be mutual gravity between all particles was over your head. Your supposed proof claim states at the outset that there is ONLY a gravity toward the stars center. That is blatantly false and does not represent UniKEF.

[quote]Sorry about all these questions, but uniKEF provokes them, if one tries to take it seriously - Perhaps I should follow Chroot and just use it for chuckes, when I need them.

The chuckles are mine. The stupid things you want to claim are so clearly false it makes you look desperate or ridiculus.

I had responded and you chose to ignore it and continue to post your false claims deliberately lying. That is why you have earned the title "lying sack of shit".....The stupid things you want to claim are so clearly false it makes you look desperate or ridiculus.Is every one who dares to question your proclaimations "A lying sack of Shit"? Does refutation of a math proof by "That is Crap"? make the math "clearly false"?

You have never calculated anything with uniKEF. No one can until you convert it to a non-verbal form. You can not calculate with "U" depends upon density" - You must tell how (as the cube/ as the square etc.). Thus every statement you make about uniKEF is just your opinion / hope.

I have been able to use some highly symmetric cases (isolated spherical star) to prove mathematically that uniKEF is about as bad a theory as one can imagine in that as two atoms approach one another, the force between them VANISHES. (Conventional Newtonian gravity has it going to infinity.) That is not my opinion. That is unrefuted math.

I wait for your NASA friend to refute it, with something a little more mathematical than "That is Crap, you lying saack of shit."

As far as there being a lot of energy in the gravitational field that is converted into temperatature on the way down to a Black Hole, I call your attention to the gamma ray burster discovered 4 Sept 05 at 3:07:21 GMT.

It is now calledGRB 050904. In approximately 3 minutes, the total energy relased was 300 time greater than the sun will produce in its entire lifetime!!!

The great gravitationaly heating probably prevented its rapid collapse for several days, while it was observed in the IR. (It is the oldest GRB known - 12.7 Billion years ago it died to make a black hole.)

Is every one who dares to question your proclaimations "A lying sack of Shit"? Does refutation of a math proof by "That is Crap"? make the math "clearly false"?

Nope. Just the ones that continue to post crap claiming to have done something when it has been pointed out that they are flatly wrong. You started your post claiming (in the first paragraph) that the ONLY force involved between the two particles at the surface of the star was gravity toward the center of the star.

It was pointed out to you that UniKEF calculation for mutural gravity between any such two particles would be using the CoS along their line of gravity, not eachs gravity toward the center of the sun.

Your calculation merely shows that the gravity "Tidal" force is in equilibrium at the center of the sun. Having been told your calculations had nothing to do with UniKEF grvity between the two particles you continued to repeat your false claim all over this forum.

HENCE you earned the title.


You have never calculated anything with uniKEF. No one can until you convert it to a non-verbal form.


Once again you chose to continue to lie. While I have not calculated UniKEF using the available calculus, I have calculated UniKEF functions using trig.

More importantly you have been told numerous times that a mathematician can certainly do the calculations and the description of how they should be done is clearly described.

But you here still make the same false claim that nobody can calculate anything. Speak for ourself.


You can not calculate with "U" depends upon density" - You must tell how (as the cube/ as the square etc.). Thus every statement you make about uniKEF is just your opinion / hope.

More lying bullshit. How many times do you have to be told that U is not a function of mass density. That there is no cube function. That the function locally is inverse square as demponstrated by calculus.

That U and ~ collectively are the term "G" in conventional gravity but adjusted for the UniKEF integration by dividing the geometrical volumes of the masses by the UniKEF CoS integrated volumes.

Nothing difficult there.


I have been able to use some highly symmetric cases (isolated spherical star) to prove mathematically that uniKEF is about as bad a theory as one can imagine in that as two atoms approach one another, the force between them VANISHES. (Conventional Newtonian gravity has it going to infinity.) That is not my opinion. That is unrefuted math.

See above. You have only proven that you are a deliberate liar or an inept physicist.


I wait for your NASA friend to refute it, with something a little more mathematical than "That is Crap, you lying saack of shit."

Why do you also continue to ignore his statement about every particle has a mutual gravity to every other particle, just as I have stated above. You are ignoring the very issue you have claimed to have proven false.

Grade schoolers know that every particle has gravity to every other particle but that , by your own admission, is not what you are calculating and then claiming your result apply to those particles. It is assinine.


As far as there being a lot of energy in the gravitational field that is converted into temperatature on the way down to a Black Hole, I call your attention to the gamma ray burster discovered 4 Sept 05 at 3:07:21 GMT.

It is now calledGRB 050904. In approximately 3 minutes, the total energy relased was 300 time greater than the sun will produce in its entire lifetime!!!

The great gravitationaly heating probably prevented its rapid collapse for several days, while it was observed in the IR. (It is the oldest GRB known - 12.7 Billion years ago it died to make a black hole.)


And do? I (nor UniKEF) have any problem with that.

...You started your post claiming (in the first paragraph) that the ONLY force involved between the two particles at the surface of the star was gravity toward the center of the star. .... While I have not calculated UniKEF using the available calculus, I have calculated UniKEF functions using trig.....If I stated it as "Only" I was refering to the total or net force being radial towards the center exactly. If there is, for example, a force to the East, due to more easterly matter casting a shadow on particle "B" (call it Fe) then there is also an exactly equal an opposite force (call it Fw) caused by the shadow of stuff to the West of particle "B."

The net uniKEF tangential force in this spherically symmetric case is exactly zero. As the particles A & B approach each other the line joining them becomes more and more tangential. (It is always parallel to the surface tangent at their mid point on the surface.) This is another way to understand that the force between A & B in uniKEF theory VANISHES as they approach each other.

Glad to hear (be reminded) that you calculated using small CoS sectors (100 sectors, I seem to recall). Please tell me (tenth time I have asked) what was the value, functional form, of the density dependance of your term "U" ?

If you want others to be able to calculate anything you must tell.

Again I tell you I know how to derive what it must be to form black holes but will not tell you until you apoligize for your name calling.

...How many times do you have to be told that U is not a function of mass density. That there is no cube function....Do you want me to dig up and repost again where you say that "U" "depends upon density" and again repost where I say that I do not know how uniKEF goes with density?

I mentioned AS AN EXAMPLE (so you would understand what I mean by "functional form") the possibility it might goes as the cube and also the possibility that it might go only as linear.

You repeated try to make it appear as I stated it goes as the cube. As I have dug this up before, I can do so again but it only shows who is a "lying sack of shit" so I will not do it again unless you ask.

...And do? I (nor UniKEF) have any problem with that.{gravity being sourve of great heating during black hole formation.} It sure seeemed like you did when you posted:

Oh, goody, now you want to claim gravity is an energy contributor. Otherwise where is you energy conservation Mr physicist?

If I stated it as "Only" I was refering to the total or net force being radial towards the center exactly. If there is, for example, a force to the East, due to more easterly matter casting a shadow on particle "B" (call it Fe) then there is also an exactly equal an opposite force (call it Fw) caused by the shadow of stuff to the West of particle "B."

The net uniKEF tangential force in this spherically symmetric case is exactly zero. As the particles A & B approach each other the line joining them becomes more and more tangential. (It is always parallel to the surface tangent at their mid point on the surface.) This is another way to understand that the force between A & B in uniKEF theory VANISHES as they approach each other.

Glad to hear (be reminded) that you calculated using small CoS sectors (100 sectors, I seem to recall). Please tell me (tenth time I have asked) what was the value, functional form, of the density dependance of your term "U" ?

If you want others to be able to calculate anything you must tell.

Again I tell you I know how to derive what it must be to form black holes but will not tell you until you apoligize for your name calling.

Rather than chasing you around to continually (10 times now) correct your bullshit claims click here.

to MacM :
I am still waiting for your NASA friend to refute my short proof that the force between two atome VANISHES as they approach each other more mathematically than "that is bull shit, you lying sack of shit" etc.

While I wait, here is some more for you to refute with "that is crap" but note I tried to come as close to your integration over CoS etc as is possible given you do not tell the mathematical funcitons of how the absorption depends upon density etc. (The eleven time now I ask: is it by the cube, by the sqrt, by the square, etc. - give a math expression, not just state that your terms "U" and "~" depends upon density).

There was an error in the post that was here. I called fR and fr the fractions absorbed where as they are the fractions of flux transmitted. I must re due derivation and see what falls out. this error was caused by notational change while deriving the results. I will repost later, when corrected.

to MacM :
I am still waiting for your NASA friend to refute my short proof that the force between two atome VANISHES as they approach each other more mathematically than "that is bull shit, you lying sack of shit" etc.


