James R.,

Suggestions for improvement will inevitable arise when flaws are pointed out. Also, I did not say that only critical posts would be allowed, if you mean "critical" only in terms of negative criticism. There is such a thing as positive criticism, too. What I aim to do in this thread is to consider the viability of UniKEF as a candidate for a scientific theory. Obviously, I personally do not believe it has any value, so I will endeavour to point out exactly why I have come to that conclusion.

ANS: I'm fine with positive criticisim. Perhaps I read to much into your instructions. (Not that I think you would have warded off a rash of positive comments.
If Einstein had posted his ideas, he would have passed my little test with flying colours. Even disregarding any evidence, his theory was self-consistent and clearly formulated - a fewature which is greatly lacking in your ideas.

ANS: I accept that based on your reliance on mathematical continuity and not logic. Although you seem to accept Relativity without the same questions of "How", "Why" and "Cause" that you have historically leveled at UniKEF. Perhaps had UniKEF had more formal math things could have been different - But I doubt it.
I will comment on your response to my previous comments, then on your response to Persol.

I did a quick search. It appears he is now an expert in infrared analysis. He worked for the Department of Defense. Most of the material on the internet which mentions him is concerned with his analysis of video footage from the Waco incident involving David Koresh.

ANS: Fantastic. You actually located him. I am going to make an effort to recontact him myself. In particular with regard to his calculus contribution. When I knew him he was studying how to improve Piric Acid Explosives.
I have suggested no such thing. I merely comment that it is strange that he used the terminology so loosely. Given one of your other comments, I wonder whether he wrote the sentence about the "circles", or whether you did, seeing as you inserted his work into your manuscript. It seems to me most likely that you wrote it, and interspersed your own material with his mathematics. Please correct me if I am wrong.

ANS: Your are wrong. The only insertion I made to his papers was at the end with the "Author's note".
Ok, so explain where the angle comes from then. It's your theory.

ANS: For any dynamic field or energy to be effective at producing gravity by the UniKEF method it must pass through two (or more) masses. The Fig's shows two circles (spheres) at different seperations. The angles shown is the maximum angle that such energy sources may come from in the universe and cause gravitation of the jpenetrated masses. It forms "Cones of Sources" or as Persol called them "Gravity Cones". Any energy from outside that cone creates gravity jpotential around the surface of the mass but is not effective at gravitating the two bodies. That cone angle increases as the bodies grow closer together.
I don't understand why an angle offset from the line joining the centres of the two spheres is necessary, or how it follows from UniKEF principles. Can you explain it? Also, please explain how I can calculate the appropriate angle given any two arbitrary masses.

ANS: If you look at Dr. Allards first sketch and my figures, what they show is the volume of energy source in the universe that will penetrate both masses. As that angle is increased the volume of mass penetrated decreases as well as does the amount of mass penetrated as one moves radially across the masses. The tangent line to the surface of a sphere has no penetration of mass regardless of angle to the line of gravitation. Did that answer your question?

It isn't just "AN" angle. It is the range of angles which must be integrated. That is looking at the line of gravity (a line through the COM's of two identical bodies (for simplicity) is the maximum penetration of mass, going through the diameters of both masses. As you move out radially but parallel to that line each increment outward penetrates less total mass in each sphere, until you reach the surface tangents where the is no longer mass penetration.

If you now start to angle with a line the bisects the center of the line of gravity between the two masses you will find that such a line penetrates less total mass than the line of gravitation. You will also note the the ability to expand parallel lines to this line is narrower before reaching the tangent point of the surface of one sphere and any further extension of jparallel lines is not part of the gravitating field. Further in addition to the reduced mass penetration of such angled lines the force produce has a trigometric function and that must be converted to determine its "X" component or the amount of force experience as gravity between the COM's.
Please explain to me exactly how the angle relates to the separation. An equation would be nice, if such a thing exists.

