# UniKEF analysis

Physics Monkey said:
Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

You might do well to emulate Aer, DaleSpam or even Billy T. They seem willing to learn.

Billy T said:
I will only note the symbol "~" which was previously in your force equation not only is not in the one you just gave me,

Your memory seems to be failing.

UG = U * ~

but also has been stated by you to be one of three places where the density appeared.

For the record please post the three places you claim "I claimed" density appears". Since I have always maintained density only enters the formula once I think you will be hard put to post such nonsense.

MacM said:
You have finally gotten it correct. However, that is the basic view and an alternate view is where "~" varies with attentuation and density would have an affect. In that view gravity becomes a function of total mass not mass squared. The square function is accomadated in the energy conversion not the mass.
Is it correct to say that you have two different uniKEF theories? The one You say has no dependency upon density explicitly I will call uniKEF and the one you are talking about here I will call uniKEF~

Can you equally clearly tell me how uniKEF~ depends upon density is it"s force like uniKEF's force except multipiled by the density ofr what?

MacM said:
You might do well to emulate Aer, DaleSpam or even Billy T. They seem willing to learn.
Let me be clear here MacM. I am a very conservative and conventional engineer. As a theory of gravity I am not very impressed with UniKEF. I am much more interested in learning about GR than UniKEF. The main test of a theory, for me as an engineer, is whether or not I can use it to make simple and accurate predictions. The Newtonian "action at a distance" has never bothered me nor has the m1 m2 term, both of which seem to be central in your motivation for developing UniKEF. I don't really care much about the "story" behind a theory as long as its math is simple and accurate, but the story seems crucial to you.

Learning is not my motivation here. I happen to like interesting math problems and didn't like the venom of the arguments you have with BillyT. Plus, as you know, I deplore a "scientific" theory without math. My purpose is to have fun using Mathematica and to hopefully elevate the discussion of your theory to a more reasonable level. I am trying to get accurate mathematical results of your theory so that both you and your critics can debate more intelligently and less caustically.

-Dale

Billy T said:
Is it correct to say that you have two different uniKEF theories?

That is not correct. There is only one UniKEF. However, there is a brief mention of an alternative means of achieving the same result.

1 - The primary view is the basic view where the result is still the consequence of the product of PM1 and PM2 or a mass squared term with linear energy attentuation with mass.

2 - The alternative is linear accumulated mass but an attenuation which has a variable barns cross-section as a function of energy level such that penetration of a given mass compared to twice as much mass that will result in increased attenutation yielding the same result as though it was mass squared.

For example where U = 1.000 and the % amount of attenutation "~" is set to 1.000 then when U = 0.707, "~" = 0.5 not 0.707.

There is no purpose here in discussing this alternative. But do continue with the evaluation of the basic view.

Last edited:
DaleSpam said:
Let me be clear here MacM. I am a very conservative and conventional engineer.

Nothing to be ashamed of here.

As a theory of gravity I am not very impressed with UniKEF.

I'm sure (know from experience) that varies with each person and there couriosity.

I am much more interested in learning about GR than UniKEF.

The main test of a theory, for me as an engineer, is whether or not I can use it to make simple and accurate predictions.

I agree. There are those that something must be completely spelled out and is user friendly. (This is not meant to be derogatary but merely factual).

On the other hand I have had contact with a number of physicists that are more open to exercising thought that have found UniKEF interesting.

The Newtonian "action at a distance" has never bothered me nor has the m1 m2 term, both of which seem to be central in your motivation for developing UniKEF. I don't really care much about the "story" behind a theory as long as its math is simple and accurate, but the story seems crucial to you.

That is the same unfortunate attitude of most mainline scientist today. Complete faith in mathematheics without practical physical limits is merely spending time jacking off in the corner. It may give some short term pleasure but nothing useful will ever come out.

Learning is not my motivation here. I happen to like interesting math problems and didn't like the venom of the arguments you have with BillyT. Plus, as you know, I deplore a "scientific" theory without math. My purpose is to have fun using Mathematica and to hopefully elevate the discussion of your theory to a more reasonable level. I am trying to get accurate mathematical results of your theory so that both you and your critics can debate more intelligently and less caustically.