Like I said I am not chasing you around correcting your bullshit. See here

When I post I will post his work on UniKEF showing how totally irrational you are.

to MacM :
I am still waiting for your NASA friend to refute my short proof that the force between two atome VANISHES as they approach each other more mathematically than "that is bull shit, you lying sack of shit" etc.
An imaginary friend not giving a substantial disproof here or MacM's lack of mathematical ability to disprove your claims does not mean that a disproof doesn't exist. Example: The disproof I gave you. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=887402#post887402)

An imaginary friend not giving a substantial disproof here or MacM's lack of mathematical ability to disprove your claims does not mean that a disproof doesn't exist. Example: The disproof I gave you. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=887402#post887402)

While I appreciate your efforts to correct Billy T I do have to make the following exceptions.

1 - He is not some imaginary friend. He is a Phd Physicist currently at NASA. He is in fact doing UniKEF calculus. He did in fact respond to Billy T's assertions.

He stated clearly that each particle has a mutual gravity. That being said it is totally irrelevant to respond mathematically to the assertion made by Billy T where he claimed in his first paragraph that there were no forces between the particles but ONLY a force on each particle toward the center.

That shows so little understanding as to not merit any further debate, as I am sure this Phd will not waste his time. Nor will I.

2 - Billy T has been told by myself and yourself that his assumptions are in gross error regarding forces of an omnidirectional flux. His mathematics simply has nothing to do with the mutual gravity force using the UniKEF CoS integration.

There is nothing to disprove. His "Proof" is (as has been explained) grossly flawed and inapplicable.

Your exceptions are all valid. For the record, I did not mean to imply that you have "imaginary friends" or lack mathematical abilities, but was only playing on some assumptions that Billy T may have.

An imaginary friend not giving a substantial disproof here or MacM's lack of mathematical ability to disprove your claims does not mean that a disproof doesn't exist. Example: The disproof I gave you. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=887402#post887402)Here is the totality of your {Aer's} rebutal of my proof that the force between two atoms in the spherical isolated star case VANISHES as they approach one another:


F_net = &sum;(F_{r_k})r + &sum;(F_{&theta;_k})&theta; + &sum;(F_{&phi;_k})&phi; = F_rr

where r & &theta; & &phi; are unit vectors.

In this case, both &sum;(F_{&theta;_k})&theta; and &sum;(F_{&phi;_k})&phi; will sum to zero by symmetry. But note that the contribution for atoms individually will not be zero in the &theta; & &phi; directions.
There were other parts to your post, but they did not concern the isolated spherical star geometry case.

We, fortunately agree that the non radial terms total zero and you are correct that, in principle, this zero sum fact does not rule out the case that there are many pairs of cancelling non zero forces acting on the atoms individually, but it certainly does not proof it either. It is possible also that there are triads of forces that add to zero (for example three equal magnitude forces acting at 120 degrees from each other, etc. for four at 90 degrees, and even more complex set that all mutually cancel out.)

I even agree that one can construct such complex set of non zero force by sub dividing the symmetric star into two hemispheres (or other partial sectors).

For example: Divide the star by an "equator" that passes thru atom B. You never defined the directions of unit vectors &theta; & &phi;, but let &theta;, be along this equator and I will call the hemisphere with &phi; > 0 the "+hemisphere" and the one with &phi; < 0 the "-hemisphere" or just +H & -H regions.

Assume atom "A" is in the +H region. It is true that the shadow cast by the +H region on atom "B" would make a non-radial non-zero force on atom B that may have a non zero component in the direction of atom "A," If it were not for the fact that there is an exactly cancelling shadow from the -H region.

Summary: It does not matter whether you take only pairs of atoms symetrically placed in the +H & -H regions wrt to atom B
OR,
sets of N symetricly placed atoms in both the +H & -H regions,
OR
All of the atoms in the +H region cancelling out the force from all of the -H region atoms
THERE IS NO NON-RADIAL FORCE ACTING ON ATOM "B"

By hypothesis, Atom "A" is on the surface, like atom B. Thus it is not in the radial direction from atom B. Thus there is not force on B directed towards A as they approach each other. There is force on B towards A if A is on the opposite side of the star (the Weight of atom B, W).

When A is only 90 rather than 180 degrees away the componet of radial force W in the direction of A is only {W/sqrt(2)}. When there angular separation is only 60 degrees, the force on B towards A is reduced to W/2. etc. The closer they come together, the less is the force on B towards A. As I said, as I proved,and you have not shown false: the force on B towards A VANISHES as they approach one another.

You have only correctly claimed that in a zero sum total there may be non zero cancelling terms. SO WHAT !!! THE FORCE ON "B" TOWARDS "A" VANNISHS in the limit of zero separation.

If you wish to show that there is a non zero force on B towards A in the limit as their separation approaces zero, do so.

... He is a Phd Physicist currently at NASA. He is in fact doing UniKEF calculus. He did in fact respond to Billy T's assertions. He stated clearly that each particle has a mutual gravity. ...His {Billy T's} "Proof" is (as has been explained) grossly flawed and inapplicable.I think Aer is correct and your friend is imaginary. Because you now claim he is responding to me, I think you are delusional.

He has not posted anything here, and I do not take your word about what your imaginary friend is saying to you.

If he thinks uniKEF is even 1% of the wondrous explanation of expansion of the universe, dark matter, dark energy, errors in spiral galaxies, the cause of gravity, etc. etc. he should publicly step forward and be proud to have assisted you to get the recognition you deserve, be writing to the Nobel physics prize committee, science journal etc. all sorts of efforts to praise uniKEF as the solution to a vast number of current physics mysteries. WHY is he hiding his identity?

I am familiar with your assertions that my proofs are all false and must admit that this time they are at least not vulgar, but still stubbornly ask for at least an indication of at least one SPECIFIC point where I may have made error in the derivations. Is it too much to ask for one specific point because your assertions are infallible? Who made you the pope?

To Aer:

Although you often provoke trivial, off-thread, discussions, you are intelligent and non delusional, so I have been studying your rebuttal of my proof that the force on atom “B” in the direction of atom “A” VANISHES as the two atoms approach one another in the spherical geometry case, tying to understand why you think it is a rebuttal.

Perhaps I now understand why you think this. (I am just guessing about your thought process so I may be entirely wrong about it.):

Starting from the basic postulate of Newtonian gravity, that the force on “b” due to the gravity that is intrinsic and unexplained** to all mass, including mass “a,” namely, Fba = G(Ma)(Mb)/Rab*Rab, where * is the dot product of the two vectors Rab. (Sorry but I do not have your patience to make vectors bold etc. except the first time.) one need not show that there is a force between “a” and “b” given by this formulae - That is the starting postulate.

From this Newtonian postulate one can derive that in the spherical uniform density star case, (1) that there is a gravitational force outside the star that is exactly the same as if all the mass were concentrated at the center of the star and (2) that the net (total) force on every atom of the star is radially directed towards the center of the star. (3) and other thing such as that for interior atoms this radial force magnitude is produced by only the mass more interior. Etc.

Thus it is true that there is no net force on the atom B in the direction of atom A in the case of a Newtonian gravity starting point as atoms A & B approach each other, in the spherically symmetric star case, just as I derive in my proof starting from the uniKEF postulate of isotropic momentum-carrying flux far from all matter except an isolated star.

Starting from the uniKEF postulate in the isolated uniformly dense star case it is even easier to derive (by symmetry argument alone) that the force on each atom is radially inward; however, one must derive that there is the same "Newtonian formulae" for the force between two atoms (presumably by considering the shadows that exist due to absorption in various parts of the star). You have not done this. You have only shown that it is possible for there to be pairs of non-zero, non-radial, forces (or more complex sets of non-zero, non-radial, forces) that mutually cancel out in the summation of all forces to make the total force purely radial.

I think it possible that you, like me, believe that Fba = G(Ma)(Mb)/Rab*Rab is true and thus think that it is not necessary to show that this result can be derived from the uniKEF starting postulate.

Your (and my) belief that this is true, is not the same as deriving it from the uniKEF postulate. I do not think such a derivations is possible for two atoms “A” & “B” in part because each atom makes essentially negligible contribution to the shadow that exist on the other, when compared to the shadow cast by all the other atoms of the star.

I invite you to try to derive this Newtonian gravity formulae for two atoms one centimeter apart on the surface of a star of typical solar density and size.

Merely noting that it is possible that such a Newtonian force between atoms is contained in the sum over the &theta; or &phi; directions is not sufficient to prove that there is such a force with this exact form acting between the atoms for all possible separations of them. For example, I can note that it is possible that in the sum, S, that totals zero, it is possible there are two terms (-12345 & +12345) included among the many terms contributing to S, but this does not prove that either -12345 or +12345 is in fact included in the sum.

Thus, until you show that this Newtonian formulae result is latent in that uniKEF postulate, my proof stands.
__________________________________________________ __
**Although it certainly is not an irrefutable explanation of why there is intrinsic gravity in all matter, I tend to think the reason is at least related to the following idea:

Once, in the early life of the universe, there was no matter, only energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, matter began to condense out of the energy in accord with E = mc^2 amount of energy making a mass m, but that not all of the energy associated with formation of mass m condensed into a small finite region. Some of this energy has remained infinite in extent. - We call this infinite extent energy associated with each mass m formed: “the energy of the gravitational field” belonging to (or intrinsic in) mass m.

