I certainly agree 0.707 * 0.707 = 0.5 but do not understand how you could expect anyone to read what you wrote that way. Be that as it may, are you saying that uniKEF's "G" is adjusted to fit the facts? (instead of being universal like Newton's G is)
What has quoting the Bible or being a Christian got to do physics? The greatest physicist of all time, Isaac Newton, was obsessed with the Bible and believed it was literally true. He was a formidable Biblical scholar and he considered it his greatest work (though true to form, he published very little). As for ol' Einstein, he was also a very very very good physicist, but you do know he had a PhD, right? You know thermodynamics, that theory you spit in the face of every time you babble about free energy machines? Well Einstein thought thermodynamics was the crown jewel of physics. Let me be perfectly clear so that you will be sure to understand: you are nothing like Albert Einstein. You and all the other crackpots are not heirs to his stunning legacy. P.S. I confront mysteries that you can't even imagine, and my sense of wonder blossoms fresh every day. You will never understand the true wonder of the universe until you understand something of how it works. Only then can you really grasp how little we actually know and truly stand in awe.
In the basic view where UG is a constant as is G, UG can be determined by a one time calculation by UG = G *V / PV
I have never been very clear what your PV is but have the distinct impression that it is some fraction of the total V defined somehow (i hope at least) by your CoS. Is it true that PV < V ?
Thank you for avoiding my question. I will take your answer as yes you are a Christian. Why do I ask? My observations have concluded that Science and Religion conflict on many fronts. I stand in awe when I observe the pinnacle of arrogance, watching people worshiping Gods made in their own image. Why did I ask this question? Because I noticed in your writing and expression, a fundamental aspect of blind faith in what you think you know. This is a dominate trait exhibited by people who belong to religious cults. Religion is not the topic of this thread so I will say no more. Albert Einstein was a PhD who did not know beans. He owned ten of the same suits so he did not have to think about what it was he was going to where each day. Must I go on. No one is perfect, my self included. And by the way, we are all ( that would be every one on the planet ) heirs to the legacy of AE. AE had a beautiful mind and he knew how to use it. His imagination was his inspiration. Unless you are a nuclear physicist who is back engineering extra terrestrial space craft for the US Government, I am fairly sure I understand what ever it is that you do. It was not so long ago when man relied on beast for transportation, trust me I understand how little we know. As for the universe and how it works, If you possess this knowledge please share it. Now how about a fun experiment? Create plasma or ball lightning in your own kitchen. Just duct tape over the vent in the top of your microwave oven, so the environment inside the oven is not disturbed by the ventilation fan. Be sure not to use a metallic backed tape we do not want to de tune the oven. Last but not least put a small candle in the oven and turn it on high. Now can you explain why it is that this experiment works?
PV is Pseudo Volume. That is not the actual volume but the volume of the mass as viewed from the UniKEF sources within the CoS. PV is always larger than V except when the CoS = 0 degrees (at infinite seperation distance).
I have wondered my self whether AE new of particle entanglement and if so did it or would it have changed his thoughts about relative time?
well I guess if it confronts the issue of non-simultaneousness it would seem rather spooky, seeing as non-simultaneousness is very much a part of his lifes work....and physics current understanding of time. Unless of course we wish to consider entanglement as being some sort of separate space dimension to AE relatvity, which of course would be a bit of a cop out.
off topic I know but: Scenario : we have two entangled particles. One is in ship A and the other is in ship B You can no doubt guess at the rest of the gendanken.
*yawn* The heated gas is partially ionized. Turn the microwave on and you add an electric field. What does a plasma do in an electric field? It conducts, resulting in further heating and more ionization. Hot air rises and voila "ball lightning". Didn't they teach you these things in introductory physics? You can also do the same thing with grapes cut in half, the grapes are about the right size to constitute a quarter wave dielectric antenna. (Who told the monkey about dielectrics?) The arrangement intensifies the field in between the grape halves which can lead to dielectric breakdown and thus ionization. There are all kinds of other neat things you can watch spark and flame in your microwave, but I should warn you to be careful, these experiments aren't really for children. If you come back tomorrow night, daddy will tell you another bed time story. (There are details of course, but I will tell you about them when you're older.) In the future, if you want to try and stump me, you might try suggesting an experiment that hasn't already been done by every curious person out there (of which I am one). I don't actually know all that much, so you could easily ask me a question I couldn't answer if you knew what you were talking about. Clearly you don't. I know, I know, I'm being mean. This isn't like me I tell you, I usually really enjoy helping people understand, but I just can't resist a few laughs at the expense of the crackpots (that's you). It's a character flaw that I'll just have to work on. P.S. Because of you ad hominem attacks and general stupidity, I am done talking to you. Please feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want from your irrelevant questions, it doesn't bother me in the least. Also, I would encourage you to waste as much time as you like typing out a real nasty reply. However, please be aware that I don't care and won't read it. Thank you for some good laughs.
Thus far Dale has been considering only one object. For example the force at an interior point. Does the PV in this case include the entire universe? What is the most distant point in a typical PV?
See my post in the balls thread. The PV is an unnecessary concept. It is only useful if you approach the integration the way MacM does on his website. The PV only shows up inside the integral (for every θ you get a different PV). I break up the problem differently and never use PV. -Dale
You forgot to mention the carbon reaction. Now If you like to teach others about what it is that you know that's great. I just do not see how your name calling and attacks against MacM and others are appropriate. And in all your intelligence ( I do believe you are quite educated ) you still lack people skills. By my statements to you, I wish you no harm or insult. If what I have stated helps you to become a better communicator, then I have succeeded. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
READERS: Thanks to DaleSpam's efforts [post=922409]Here[/post] UniKEF nay sayers regarding MacM's claim that the UniKEF integration was inverse square are shown wrong once again.
I have and I agree. I only want to understand what MacM is claiming better. He is at times very hard to get a clear answer out of, (instead of insults, etc.) but I am persistent. After 16 (or more) attempts, he did finally tell in conventional terms (used a symbol for density etc.) that uniKEF has no explicit dependency on density.
HeHe. I do have to say that I believe most understood. Some however, seem impossible to converse with in any casual manner with words and require prior derived mathematical formulas. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I must take exception to this and to Billy T's agreement with this. See [post=923077]Post[/post]. Please reconsider the CoS in two body system. Compute gravity for two identical spheres at two or more seperation distances. Did The change in distance (CoS) have a relationship to gravity force? Yes. It was inverse square. How can you then claim that change in diameter (same mass) which changes the CoS, hence PV, then has no affect?
Please do not continue to distort the facts. You did make repeated incorrect statements regarding what I had said and you had been told regarding density in UniKEF gravity. That is not the same thing as I having not responded. Your apparent inability to convert abstract verbage into mathematics is your problem not mine. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