ANS: I have never written such an equation but I do believe I can. So here goes. Placing the vertex of the "Cones of Sources" midway between the COM's and on the line joining them; where "r" is the radius of the spheres and "d" = D/2 where D is the distance between COM's:

The vertex angle is 2 times (r/d) sin^ -1; now this is the MAXIMUM angle. One must integrate from zero degrees to that angle to get the answer.
I have some related questions: where does the flux come from? It seems you are saying it does not come equally from all directions? If not, which direction has the strongest flux, and why? And can you explain how varying the angle alters the flux penetrating both masses? (Again, mathematically, if you can, but in words at least.)

ANS: In the original manuscript I suggest that the "flux" might be coming from nuclear active bodies (stars) but neutrinos were insufficent, so it was an unknown energy flux. A bit later I began to favor a homogeneous flow of energy wich came from space itself. Yet it had never been detcted and this was (and still to a lesser degree) is a big question. As I have said from my perspective the finding of the activity in the vacuum energy encourages me to believe it indeed does come fromthere but I certainly have no specific information on that issue.

I think I could given some time write an expression showing the change in mass penetration of angled lines but that doesn't integrate those parallel lines at that angle that still penetrate both masses. So I have not done that. I may if this continues, in a few days provide such a formula but for now lets try this:

1 - Draw two circles of equal diameter horizontally seperated and with one circle diameter between their surfaces.

2 - Draw a line (A) through the two circle centers.

3 - Now draw a line (B) starting toward the top (but tangent to the circle (of the circle on your left) and down through a point midway between the circle centers on line (A). Continue that line down until it contacts the lower tangent oint of the circle on your right.

Line A represents the greatest mass penetration and a trig function of 1.0. If you draw parallel lines to line A you can see that as you move out radially each line penetrates less and less total mass, but still has a trig function of 1.0, until you reach the point that the parallel line is tangent to both circles which has a mass penetration of "Zero".

Line B is the maximum angle that penetrates both masses. and is tangent to both circles. You cannot draw parallel lines to this line that will penetrate both masses. Above misses the circles on the left and below will miss the circle on the right. So this line represents a flux angle with the worst trig function and also no mass penetration.

Now draw a line (C) that bisects the angle between line A and line B.

Line C can be seen to penetrate less mass than line A. that is it strikes a chord across the circles that is less than their diameter. This line has a trig function less than 1.0 but greater than that of line B. Also you will see that you can draw parallel lines both above and below line C. However the total number of parallel lines (assuming equal spacing) is fewer than for line A.

It is the itegration of all possible angles of flux, their total mass penetration and their trigometeric function that in a 3D cone that results in the 1/r^2 function. Does this prove UniKEF gravity?. No. Is it suggestive? Yes. I actually made numerous, precise as I could drawings of circles at different seperations and drew one degree angles and evenly spaced parallel lines and hand computed these functions with an algorithum to convert the 2D data into 3D results and showed that it followed 1/r^2 to within .01. That is what encouraged Dr Allaed to take a look at this in more detail. I would add that Dr Allard did this out of personal interst and wasn't doing something that he was presenting as a paper, wich I suspect is why you find it a bit casual or less than properly scripted. In this case both he an I knew what we were looking at. It could be presented better I am sure.
Yes, but which particular circle is he calculating the area of on page 2? Why is such a complicated integral even necessary? The area of a circle is pi R2.

ANS: I can't answer regarding the calculus presentation but I do believe the above responses clarify what is being integrated and it isn't pi R^2.
More on page 3 below, under "General Comments".

Can you explain how all these factors come into play, one by one? For example, I'd like an explanation of how "field strength" comes into the calculation. What field are we talking about? (UniKEF, I presume). How can I calculate the strength of it at a particular location? How does it affect the attractive force between two masses (mathematically)?

ANS: Unfortunately there is no data regarding field strength and the absorbtion coefficient. Collectively they would represent "G". For example only: If "U" is the UniKEF field and U = 2.2233E60 N.m/sec and "~" is the absorbtion coefficient and ~ is 3E-71 m . sec/Kg^2; then U * ~ = 6.67E-11 N . m^2/Kg^2 = G.