I like this explanation much more that MacM’s uniKEF explanation of why gravity exists, for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact it is consistent with the conservation of energy and uniKEF is not (uniKEF flux is constantly being absorbed and heating the planets etc. yet constantly more is coming into to existence in violation of conservation of energy.). Personally, if given a choice between two theories, one of which conserves energy and the other of which does not, my choice is clear, is not your’s also?

We, fortunately agree that the non radial terms total zero and you are correct that, in principle, this zero sum fact does not rule out the case that there are many pairs of cancelling non zero forces acting on the atoms individually, but it certainly does not proof it either.

Billy T, it is not up to me to prove that these exist but cancel out. I am telling you that they exist and cancel out. How do I know? Because that is exactly what MacM said.

Your proof's premise is borderline stupidity.

You only know that there exists a net force in the radial direction. So you extract this to mean that there is only a force in the radial direction and any other forces that could cancel out just do not exist. Sorry, but that does not follow from what we know, which is only that there is a net force in the radial direction.



If you wish to show that there is a non zero force on B towards A in the limit as their separation approaces zero, do so.

I only would have to place two atoms (assuming a shape for the atoms as a sphere) side by side and do the integral analysis as described by MacM. One thing I can say with certainty is that it does not approach 0.



Perhaps I now understand why you think this. (I am just guessing about your thought process so I may be entirely wrong about it.):

Starting from the basic postulate of Newtonian gravity,

My thought process have nothing to do with Newtonian gravity. It only involves the following:

Your assumption does not follow from what is known.

Your assumption: A net force in the radial direction implies there are no forces acting in any other direction.

This just is not true. If equal and opposite forces are acting on a body (which will happen in the &theta; and &phi; directions by symmetry<span title='This is key!' style='letter-spacing:2px;'> and logic</span>) then, the net force in the direction of the equal and opposite forces will be 0. Does that mean that the equal and opposite forces are 0? No, it does not.

So therefore, only knowing the net force in the radial direction, tells us nothing of the individual forces acting on each atom. Specifically, we know nothing of the forces in the other directions, nor do we know how many forces are acting in each direction.

Billy T, ...You only know that there exists a net force in the radial direction. So you extract this to mean that there is only a force in the radial direction and any other forces that could cancel out just do not exist. Sorry, but that does not follow from what we know, which is only that there is a net force in the radial direction. ...
So therefore, only knowing the net force in the radial direction, tells us nothing of the individual forces acting on each atom. Specifically, we know nothing of the forces in the other directions, nor do we know how many forces are acting in each direction.I think you now know I have always agreed on this, and that I never said it did. This achieved after several exchange in the uniKEF analysis thread where I said (and reproduced earlier post to prove) that I never assumed or belived that a sum of terms being zero implies anything about any specific term in the sum. There you had also accused me of this silly error. You said:

...just because we know the net force in a particular direction is 0 does not mean that all forces acting in that direction are 0! ... and I replied:

...I have never said or assumed that all forces individually acting were zero. Please reproduce where I have said such a foolish thing. I challenge you to quote me making this assumption/ error.

In fact, I have at several times said just the opposite that there can be many non-zero forces, force pair, force triplets, etc. (even illustrating some of these) or even half of all the atoms of the star making net force from the +H region and this force being exactly cancelled by the force from the -H region, (a hemisphere of the star, well defined in prior post).

Where do you get the idea that I think a zero sum can only be made if all of the terms of the sum are zero? - That is a crazzy idea and we both have illustrated it is crazzy - (You with the example of six terms 1-1 +2 -2 + 3-3 and me with +12345 -12345 and several verbal statments.)
I also found a much earlier posting of mine proving that I acknowledged, discussed, and illustrated some of these non-zero, but cancelling forces included in the zero sum:

I specifically allow (and grant to you) that there may be a force on atom B to the west due to the uniKEF shadow casts by matter on the East side. (I called it Fw, if i remember correctly.) I continued on to note that there is an exactly equal and opposite force Fe towards the East acting on B due to the shadow from stuff on the west side of atom B. etc. but had to correct minor error in it as follows:
“I note now that the force on B from the shadow due to / made by / matter to the East is to the East, not the West, as I stated too quickly back them, but the reason why I now re-quote it is to further illustrate that I have never thought or assumed that just because a sum is zero that all the terms in the sum must be zero.”

Fortunately, after this proof, you now understand that I was not making the mistake of thinking a zero sum implies each term in the sum is zero, so this post is just to state here for people who have not read the uniKEF analysis thread recently that your idea that I was thinking that zero sum implies all term in the sum is zero was just a misunderstanding of my posts which spoke of the total and net forces acting radially. (or some other reason why you did not understand my meaning correctly.)

If you wish to show that there is a non zero force on B towards A in the limit as their separation approaces zero, do so.
...I only would have to place two atoms (assuming a shape for the atoms as a sphere) side by side and do the integral analysis as described by MacM. One thing I can say with certainty is that it does not approach 0. ....I tend to agree with you {Aer} on this. That clearly is the correct aspproach, but unfortunately in the present ill defined state of the uniKEF "theory" no one is, and no one has been, able to do the two body gravitational interaction integrations over CoS. The ill definfined "shape of the atom" is also a problem as you state. This is why I placed the two atoms on the surface of an isolated star, so I would have the stronger spherical symmetry and could neglect the shape of atoms and even thousands of atom's effects upon uniKEF flux shadows in comparision to the zillions of star atoms casting shadows.

As I understand MacM almost all of the uniKEF flux passes thru entire massive stars without interaction, as if they were not there, so it is very unilikely that there is any shadow made by atom "A" most of the time etc.

One of my other proofs specifically pointed out that two atoms relatively close, but inside a very large perfect vaccum chamber inside a great mass would at best have a statistical force acting on them part of the time.

I had MacM's uniKEF between a "rock and a hard place" - If the flux interactions did not have almost zero interaction cross section, then the large external mass would absorb it all and none would even reach the two atoms deep inside the large mass in their vacuum chamber. If, however, most of it was able to pass by zillions of atoms without being absorbed, then it would only rarely interact with either of the two isolated atoms inside the deeply burried vacuum chamber.

Note that if either a flux "ray" "line" "wave" or what ever MacM wishes the unit of the flux that is absorbed to be called does interact, this "fluxon" is from the great mass's reduced flux shadow or the unreduced flux passing thru everything with almost 100% certainity. (It must be thousands of years before fluxon passing by both isolated atoms inside the vaccum chamber interacts with both in contrast to the much more common, but still very rare interaction of one atom with flux that has interacted in the great surounding mass and only that one of the two atoms.)

A force on the atom occurs only when it is absorbing flux and then it is along the line to (or from) the other "shadow producing" partner of the interaction. Thus most of the time, when either atom is feeling uniKEF gravity, it is not directed towards the other atom even thought that other atom is by far the closest atom to it. - A strange gravitational interaction between two atoms indeed - statistical and often not present and usually when present, not directed along the line joining the atoms.

Here is the totality of your {Aer's} rebutal of my proof that the force between two atoms in the spherical isolated star case VANISHES as they approach one another:

Are you stupid or just deliberately being an ass.

Your statement is based on movement toward the center of the star and has absolutely nothing to do with a UniKEF CoS integration between the particles themselves..

but unfortunately in the present ill defined state of the uniKEF "theory" no one is, and no one has been, able to do the two body gravitational interaction integrations over CoS.That is correct, which makes any mathematical proof regarding UniKEF that you may come up with unbelievable. The theory must be clearly defined first and I don't think that is the case.


The ill definfined "shape of the atom" is also a problem as you state. This is why I placed the two atoms on the surface of an isolated star, so I would have the stronger spherical symmetry and could neglect the shape of atoms and even thousands of atom's effects upon uniKEF flux shadows in comparision to the zillions of star atoms casting shadows. I don't think atoms being on the surface is of much consequence. You still have the purported UniKEF flux from the outter surface that does not at all interact with any other atoms.

The rest of your post seems to be "what if" scenarios. I'll be honest and say they bore me...

I think Aer is correct and your friend is imaginary.

Dream on fool. I don't give a damn what Billy T thinks. We have seen how you think and it is a misuse of the term to apply it to you.


Because you now claim he is responding to me, I think you are delusional.

Oh really. I posted his e-mail response to your ongoing bullshit about the ONLY force is toward the center and he replied that every particle has a force between everyother particle. He is correct and you are incorrect. It is that simple.

It is only the force between particles using the UniKEF CoS integration that is at issue. You are not even discussing that. You are discussing something entirely different and further the central forces react no differently in UniKEF than they do in Newtonian.

Not only that you are screwed up on what happens as the particles migrate toward the center.


He has not posted anything here, and I do not take your word about what your imaginary friend is saying to you.

You can take my word or shove it up[ your ass. He sure as hell is not going to waste his time on jerks like you.

