Bull. Regulate maybe, prolong none. Radiation treament would be of no value unless decay occurs. :bugeye: OK. Now I agree. I suggest that they stop messing with theese other methods and simply store them in large accelerators. That seems to work just fine.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I did not mention fields. I said forces and energy. Referring to the collision events prodlucing muons in the atmosphere for example. Totally irrelevant diatribe. And I put as much faith in that report as I do SRT. Anything to do with the Bible for that fact. Irrelevant diatribe. So then you are denying that forces and energy change are involved in cosmic muon generations? You are denying that the high energy in their motion has nay bearing on their decay rate? All I have said is that the fully recognized issue of velocity affecting decay rate may be linked to the energy of velocity. Frankly I care less what you believe. I doi care about the BS you have been spreading over this forum. Your bogus claims of mathematical proofs that are shear laughable. Guess what I will indeed and I will post his response. When he rakes you over the coals will you shut the fuck up then?
Obviously if you can apply some field to delay decays, you cease to apply it when isotopes is medically used. I know you would prefer to postulate some unknown, unobserved, agent acting in the atmospheric collision process gives the muons extra life rather than accept that SR is correct and demonstrated so both by fact muons live long enough to reach the Earth surface and many other experimental confirmations, but even so, you have a naive idea as to what is a "collision." It is not a hard marble banging against another, but the interaction of the electric and nuclear force fields. All forces act via "fields." The forces holding two atoms of iron in a steel rod together are electric fields (and at a more sophisticated level, some "exchange energy effects," which you surely don't even know what I am trying to refer to. (Pauli got a Noble prize for explaning this aspect of the atom-to-atom binding.) Outside the nuclear force range, there are only three different types of forces associated with the three different fields. (I am not sure if I should include the "weak force", but certainly the EM and gravity forces are long ranged.) refute one and make me retract it. - Calling me names will not do it.
MacM Excuse the interuption, but I was currious if there are any equations that we would be familiar with that relate or are intregrated into UniKEF. If so, which ones are they. I apologise for not rooting around in the numerous threads where you've explained your theory for this info. Basically, where is the line drawn? I am assuming, perhaps wrongly so, that you are keeping some of the theories form the past few centuries. Where exactly is it that modern physics went astray in your oppinion, or is it just SRT? Also, what was the starting point for UniKEF? Was it an extension of pre-existing theories, just in a different direction?
I hope MacM responds, so I will only note one thing he probably will not. UniKEF flux is absorbed in masses and heats them, to some degree. It arrises from space (I think) but in any case, violates conservation of energy. That is a rather basic physics concept to toss in the trash can.
Wow, when did we discover (from MacM) from where UniKEF comes from? I've been trying to squeeze that answer out of him for some time.
Agreed. Your initial interjection of this issue was not clear on that point. You would of course favor affects without cause such as velocity affecting something even though relative velocity is nebulus in that numerous relative veloicty exists at the same time for the same particles. Or for grvity being some unknown cause by mass. Or that mass by some unknown means curves times space which you claim is nothingness even though it has properties. :bugeye: What a crock of crap. You've been refuted several times and continue to post the same false claims. That is the reason for name calling.
I can't think of any. The mathematics for UniKEF are based on geometry (as well as density, 'G', etc). To date the only thing that has been computed is the local affect which is inverse square between masses. But the function is clear in that it can be made account for galatic star rotation anomaly and mitigate or eliminate Dark Matter as its cause. It will also ultimately become repulsive and can account for the accelerting expansion of the universe. Without Dak Energy. (I have said before that I believe in fact that what I dubbed UniKEF is what they call Dark Energy but they have not realized that it can produce gravity as well as being repulsive at extreme distance. These other functions have not been formalized and must be proven but the function goes in those directons. No opology necessary. It is difficult to plow through the piles of BS that have been interjected in to the thread. I have only reformulated LeSage's view of gravity based on todays knowledge about the voids of space being full of energy. Modern physics went astray when they allowed Einstein to use gendankins instead of data. From there they make assumptions which are inconsistant not only with logic or possible reality but is actually in disagreement with observed facts. GR is closer to the truth than SRT but neither are totally correct. The error is mis-interpretatiojn of data and extrapolating it into areas that are completely untested and taking data as proof of the theory when such data can also have alternative explanations. I would have to say it is an extension of LeSage's work. 300+ years ago. It is a pushing gravity concept. There are several around. But UniKEF differs in that it is giving the concept both a reasonable origin and mathematical support for its functions. Unlike other gravity theories it has a cause for the affect. Thanks of asking.
Screw you and your continued negative innuendo. I respond to all posts. Your suggestion to the contrary is BS. HA. So the Big Bang didn't violate your energy conservation? UniKEF is a feature of an expanding universe. The same energy creating space and the illusion of time is the same energy that is producing gravity.
Funny how I may have missed that request. But no matter I have stated it several times. It is anticipated that UniKEF is an energy flowing from every planck ordinate point in the universe. It not only causes gravity but is expanding the universe. UniKEF is most likely what they now call Dark Energy. But Dark Energy was not thought of in 1954 so I've called it UniKEF.
Does every planck ordinate point have an infinite amout of this dark energy? How do you explain the acceleration of the expansion? Well, both seem to have the same description except you've added the origin of UniKEF. So I would have to say at the very least they are "similar".
I would think nobody knows. However, I see it more or less simular to radioactive decay. That is statistical releases not necessarily some uniform out flow. But again who knows. The expansion you are most likely referring to is the observable universe. That is matter being pushed outward into an even larger space being created by lthe process. It is accelerating with distance since as you move outward there is greater sources pushing in that direction than inward because UniKEF sees the universe as finite. The galaxies being pushed outward are balanced between gravity and F=ma. That is as sources for gravity weaken from the outward regions the affect is equally offset by force of acceleration. There is another reason for the observation in UniKEF but it goes into much more supposition than gravity affects. It has to do with what is called Quantitative Domain Limit. But I don't think we need raise these issues here.