The only comment I can make on this issue is that the field must be immense and the absorbtion infintesmal to accommadate the range of gravities we see. One other note I use the term absorbtion frequently but I also qualify that as being "attenuation" as well. That is absorbtion is actually minimal and is that part that produces heat as an inelastic reaction. The overwhelming reaction is elastic or a momentum trsfer and scattering phenomena. The ratio is several factors of scattering over absorbtion.
quote:

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

* Dr Allard notes that this is only the "geometrical portion". He says "field" and "absorbtion" terms are needed to get a real force between the two "circles". What are these terms? How are we supposed to calculate them? Where do they come from?

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

ANS: That is incorrect. While I now agree it can be misinterpreted. I added that comment when his work was put into the manuscript and the "author" mentioned was me.

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

So, you admit to an error which has remained in your theory for over 30 years. Why haven't you corrected it?

ANS: First I wouldn't classify this as an error. Second you are the first person to mention the misinterpretation as to who placed the note. I will infact clarify that for future readers. Thanks.
Anyway, please answer my questions, if you have any answers.

quote:

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

Calculus-5

This page looks like a lot of cut-and-pasted snippets of mathematics with no connection to anything which has gone previously.

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

ANS: I can't comment on this other than to say these may be notes or crib sheets he used in jputting together his presentation. I wouldl think for anyone actaully interested in understanding this that had mathematics would be able to put it into proper context. Not wanting to do so makes it easy to lodge a complaint.

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

I wouldn't have wasted my time if I wasn't trying to "put it into proper context". What do you think I'm doing here?

ANS: Actually I am pleased with the way this is going. Much to my surprise.
Are you saying that you actually have no idea what any of this material is? Surely you know whether these are just rough notes which could be anything, or something actually important to your theory? Don't you?

ANS: Actually I only know that he was genuinely excited about his results and he handed me his papers for future reference. I would suspect that he thought I knew more than I did with regard to calculus. But these were his notes and work and all relate to his integration of the UniKEF functions mentioned above. I plan infact to recontact Dr Allard and ask for his help at clarifying those pages. Until I met you guys I assumed they were obvious to those in the know mathematically. But apparently it is not so obvious.
I think you only have Dr Allard's notes on your web-site in order to impress people who don't know any mathematics into thinking that your theory has some mathematical backing.

ANS: I have those pages on the web because they were added to the manuscript and were given to me as support for the concept. Which is what I still believe they do. Do they need some clarification. Apparently so. Only a fool would attempt to hood-wink their way through something like this and especially join a group such as Sciforums to put forth the concept if it were not felt legimate. BTW regardless of your personal opinion I am not such a fool.
Please explain (or link me to an explanation) of your "cones of sources" concept. I don't understand it yet.

ANS: I hope the above has clarified the "Cones of Sources" issue. If not then let me know and I'll try to find another way of explaining it.
Ah, so these have nothing to do with Dr Allard, then? Are these your work? Where is the associated text, then?

ANS: That is correct. Dr Allards work is only the calculus pages. The explanations for the figures are unfortunately scattered in the text of the abstract and . In fact there is more figures and text that remains to be added but I have had a computer problem and am unable to currently edit or post in the documents section. I have activated a section entitled "Graphics" available from the main menu. It has been a hidden file in that it is work in progress but under these circumstances I have taken it out of the hidden file so that you may get information more readily. But remember it is work in progress.
quote:

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

So, what am I to make of all this? Am I missing something? Is this as far as the mathematics of UniKEF has progressed? Is this all the mathematical material there is which is said to relate to UniKEF?

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

ANS: Basically yes. Other formulas and calculation are by example and are not deemed ultimate answers but even some of these seem to have some merit but only time will tell how valid or invalid they may be.

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

Time is telling now, in this very thread, don't you think?

ANS: Based on the misunderstandings that appear evident thus far, I'm not sure the conclusion you suggest is yet valid. To say the least I think we have established that Dr Allard is real, he performed the calculus and that this hasn't all been some dream. Beyond that I think it is still to early to make declarations.
Indeed.

ANS: I don't believe I have ever given grounds to believe that I have claimed any proofs but I have and continue to say I'm either the luckiest guy around or the "Priori's" have some signifigance. At this point it doesn't matter that you don't understand what I saw and why I came to those conclusions. In time I truly believe you will. That is not to say you will agree but at least you will understand the underlying concept.
Well, I think the next step is to examine your claims to having predicted results. It seems to me that you can't derive any results from your theory, since it has no mathematical foundation. Would it be fair to say that all your predictions about the accelerating expansion of the universe are more "educated guesses" based on your principles than derived results, then? That seems to be what you're saying above.