[quoute]If he thinks uniKEF is even 1% of the wondrous explanation of expansion of the universe, dark matter, dark energy, errors in spiral galaxies, the cause of gravity, etc. etc. he should publicly step forward and be proud to have assisted you to get the recognition you deserve, be writing to the Nobel physics prize committee, science journal etc. all sorts of efforts to praise uniKEF as the solution to a vast number of current physics mysteries. WHY is he hiding his identity?[/quote]

Forget all your bullshit. He is "assisting" me, not has assisted. Further he is interested in only being cited in the paper and turned down an offer for compensation.


I am familiar with your assertions that my proofs are all false and must admit that this time they are at least not vulgar, but still stubbornly ask for at least an indication of at least one SPECIFIC point where I may have made error in the derivations. Is it too much to ask for one specific point because your assertions are infallible?

For christ sake. What do you not understand about the force toward the center of a star is not the issue of UniKEF CoS integration between two particles.?

What do you not understand that your statement that UniKEF is backwards and has decreasing force with decreasing distance is outright horseshit.?

What do you not understand about that you have not responed to my request for you to define specifically how you think the central force issue is acted on differently in the Newtonian view vs UniKEF view.? (Hint there is none).

What do you not understand that your prior statement that the sine of the center angle between particles becomes more parallel is outlandishly wrong.?


Who made you the pope?

Who ever gave you a degree in physics?

Billy T, it is not up to me to prove that these exist but cancel out. I am telling you that they exist and cancel out. How do I know? Because that is exactly what MacM said.

Your proof's premise is borderline stupidity.

You only know that there exists a net force in the radial direction. So you extract this to mean that there is only a force in the radial direction and any other forces that could cancel out just do not exist. Sorry, but that does not follow from what we know, which is only that there is a net force in the radial direction.


I only would have to place two atoms (assuming a shape for the atoms as a sphere) side by side and do the integral analysis as described by MacM. One thing I can say with certainty is that it does not approach 0.


My thought process have nothing to do with Newtonian gravity. It only involves the following:

Your assumption does not follow from what is known.

Your assumption: A net force in the radial direction implies there are no forces acting in any other direction.

This just is not true. If equal and opposite forces are acting on a body (which will happen in the &theta; and &phi; directions by symmetry<span title='This is key!' style='letter-spacing:2px;'> and logic</span>) then, the net force in the direction of the equal and opposite forces will be 0. Does that mean that the equal and opposite forces are 0? No, it does not.

So therefore, only knowing the net force in the radial direction, tells us nothing of the individual forces acting on each atom. Specifically, we know nothing of the forces in the other directions, nor do we know how many forces are acting in each direction.

Very precisely put. And I might also remind others that to compute the Newtonain force between two surface particles is in principle no different than doing so in UniKEF. One simply ignores all other particles that surround them.

One does not do that in Newtonian gravity to compute the stars net gravity, nor do you do that in UniKEF. Billy T continues to try and claim things are entirely different between the two views. They are not. The differances are very subtle out to at least one light year distance.

I like this explanation much more that MacM’s uniKEF explanation of why gravity exists, for many reasons,

Of course you would it is your view. That doesn't make it right or justify your belief.


not the least of which is the fact it is consistent with the conservation of energy and uniKEF is not (uniKEF flux is constantly being absorbed and heating the planets etc. yet constantly more is coming into to existence in violation of conservation of energy.). Personally, if given a choice between two theories, one of which conserves energy and the other of which does not, my choice is clear, is not your’s also?

Correct. UniKEF does view the expansion as being an ongoing process initiated by or during the Big Bang.

Your view (and the general current view) is that it was all packed into a singularity, blew up if you will, and began to spread.

Well, just where does you Big Bang view tell you this all came from. Has it always existed? Was it created ex nihilo? Where is the ultimate energy conservation in your view.

Fortunately in UniKEF it has neither allways existed (which is nonsense), nor was it created. In fact our entire universe consists of "nothing". Something is "S" and "n" is some quantity of energy/mass and S = (+n) + (-n) is how we exist. That is existance is bifurcated nothing, therefore nothing was created. On balance all energy in the universe equals zero. It is like virtual particles coming into existance by borrowing energy temporarily which is allowed in QM.

Fortunately in the case of the BB it has been stable and hopefully permanent. But the process is ongoing and space is still being created in a Big Rip, not Bang. Mass is being repelled out into this newly created space.

But if you can't understand a simple CoS integration, it is obvious you can't understand the beauty of the UniKEF view.

I tend to agree with you {Aer} on this. That clearly is the correct aspproach, but unfortunately in the present ill defined state of the uniKEF "theory" no one is, and no one has been, able to do the two body gravitational interaction integrations over CoS.

False. Not many but a few persons have.


The ill definfined "shape of the atom" is also a problem as you state. This is why I placed the two atoms on the surface of an isolated star, so I would have the stronger spherical symmetry and could neglect the shape of atoms and even thousands of atom's effects upon uniKEF flux shadows in comparision to the zillions of star atoms casting shadows.

Or zillions of atoms attracting by Newtonian gravity. Where is the differance?


As I understand MacM almost all of the uniKEF flux passes thru entire massive stars without interaction, as if they were not there,

Correct. Until you reach cosmic Black Hole sized objects and densities of such objects. There you will find (a UniKEF prediction) that gravity ceases to be a direct function of mass. More mass does not increase gravity. Which is why there are no singularities and the assinine physics of relativity will be cast out.


so it is very unilikely that there is any shadow made by atom "A" most of the time etc.

Absolutely false. We do not know but a term UG which is simular to "G" but adjusted for UniKEF defines the combined affect of "U" * "~". U might be 1E¹⁵⁰ and ~ might be 1E^-140 such that while most do pass without affect the volume is so intense that appreciable and continuous force is generated statistically.


One of my other proofs specifically pointed out that two atoms relatively close, but inside a very large perfect vaccum chamber inside a great mass would at best have a statistical force acting on them part of the time.

You keep making the same false claim using the term "Proof". You have not proven even one thing as yet.


I had MacM's uniKEF between a "rock and a hard place" - If the flux interactions did not have almost zero interaction cross section, then the large external mass would absorb it all and none would even reach the two atoms deep inside the large mass in their vacuum chamber.

Dream on. Your "Proof" as nothing more than a bunch of unsupported and unjustified assumption which are inconnsistant with the oremisis outlined in UniKEF. Go make up your own theory but don'tclaim your theory is UniKEF because you are mis-representing it.


If, however, most of it was able to pass by zillions of atoms without being absorbed, then it would only rarely interact with either of the two isolated atoms inside the deeply burried vacuum chamber.

Mor illogical assumptions based on misconceptions of your own making.


Note that if either a flux "ray" "line" "wave" or what ever MacM wishes the unit of the flux that is absorbed to be called does interact, this "fluxon" is from the great mass's reduced flux shadow or the unreduced flux passing thru everything with almost 100% certainity. (It must be thousands of years before fluxon passing by both isolated atoms inside the vaccum chamber interacts with both in contrast to the much more common, but still very rare interaction of one atom with flux that has interacted in the great surounding mass and only that one of the two atoms.)

What a joke. You call this proof. It is garbage.


A force on the atom occurs only when it is absorbing flux and then it is along the line to (or from) the other "shadow producing" partner of the interaction. Thus most of the time, when either atom is feeling uniKEF gravity, it is not directed towards the other atom even thought that other atom is by far the closest atom to it. - A strange gravitational interaction between two atoms indeed - statistical and often not present and usually when present, not directed along the line joining the atoms.

You seem to not understand nor appreciate the energy content assumed for UniKEF. You seem to fail to understand that it is suggested that UniKEF is beyond our current ability to directly measure and has a velocity reaching many multiples of c and accounts for particle entanglement communications.

Gravity in UniKEF is virtually instant. It is heresy to talk about time intervals between UniKEF interactons. Each atom has zillions each second and from every angle.

That is correct, which makes any mathematical proof regarding UniKEF that you may come up with unbelievable. The theory must be clearly defined first and I don't think that is the case.

Unless he can demonstrate some actual error in the calculus presented he is merely bumping his gums.


The rest of your post seems to be "what if" scenarios. I'll be honest and say they bore me...

That makes two. :D

...Your statement is based on movement toward the center of the star and has absolutely nothing to do with a UniKEF CoS integration between the particles themselves..No, nothing is moving in my analysis. I only consider atoms separated by different amounts, not move them.

That {no one can calculate anything with current stae of uniKEF} is correct, which makes any mathematical proof regarding UniKEF that you may come up with unbelievable. The theory must be clearly defined first and I don't think that is the case.... I agree with you on this - that is the best, MHO, rebuttal you have made to my "proofs" that uniKEF is nonsense, but in some sense, you are just stating another proof. - Any theory which can not be used to calculate anything IS nonsense, do you not agree?

...I posted his e-mail response to your ongoing bullshit about the ONLY force is toward the center and he replied that every particle has a force between everyother particle. He is correct and you are incorrect.


If he thinks uniKEF is even 1% of the wondrous explanation of expansion of the universe, dark matter, dark energy, errors in spiral galaxies, the cause of gravity, etc. etc. he should publicly step forward and be proud to have assisted you to get the recognition you deserve, be writing to the Nobel physics prize committee, science journal etc. all sorts of efforts to praise uniKEF as the solution to a vast number of current physics mysteries. WHY is he hiding his identity?

If as Aer and James R think, you can invent an imaginary NASA friend, then it is certainly possible for you to invent his Emails. Reasons given in my quote above makes it seem very strange behavior for a real person, supporting uniKEF, to be so ashamed to be publicly identified that he will only speak thur you.

....In fact our entire universe consists of "nothing". Something is "S" and "n" is some quantity of energy/mass and S = (+n) + (-n) is how we exist. That is existance is bifurcated nothing, therefore nothing was created. On balance all energy in the universe equals zero.... About 20 years ago, there was a problem in BB production of matter - where were all the anti particles that should have been producted in equal number to the normal particles? There was universally accepted (by physicists well enough eduated to know what it meant the "CPT" (Charge, Parity, Time) product was invariant and this was what was at the heart of the equal production of matter and anti-matter by the BB. You have the same problem - where is all the -n stuff?

Fortunately for physics two bright chinese guys (sorry but I forget their names, but if you look up the physics Nobel prize winners of about 15 years agos you can learn them) they found some weak interactions (as I recall) in which CPT was not invariant. This permited matter to domninnate over anti-matter in the universe, but you still have the problem - Where is your -n stuff?

...Or zillions of atoms attracting by Newtonian gravity. Where is the differance?...The difference is that uniKEF flux is weaked as it passes thru matter (You call it "absoption") where as the gravity of Newton can pass thru "zillions of atoms" without being reduced.
For example, a 1Kg mass on the table feels the attraction of the sun modulated ONLY by the inverse square law variation of its distance from the sun at noon and at midnight, but the uniKEF flux absorption by the Earth, however small you may claim it to be, is different at midnight and at noon sun/Earth geometries, because the mass distribution doing the absorption of flux, ie the mass distribution geometries, have changed what flux the 1Kg is in ( This is an additional factor that slightly changes the inverse square change of Newton's inverse square of physical distance varriation only).

No, nothing is moving in my analysis. I only consider atoms separated by different amounts, not move them.

Don't be flippant. Motion was not stipulated but is required to compare forces at different radii. :eek:

I agree with you on this - that is the best, MHO, rebuttal you have made to my "proofs" that uniKEF is nonsense, but in some sense, you are just stating another proof. - Any theory which can not be used to calculate anything IS nonsense, do you not agree?
It depends on your definition of theory. MacM's theory in scientific terms is a hypothesis. A hypothesis can either be right or wrong, but a classification of nonsense for a hypothesis would have to first incorporate some type of bias.

As it stands, MacM's theory (hypothesis) is not developed enough to test and make any conclusions.

Don't be flippant. Motion was not stipulated but is required to compare forces at different radii.I am glad you at least admit that I did not "stipulate" any motion. I am not being "flippant" when i tell you that there is no motion is required when I calculate the force f (the component of the total radial force or weight "W" of one mass "B" that is directed towards another "A") at various locations on the surface of a planet or star. For example the table previously given:

when longitude separation is: 180.......90..............60degrees
force f on "B" towards "A" is: ....W.....W/sqrt(2) .......W/2

to illustrate that the closer "B" is Located to "A" (not moving anything, but a new equlivant mass "B" if you like at each location is considered) come together the less is the component of the weight directed towards the particle / Mass "A".

In uniKEF theory of unbalanced flux pusing on "B" being the cause of its weight, there is no intrinsic gravity in "B" attracting it to all other masses in the universe. Nothing in it attracting it towards "A"

If this push on B is to have a non VANISHING component towards "A" as they approach it must come somehow from this flux pushing on "B," but in the spherical isolated star in isotropic uniKEF case, the flux pushing on "B" AND THE ASSOCIATED FORCE is always directed to the center of the star. I might also add in case you want to start talking about the "shadow" "A" cast towards "B" inspite of it being very small if "A" is only an atom, compared tothe star's shadow, that "A" could not even exist - Just be a coordnate point on the surface of the star! Never is there any tangential force on "B" in this high symetry case. - The uniKEF flux push is always radial inward.

The conventional gravity, Newtonian case, is quite different.-Every atom is attracted towards every other by intrinsic gravity and the total of all these many separtate forces has a net resultant towards the center of the star. I.e. a multitude of force pairs sum to a radial one. uniKEF is the only source of gravity and it is a push towards the center of the star, not a sum of many forces which arrise intrinsically in each atom.

Returning to your false "must have motion" claim: It is not necessary for me to go to the moon to calculate my weight there or even to move from my arm chair to calculate how much less my weight would be if I lived on the 24 floor instead of the 14th floor of this apartment buillding. NOTHING IS MOVING in my analysis, only different locations are chosen for making the calculations of the force on "B" in the direction of "A" and it VANISHES as the come together.

It depends on your definition of theory. MacM's theory in scientific terms is a hypothesis. A hypothesis can either be right or wrong, but a classification of nonsense for a hypothesis would have to first incorporate some type of bias.
As it stands, MacM's theory (hypothesis) is not developed enough to test and make any conclusions.I am not sure my objections to it should be called a "bias" - My initial reaction was one of hope for it. This view has changed as I thought about it more, but it is not very important what is basis of my view, compared to the validity of uniKEF question.
I do not object, in fact think it a good idea, to refer to uniKEF as only a “hypothesis.” Though it is, as you state, “not developed enough to test.” (That requires calculated quantative predictions.) None the less, I still think it is clearly enough definded to show that this hypothesis is “nonsense” in that it is self contradictory.

(1) Consider a star collapsing to become a black hole, but to avoid the messy loss of mass in the super nova phase, let us begin detailed consideration only at radius R, after the remaining mass is constant. We can show it is gaining enormous energy from its self gravity. I am too lazy, and not as good at this as you, so I will leave the details to you, if you want to work out how its temperature and internal pressure change as radius reduces to r. (You might want to integrate the work done during the fall in its own gravity field to get the average energy per neutron (temperature) or treat it as an ideal gas until temperatures start to make the neutrons relativistic. - just ideas you probably can think of more.)

In any case, as the radius decreases to r from R the uniKEF flux intercepted decreases by factor (R/r)^2 ,easily more than 10,000 fold before neutrons are moving at 90% of c (just guessing) might be 1,000,000 fold decrease. - I will let you work it out if you care - I AM SURE YOU CAN.

SUMMARY - UniKEF flux intercepted is rapidly going down and there is no self-gravity in uniKEF hypothesis to continue pulling the star inward to ever-smaller radii. The internal pressure is rapidly going up with both the temperature and the density increase (good old PV=nRT or something quite like that, perhaps exactly like that, if there are only neutrons, until they are so hot that they are becoming relativistic.)

The only way that it is possible for uniKEF to continue the compression and form a very dense, hot, quasi black hole (Don't let r be smaller than the period at end of this sentence - MacM does not believe in "singularities.") is that the flux absorption must very strongly depend upon the mass density. MacM (I think) knows most of this and verbally postulates uniKEF does depend upon density, but will not give the mathematical form. - I think you can work it out for him what this case requires.

Now (2):
Consider two pendulum clocks in the same gravity field, identical in all respects including the length and geometry of their swinging pendulums, except one is made of aluminum and the other is made of lead, a much denser material.

Both “bobs” have been tested in the lab and their inertia is directly (linearly) proportional to their mass. The swing period does not depend upon their mass so both keep time perfectly. If uniKEF force (a component of their weight) causing them to oscillate about their low point is a strong function of density (stronger than linear as the inertia was tested to be) the lead pendulum should “tick” much faster, but it does not.

This is the type of internal contradiction I think it is possible to demonstrate and use to conclude uniKEF is nonsense, despite the poor descriptions of the uniKEF hypothesis.

Do you agree, or is their something wrong in the apparent conflict between (1) and (2)?

Billy T, do you agree that UniKEF predicts a force on B from A as follows?:
A&nbsp;&larr;B

Do you agree that UniKEF predicts a force on B from -A as follows?:
B&rarr;&nbsp;-A

Do you agree that UniKEF predicts the forces on B from both A & -A as follows?:
A&nbsp;&larr;B&rarr;&nbsp;-A

Do you agree that UniKEF predicts a net force on B from both A & -A as follows? (i.e. net force is 0):
A&nbsp;&nbsp;B&nbsp;&nbsp;-A

Do you agree that UniKEF predicts a net force on B from both A & -A as follows?:
<table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0><tr><td valign=bottom>A&nbsp;&nbsp;</td><td valign=bottom>B<br>&darr;<br>&nbsp;</td><td valign=bottom>&nbsp;&nbsp;-A</td></tr></table>

If yes to all, what is the problem?