ANS: I think we can agree fully on this point. All the predictions were based on the concept and what it should mean and were made with no evidence or data of any kind. Personally, I'm proud of the current record in that regard. Although I regret that I don't have all the skills of the members challenging this concept and could have laid all this in your lap all wrapped up in pretty terms.
What was incorrect about my comments? Please point out my mistakes, since that is the only way I will learn.

ANS: At this juncture I'm not sure exactly what I was referring to but I think it was to your misunderstandings in general about the concept; which I hope I have been able to calrify in this post.
This seems to back up what I said above.

ANS: Can't respod here in that it would depend on which comments you are referring to.
Well, since there is no mathematics of any value, it seems we will have to examine the ideas and evidence instead, so I'm happy to call it quits with the maths from here on and concentrate on the ideas. Ok?

ANS: I would agree.
General comments

It seems that when pushed, MacM, you keep making disclaimers about your own theory. You even deny all knowledge and claim that the work is not yours but somebody else's, so you can't be held responsible for errors. This is a common theme with you, and a paradoxical one, since you want to take credit for the theory, but at the same time you don't want criticism.

ANS: I would have to disagree strongly here. Please give an example of claiming anybody has been involved other than Dr Allard to the limited degree of his calculus. I am due the credit and/or admonition however it goes.
I thought I'd collect a few examples of this just from the past 2 posts you've made. All the following quotes are yours:

quote:

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

"Unfortunately I can be of no help here and can't even criticize your criticisim. I can only say that when he gave me these papers he said the UniKEF view of gravity was viable mathematically."

"His calculus appears to do what I had done log hand before him in summing up the `Effective' area bsaed on total penetration at an angle and the angle trig affect. Not knowing calculus I have assumed this is what he has done."

"This is indeed tricky to discuss but I'll only add that I am not the only one that seems to have this view. That is time is in reality an illusion or property of our 3D's and the affect of energy transfer causing events."

"This information goes back decades. The prediction was made as a consequence of the "Bubble Multiverse" view. ...HOwever, I haven't seen much about it over the years and am not aware of what determinations were made for the purported findings."

"Actually that is a quote from a paper which has been covered before here. So these aren't my words but those of physicists that wrote the paper."

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

ANS: I'll save some space and just comment in general to the collective examples you cite. They are factual statements. Regarding ""Actually that is a quote from a paper which has been covered before here. So these aren't my words but those of physicists that wrote the paper." for example, I'm sure you should recall that statement being challnged before here and I posted the link and paper where those were the words of the physicist that wrote the paper. I have indeed adapted that view but as I said that description was not mine.

Now please explain to me why you see this as some disclaimer. I stated true facts and I stated it was from others but that I agree with that view. Had I claimed that as my words then it would have been plagerisim and then you would have had a legitimate gripe. Currently I don't see that you have any. Likewise the issue of Dr Allard and my lack of doing calculus has been up front from day one. So where is this disclaimer syndrome you aledge? I take this as an unwarranted attack.
So, is UniKEF your theory or somebody else's, MacM? If there's somebody more knowledgeable about it than you, then please tell me how to contact them so I can get more information. On the other hand, if it is your theory, then perhaps you could start providing some real, detailed explanations from first principles. My guess is you won't do that, so I'll keep wading through your website and see what else I can patch together.

ANS: We seemed to have been doing fine up until these last two paragraphs. I resent the enuendo regarding this being my work or that of some others. A quick look through the "Historical Documents" album should resolve any question about whos work this is. Further feel free to contact Dr Allard. With the correct introduction, a refresher about UniKEF Theory and his having done the few pages of calculus, he should remember. You ask my name and I would be very suprised if he remembers but then again he might. He also fabricated a special valve for me for a UniKEF machine. I'm sure he'll remember that. It was plexiglas about 18 inches in diameter with a series or angled holes traverse through a rotating rim on a central hub and was approximatly 3 inches thick. Go ahead. Stop casting enuendo and ask somebody that knows.