Consider a star collapsing to become a black hole

Appealing to the model of a black hole is not a good idea because the precise nature of black holes is not known.
Black holes are not even described in a satisifactory way by current theory.



UniKEF flux intercepted is rapidly going down and there is no self-gravity in uniKEF hypothesis to continue pulling the star inward to ever-smaller radii

What are you talking about? I don't think this is right. What is "self-gravity"? Did you extract this from your force in the direction of A from B silliness?



The internal pressure is rapidly going up with both the temperature and the density increase (good old PV=nRT

PV=nRT is for a perfect gas. Are you suggesting that a black hole is well modelled by a perfect gas? *gasp*





Consider two pendulum clocks in the same gravity field, identical in all respects including the length and geometry of their swinging pendulums, except one is made of aluminum and the other is made of lead, a much denser material.

Both “bobs” have been tested in the lab and their inertia is directly (linearly) proportional to their mass. The swing period does not depend upon their mass so both keep time perfectly. If uniKEF force (a component of their weight) causing them to oscillate about their low point is a strong function of density (stronger than linear as the inertia was tested to be) the lead pendulum should “tick” much faster, but it does not.

Are you suggesting that the mass of a pendulum contributes significant gravity as to effect it's motion in Earth's gravity field? I don't think so.

[FONT=Verdana]
Billy T, do you agree that UniKEF predicts a force on B from A as follows?:
A&nbsp;&larr;B...I will only answer the first, as best as I can, as I do not expect you to be happy with my answer even to it - I am not trying to be evasive, only that from my point of view, the simple answer is "yes and no" because I am not sure exactly what you are assuming when asking (BTW as you are so quick, compared to me, I hope you will examine the (1) & I just posted ast ot why I think it is not bias to believe that uniKEF is nonsense. - I look forward to your comments.)

If you mean "Does there exist any subdivision of the incident uniKEF force, considered alone, which can push on B in the direction of A (or at least have a component of that subdivision = some of MacM's CoS terms in the integration) of copurse the answer is yes. I even illustrated it once for you when I divided the spherical star into two hemispheres by an equator passing thru B and assumed A was in the +H hemisphere. - Remember I said that the flux which passes thur the -H hemisphere and hits B at least has a component of this pressure/ force due to its absorption in B directed towards "A" - that is the basis of the "Yes" answer.

If you mean does the total effect of all the flux that hits B have any component of pressure force on "B" towards "A" the answer is again "Yes" but but not in the limit as as distance AB approches zero. That component was called "f" in my proof and its magnitude was given both exactly and in the small angle approximation.
I will not carefully reporduce my 180,90 & 60 degree separations produce force components f acting on "B" towards "A" of W, w/sqrt(2) & W/2 table again as you have seen it at least twice already and agree it is true (I think).

I still think you are so strongly (as I am) believing in the standard Newtonian formulae for gravity that it is hard for you to fully comprend that in uniKEF the only force acting on "B" if one does not make completely arbitary divisions of the flux pressure force in various arbitary cones etc is radial in bound in the spherical symetry case. You probably think I am too pig headed to see that you can divide the flux up in a way to get a component force in any direction and almost any strengh you like. Well I am not - I admit this, but would like to see just how arbitary these division of the force must be to reproduce the Newtonian relations ship for all pairs of atoms separted in any direction from B and one meter or less from B. - I bet for every separation and every different direction you can find some such division - you are pretty clever - but if you allow so much arbitaryness in your model of gravity, what good is it. - I may not be as quick or as proficient as you with calculus anymore, but I bet some one could make other arbitary divisions to "prove" that there are divisions of the zero sum which prove that individual force bewtween A & B goes as the inverse cube of their separation or inverse linearly with their separation etc.

Summary: Yes you probably can find "sections"/ "shadow cones to integrate"/ "flux subdivisions" of the "zero-sum, non-radial" terms of your 3D equation that reproduce the inverse square, the inverse cube, inverse linear, etc. force laws between A & B in amongst the totality of all possible sets of different ways the basically-radial, total Force due to uniKEF pressure can be sliced up, but I am not persuaded that this is anything more than a mathematical game or puzzle. I.e mathematically slicing up zero into terms to suit your pre-existing desire to show that some particular function could be latently contained in some subset terms that get cancelled by others does not to me to seem to be very good physics.

BTW - I did not understand the "from A" part of your question - all of the uniKEF forces come from flux inbalance, not from particles as I understand uniKEF. Did you mean the component of the flux imbalance that changes if A is removed? If so I would need to have some facts about the absorbtion cross section of the material A is made of, especially the details of how it varise with the impact parameter, or what ever plays the role of the impact paramterter to know what I think about the shadow change, if any, by removing "A"

Appealing to the model of a black hole is not a good idea because the precise nature of black holes is not known.
Black holes are not even described in a satisifactory way by current theory. I agree. That is why I told you not to go all the way to the singularity - I said not to let the small radius get smaller than a period. If that is too small, and it probably is sufficiently small that the neutron tempertaure makes them relativistic, let r be much larger, bowling ball size? Queen Marry size? - Do not make a BH - I now more numerically suggest you stop with r such that the collapsing star has less than 1% of its neutrons in the the "maxwellian tail" of the thermal distibution having v = 0.9c or greater, but told you before to avoid the complexities of relativity - that is far from a BH. Why are you thinking I was suggesting we want the much more complex, ill understood, BH problems? SLOW DOWN AND READ WHAT I WROTE.

What are you talking about? I don't think this is right. What is "self-gravity"? replace "self gravity" with "intrinsic in matter gravity" or what every is correct (standard way to say "warpped space gravity") - you surely know that I was only trying to contrast the generally accepted view(s) of gravity with MacM's "push gravity" - If I come to the conclusion that your are purposely being difficult we can stop. I may some times say some things in terms that are not clear, but do not believe this "self gravity" was beyond your abillity to understand my intent.

...PV=nRT is for a perfect gas. Are you suggesting that a black hole is well modelled by a perfect gas? *gasp* Perhaps you are so quick in posting because you do not read? - I clearly told you to stop shrinking the star at r finite, specifically told you to avoid discussing a BH and to one with your intelligece, also to stop decreasing r when the temperatures started making simple analytic approaches Like ideal gas law completely inappropriate. etc. Are you purposely miss understanding these clear statements of mine? I even suggested the R/r ratio might be only 10,000, did I not?

Are you suggesting that the mass of a pendulum contributes significant gravity as to effect it's motion in Earth's gravity field? I don't think so.No, I only noted (again clearly) that it is gravity acting on the bob that causes it to oscillated thru the low point of the swing. I guess there is some very very slight modulation of the gravity field in the room of the pendumlum clock, but I was not making any reference to that. You are purposly misunderstanding! - Why? I treat you fairly and try to answer your questions.

If you mean does the total effect of all the flux that hits B have any component of pressure force on "B" towards "A" the answer is again "Yes" but but not in the limit as as distance AB approches zero. What in the world are you talking about? The question I asked is very simple. Is there a force on B from the presence of A? The answer: yes. I did not ask what is the magnitude of this force, only is there a force? Your claim of that force going to zero as A and B approach each other is nonsense and not predicted by MacM in his hypothesis of UniKEF. Consider A & B ALONE! Not in some symmetrical sphere. What is the force on B from A if the right surface of A touches the left surface of B:
AB
the answer, the force on B is:
&larr;B

It is that simple!

Billy T, all of your analysis is stupid!

You can't even answer a simple question without convoluting it with your own stupid ideas.

Answer this question:

Consider A and B alone! Is there a force on B from the presence of A according to UniKEF when the surface of A touches the surface of B?:

AB

Also, answer this question: When you got your degree in Physics, were you required to take any courses in Mathematics? If so (hopefully so), what Mathematic courses did you take and how did your fair in them?

also to stop decreasing r when the temperatures started making simple analytic approaches Like ideal gas law completely inappropriate. What is your definition of a perfect gas?


No, I only noted (again clearly) that it is gravity acting on the bob that causes it to oscillated thru the low point of the swing. I guess there is some very very slight modulation of the gravity field in the room of the pendumlum clock, but was not making any reference to that. You are purposly misunderstanding! You made the suggestion that the change in density of a low mass object (pendulum) effects the gravity prediction in UniKEF. I am telling you that would not be the case. I understood exactly what you were implying and I am telling you that it is wrong.

I still think you are so strongly (as I am) believing in the standard Newtonian formulae for gravity that it is hard for you to fully comprend that in uniKEF the only force acting on "B" if one does not make completely arbitary divisions of the flux pressure force in various arbitary cones etc is radial in bound in the spherical symetry case.

Billy T,

Let me see if I am following the logic of your thought processes.

There is the uniKEF force modified by "A" and the uniKEF force not modified by "A". The amount of uniKEF force modified by "A" goes to 100% as distance goes to 0. As the uniKEF force modified by "A" goes to 100% the uniKEF force not modifed by "A" goes to 0%. As the uniKEF force not modified by "A" goes to 0% then the net force pushing "A" and "B" together goes to 0. Thus as distance goes to 0 the force pushing "A" and "B" together also goes to 0.

If this is an accurate representation of your thoughts, I think it should be pointed out that the before the uniKEF force modifed by "A" could be greater than 50% of the total uniKEF force both "A" and "B" would need to "overlap". (50% is the point at which the "uniKEF" force modified by "A" would begin to cause the net force to begin decreasing)

What is your definition of a perfect gas?...I will answer this and stop discussion. - it is completely obvious that you just want to agrue with someone - find some one else. I had hoped you would discuss, not just agrue for arguments sake.

A perfect gas is one that follows the perfect gas laws. - many real gases, especially the monotomic ones, approximate a perfect gas in the range of temperatures that are (1)significantly less than those that can thermally excite the lowest energy sates above the ground state and (2)well above the temperature at which they stastically tend to form temporary "quasi liquid aggerates" of a few atoms which rapidly disassociate again.

by by

I will answer this and stop discussion. - it is completely obvious that you just want to agrue with someone - find some one else. I had hoped you would discuss, not just agrue for arguments sake.
The question is very important! Even gases after a certain amount of compression are no longer well modelled by PV=nRT. A perfect gas is one in which the internal forces are neglegible. This proper definition is a lot more telling than your A perfect gas is one that follows the perfect gas laws which is not really a definition but a statement about the perfect gas law PV=nRT.


Regarding the A & B atoms:

You might want to do a Newtonian analysis. Are you suggesting that atoms A and B begin to overlap? If that is correct, then you have to modify your analysis. An object at the center of the Earth for instance has a net force of 0 acting on. Why? Because you can no longer take the mass of the Earth as a point mass. You have to integrate anytime overlap begins.

Billy T, Let me see if I am following the logic of your thought processes.
There is the uniKEF force modified by "A" and the uniKEF force not modified by "A". The amount of uniKEF force modified by "A" goes to 100% as distance goes to 0. As the uniKEF force modified by "A" goes to 100% the uniKEF force not modifed by "A" goes to 0%. As the uniKEF force not modified by "A" goes to 0% then the net force pushing "A" and "B" together goes to 0. Thus as distance goes to 0 the force pushing "A" and "B" together also goes to 0.
If this is an accurate representation of your thoughts, I think it should be pointed out that the before the uniKEF force modifed by "A" could be greater than 50% of the total uniKEF force both "A" and "B" would need to "overlap". (50% is the point at which the "uniKEF" force modified by "A" would begin to cause the net force to begin decreasing)I think I have only once ever spoken of modification of uniKEF force by "A" and that time was not part of my "thought process." At the end of one of my posts, trying to seriously reply to Aer, there is a "BTW note" that told Aer I did not understand his "from A" in the question he was asking me. To help him understand and to possibly clarify the confusion I was having about what HE ment by "from A," I asked if it was related to the difference in the flux with and without "A."

Other than this one time, I have only talked about the forces on "B." - In one exteme case, I even suggested that "A" could be just a "coordinate point."
I have also said that when the A & B are well separated, (say a meter or more) on the surface of a star, the presence or absence of "A" or a few thousand atoms (none very close to "B") does not significantly change the uniKEF force on B when it is on the surface of a star.

The force on "B" is, in uniKEF hypothesis, due ONLY to the shadows cast in the otherwise isotropic uniKEF flux (as i understand it) Thus, until A& B are very close I don't think the absorption by "A" makes any significant component of the shadow.

MacM likes to (and needs to, when great masses like a gas cloud from which several galaxies will someday form are being considered) emphasize that it is a very rare event for one of the "fluxons" (MacM has not approved that name - but it is the only one I have not had him object to with some statement that I was falsely assuming things about uniEF when I called them "rays") is absorbed. (My definition of a "fluxon" is it is whatever it is that disappears/ converts at least partially into heat eventually/ in a single "absorption event.") Thus, I suspect that the contribution of "A" to the shadow extending in the direction of "B" even when it is close to "B" is statistical in nature, some times existent, some times not; but, in only one of my 6 to 8 different arguments ("proofs"?) against uniKEF have I advanced this "uniKEF gravity of two isolated atoms is statistical" objection.

Despite not wishing to talk about "A", and normally not doing so, I think your argument about A needing to overlap B to get 50% of the flux passing thru A and hitting B is correct, but again MacM claims that at least 99.9999999% of flux passes thru A without any interaction (I just made up that number but he has stated the the interaction probably for uniKEF flux is lower than for neutrinos.) It is impossible to get any real cross section vs impact parameter type data from him, but once he did appear to be explaining why he did not need to consider iron any differently (except by its mass) from hydrogen etc was that perhaps the interaction was at the "quark level," not the atom level (again, at least as I understood him. - He so often tells that I don't know what uniKEF is about, misrepresent it, etc. that I try to be extra careful when making any statements about it.)

I will be happy to explain more my view by answering specific questions or further discussion at your pleasure, but they contain very little (in most of the cases I have considered) about mass/ atom "A".

I am not sure my objections to it should be called a "bias" - My initial reaction was one of hope for it. This view has changed as I thought about it more, but it is not very important what is basis of my view, compared to the validity of uniKEF question.

Yes but what is even more important is your failure to realize the shortcomings of you view of UniKEF. Your purported "Proof" are not "Proofs" by any stretch of the imagination for UniKEF.


I do not object, in fact think it a good idea, to refer to uniKEF as only a “hypothesis.”

I concurred to its status as a hypothesis rather than theory over a year and a half ago, here on SciFi.


Though it is, as you state, “not developed enough to test.”

Totally false.

http://www.unikef-gravity.com/UniKV2/Gravtesting.htm

Granted the testing needs to be imporved and done independantly but the testing done produced results predicted by and exclusive to UniKEF and not justifiable by your Newtonain or GR view.



(That requires calculated quantative predictions.) None the less, I still think it is clearly enough definded to show that this hypothesis is “nonsense” in that it is self contradictory.

The only nonsense here is your repeating the same old false and inapplicable issues including incorrect conclusions.


(1) Consider a star collapsing to become a black hole, but to avoid the messy loss of mass in the super nova phase, let us begin detailed consideration only at radius R, after the remaining mass is constant. We can show it is gaining enormous energy from its self gravity. I am too lazy, and not as good at this as you, so I will leave the details to you, if you want to work out how its temperature and internal pressure change as radius reduces to r. (You might want to integrate the work done during the fall in its own gravity field to get the average energy per neutron (temperature) or treat it as an ideal gas until temperatures start to make the neutrons relativistic. - just ideas you probably can think of more.)

Why would you propose this vs doing the UniKEF calculus, which has already been done for you, just to justify or invalidate that work? Utter bias.


In any case, as the radius decreases to r from R the uniKEF flux intercepted decreases by factor (R/r)^2 ,easily more than 10,000 fold before neutrons are moving at 90% of c (just guessing) might be 1,000,000 fold decrease. - I will let you work it out if you care - I AM SURE YOU CAN.

And as the cross section shrinks by one half the density goes up by a factor of 8! Think man think.


SUMMARY - UniKEF flux intercepted is rapidly going down and there is no self-gravity in uniKEF hypothesis to continue pulling the star inward to ever-smaller radii.

Thanks for proving my point. You reduce the cross section but give no credit for density increase. Some physicist.


The internal pressure is rapidly going up with both the temperature and the density increase (good old PV=nRT or something quite like that, perhaps exactly like that, if there are only neutrons, until they are so hot that they are becoming relativistic.)

The only way that it is possible for uniKEF to continue the compression and form a very dense, hot, quasi black hole (Don't let r be smaller than the period at end of this sentence - MacM does not believe in "singularities.") is that the flux absorption must very strongly depend upon the mass density. MacM (I think) knows most of this and verbally postulates uniKEF does depend upon density, but will not give the mathematical form. - I think you can work it out for him what this case requires.[/quotre]

I have numerous times and now refuse to continue to repeat those answers.

[quote]Now (2):
Consider two pendulum clocks in the same gravity field, identical in all respects including the length and geometry of their swinging pendulums, except one is made of aluminum and the other is made of lead, a much denser material.

Both “bobs” have been tested in the lab and their inertia is directly (linearly) proportional to their mass. The swing period does not depend upon their mass so both keep time perfectly. If uniKEF force (a component of their weight) causing them to oscillate about their low point is a strong function of density (stronger than linear as the inertia was tested to be) the lead pendulum should “tick” much faster, but it does not.

The weight affect induced by UniKEF is precisely equivelent to that produced by conventional gravity. By what bizzar imagination can you claim the above false BS.


This is the type of internal contradiction I think it is possible to demonstrate and use to conclude uniKEF is nonsense, despite the poor descriptions of the uniKEF hypothesis.

Actually should you actually read and understand what you have read it is well defined. Just not spoon fed to you in mathematical form. Other physicist don't seem to have the same problem you do with understanding the process.


Do you agree, or is their something wrong in the apparent conflict between (1) and (2)?

The problem is not UniKEF, the problem is you.

...A perfect gas is one in which the internal forces are neglegible. This proper definition is a lot more telling than your A perfect gas is one that follows the perfect gas laws which is not really a definition but a statement about the perfect gas law PV=nRT. I reply only for the benefit of others: There are stong interactions (internal forces to the gas) when two perfect gas atoms collide -one can show and calculate the rates at which they "thermalize" a non Maxwellian distribution. There are also stong internal forces between the electrons and the nucleus of the atoms. The type of "internal forces" that make for non perfect gas behavior are those I mentioned. At the higher temperture limit of the range where monotonic gases cease to reasonably approximate a perfect gas, it is the possiblity on an inelastic collison. At the lower limit it is the temporary formation via Van de Vall's force (usually) of "temporary quas-liquid aggergates" of a few atoms - this more detailed understanding is useful and a suppliment to the defintion that a perfect gas follows the perfect gas lawS - there are two.

I reply only for the benefit of others: There are stong interactions (internal forces to the gas) when two perfect gas atoms collide -one can show and calculate the rates at which they "thermalize" a non Maxwellian distribution. There are also stong internal forces between the electrons and the nucleus of the atoms. Are you dillusional? Do I have to specify for your benefit that "internal forces" means "internal forces between atoms". Even that though is not precise. It should be stated as "internal forces between molecules", but since we were only talking about a sphere of individual atoms, I thought that should suffice. Needless to say, as any atom approaches that of another atom as you describe in your various "proofs", the perfect gas law no longer applies, even if it appears to still be a "gas".



By what bizzar imagination can you claim the above false BS. Billy T certainly does have a bizarre imagination.

To MacM (with a challange for you at the end):

I was not claiming either the uniKEF model of how a star continues to shrink and heat very much in the first phase of the collapse after the supernova ejected mass is all gone but well before the black hole is formed (I.e. the shrinking from R to r) was correct - I think it is not, but was only describing the case. That was case (1)

Nor was I claiming that the uniKEF model of the forces acting on the lead vs alumimun pendulum bobs was correct - Again, I think uniKEF is not correct. That was case (2)

What I was trying to do was note that case (1) requires, I think, that there be very stong dependancy upon the density of the absorption process (the number of atoms, quarks whatever it is that are doing the absobing is not changing, only becoming more dense - If the flux intecepted decreses by 10,000 fold (an R/r = 100 ratio only) then when the star radius is r, each atom, neutron (or quark?) must now do 10,000 more absorptions per second just to get the same momentum transfer rate that was present when the star radius was R. That old momentum absorption rate is, I think, totally inadequate to compress (or even contain) the now much hotter and much higher pressure star.

Thus, I think, you are wise to state that not only does the rate of flux absorption depend upin the number of atoms, neutron (or quarks) but it also has an explicit density factor in the equation in your "U" and "~" terms (as I recall your post of about a month ago) That is, &rho; the density aids the absorption of uniKEF flux by make each absorbing atom, neutron (or quark) more that 10,000 times better absorber - increases their effective absorbtion cross sections, as I would put it, at a much faster rate than linearly with &rho;. That was my expected conclusion from case (1)

This conclusion from case (1), if true, with its strong (more than linear) dependancy dependance of flux absorption on &rho; conflicts with the case (2) observation that both clocks keep good time:
If the inertial resistance to acceleration increases only linearly with the mass (a well establshed fact) and yet the flux absorption in lead (denser than alumimum by factor 13.6/ 2.7 or something like that magnitude - I may have their relative densities wrong from memory, but surely it is less than 6 or 7) then the uniKEF absorption in the lead and the associated uniKEF force on the bob is at least up more than 10 times as it is {from case (1)'s results} "strongly," or more than linearly, dependant on &rho; Thus, with only a less that 7 factor increase in the lead bob's inertia and a more than 10 factor increase in the absorption (or force acting) then the lead pendulum clock should run too fast.

You can of course (as you have at times) argue that the weight of lead is already measuring the increase rate of absorption of uniKEF force in this denser material and it goes only linearly with the density / inertia - this is why both clock can keep perfect time.

If you take this escape to "save the clocks" then you must give up the "much more than linear rate of absorption" in the shrinking, rapidly-heating, greatly-increasing-pressure, star which permits uniKEF to make adequate pressure for the collapse despite the hugh increase in the temperatre and pressure as the star shinks from R down to r with R/r ratios in excess of 10,000.

You can not have the density dependancy or your hyposthesis "flexible" and automatically adjust to be whatever the current problem requires.

I hope Aer, or some one else reading, will work out numerically how the internal pressure of a neutron star increase from approximately the R at which there is no longer significat mass loss in the super nova event to the radius r where the temperature is so high that the fastest 1% of the thermal neutron distribution is going at v = 0.9c (Still a classical problem, I think, with little need for SR, GR or Black Hole complications. - If my estimate that this is the case is wrong, then stop the shrinking at some larger r where these complexities can still be ignored.)

I have not done this calculation/ analysis with comparison between the case (1) and case (2) requirements upon the functional form of the absorption of uniKEF flux/force as it depends upon &rho; ,but is seems possible to make this comparison, and learn the results.

If the functional requirement falls out for both cases to be essentailly the same, I will be very surprised, but I agree in advance to stop trying to show that uniKEF is nonsense, if;
You will agree to admit it is nonsense if these two cases require different dependancies upon &rho; ?

Each of us must of course be allowed to point out errors in the case (1) or case (2) analysis results (but not simply by "that is crap" etc. - by telling where the mistake is and correcting it.) This is the main reason I insist that the shrinking of the star stop while the problem is still essentially a clasical one - I want to be able to check that math and model used, for case (1) especially, and assume you would also.

You may get help from your NASA friend, or Aer, etc. and I may get help from Jame R, etc. if I need it in the checking/correcting. It would be nice if two people can work both cases out independantly, perhaps even with different methodologies. If we are both honest and serious, it should be possible to agree on how the absorption (and the forces, which are directly proportional, when all but the &rho; of the absorber they act on is the same.) depend upon &rho; in both cases.

You may get help from your NASA friend, or Aer, etc.

I have never given any support for UniKEF to be correct. I've only defended it against your absurd proofs that say it is inconsistent. The only inconsistency I've been able to extract from your posts is the inconsistency in your arguments.

I've yet to see your explanation of the A & B atoms issue. Are you assuming the atoms begin to overlap? Or are you assuming the surfaces just touch? Because given what you've said, if you meant the former case, then your analysis is inconstent with even a Newtonian approach.

To MacM (with a challange for you at the end):

How is it you write page after page of made up crap that has no signifigance to the issue and you will not respond to the simple request to define just how it is that you claim UniKEF and Newtonian gravity respond differently to density or any other issue?

They both function along a line of gravity between the centers of mass of objects. Your ludricrus claims here that there is some differance in crossection and density between lead and aluminum that affects UniKEF vs Newtonain gravity is simply totally unfounded by any principle of UniKEF.

In uniKEF theory of unbalanced flux pusing on "B" being the cause of its weight, there is no intrinsic gravity in "B" attracting it to all other masses in the universe. Nothing in it attracting it towards "A"

Absolutely false. It is called the UniKEF CoS integration. That integration combined with the U and ~ terms results in a force which is (locally) exactly the same as Newtonian gravity in all cases.

I- but if you allow so much arbitaryness in your model of gravity, what good is it. - I may not be as quick or as proficient as you with calculus anymore, but I bet some one could make other arbitary divisions to "prove" that there are divisions of the zero sum which prove that individual force bewtween A & B goes as the inverse cube of their separation or inverse linearly with their separation etc.

There is nothing arbitrary in the specifications of the UniKEF CoS integration. If anybody gets anything other than inverse square locally then they have screwed up.

It is impossible to get any real cross section vs impact parameter type data from him,

I have told you more than once that the issue of how U and ~ are proportioned is irrelevant at this time. In that only their collective interaction which is effectively "G" in Newtonain gravity and UG in UniKEF is used to calculate gravitational forces.

It is something which we should plan studies to try and determine since it could perhaps be demonstrated that the UniKEF prediction that once a Black Hole becomes sufficiently massive added matter does not increase gravity.

Some decisions may be made by studying gravity of super massive Black Holes in comparision to more normal matter and gravity.

That may well break the symmetry between inertia and gravity which may be detected by orbits of binary Black Holes for example. But this possibility is not a required feature, it is supposition and if found would be absolute support for the concept.


but once he did appear to be explaining why he did not need to consider iron any differently (except by its mass) from hydrogen etc was that perhaps the interaction was at the "quark level," not the atom level (again, at least as I understood him. - He so often tells that I don't know what uniKEF is about, misrepresent it, etc. that I try to be extra careful when making any statements about it.)

And you have mis-represented UniKEF once more. I told you the discussion about quark level gravity had to do with the possibility of the strong nuclear force actually being an enhanced form of gravity and how and why. That has nothing to do with gravity at macroscopic levels.