-Dale

You have been most fair to date and your efforts have been appreciated.

MacM said:
nothing useful will ever come out.
That is hardly a realistic assessment. Classical physics has been used to design almost every single piece of modern technology. I would not call that "nothing useful".

MacM said:
You have been most fair to date and your efforts have been appreciated.
You are welcome.

-Dale

DaleSpam said:
That is hardly a realistic assessment. Classical physics has been used to design almost every single piece of modern technology. I would not call that "nothing useful".

I agree it was a bad choice of words. Meant more in terms of nothing useful as in new understanding and advancement. Not that it cannot be used within practical limits.

MacM said:
That is the same unfortunate attitude of most mainline scientist today. Complete faith in mathematheics without practical physical limits is merely spending time jacking off in the corner. It may give some short term pleasure but nothing useful will ever come out.

MacM, why are you dumb as hell? While you talk a big talk, the real scientists are out there making real progress. Your theory is a piece of garbage, meanwhile those of us who actually know something about the way the world works continue to make wonderful progress with our "conventional methods." General relativity and the standard model are the most accurate human intellectual creations ever, meanwhile you stutter baseless nonsense in the corners of the internet. Talk about wasting your time in a corner! I can't help but laugh at your stupendous arrogance and pity your gross ignorance.

MacM said:
Meant more in terms of nothing useful as in new understanding and advancement. Not that it cannot be used within practical limits.
Ah, yes. The typical difference between science and engineering. One wants to advance understanding and the other wants to make or do something practical. As long as we each recognize that then we should be able to communicate without vitriol. For me classical gravity is great because we can use it for the practical purposes of getting to the moon or Mars. For you it is insufficient because (as Newton himself admitted) it describes and predicts without explaining.

I am definitely an engineer by training and temperment. I recognized early that pure science is not the job for me, but I definitely know its importance since if it weren't for the pure science I wouldn't be able to design any of my practical things. But I have never looked to science for explanation, only description and prediction. For that your theory definitely needs more math, right now it is long on explanation and short on prediction.

-Dale

Physics Monkey said:
MacM, why are you dumb as hell? While you talk a big talk, the real scientists are out there making real progress. Your theory is a piece of garbage, meanwhile those of us who actually know something about the way the world works continue to make wonderful progress with our "conventional methods." General relativity and the standard model are the most accurate human intellectual creations ever, meanwhile you stutter baseless nonsense in the corners of the internet. Talk about wasting your time in a corner! I can't help but laugh at your stupendous arrogance and pity your gross ignorance.

And if your response were not so obviously selfserving bullshit I would be offended but considering the source I can only have pity for you.

DaleSpam said:
Ah, yes. The typical difference between science and engineering. One wants to advance understanding and the other wants to make or do something practical. As long as we each recognize that then we should be able to communicate without vitriol. For me classical gravity is great because we can use it for the practical purposes of getting to the moon or Mars. For you it is insufficient because (as Newton himself admitted) it describes and predicts without explaining.

I don't begrudge using mathematical models for practical purposes. I do object to those that believe we should not look deeper and actually try to understand the origin of the mathematics.

I am definitely an engineer by training and temperment. I recognized early that pure science is not the job for me, but I definitely know its importance since if it weren't for the pure science I wouldn't be able to design any of my practical things. But I have never looked to science for explanation, only description and prediction. For that your theory definitely needs more math, right now it is long on explanation and short on prediction.
-Dale

My only disagreement is in the use of the term "prediction". I think you actually mean "application". Predictions can and have been made without mathematics. However, it takes mathematics to apply the theory.

WEBSTER:

PREDICT - to say in advance what one believes will happen, fortell a future event or events.

Nothing in this definition requires mathematics but only words. I based on my views via UniKEF have made numerous predictions and have predictions still pending verification. They did not require mathematics but only vision.

Last edited:
Breaking news! Brand new "holiday gravity theory" successfully predicts all future gravitation:

The core element of this theory is that all matter is piloted by tiny little reindeer. The net result of this enormous collection of reindeer is that the earth will continue to exert some unspecified amount of gravitational attraction on its inhabitants as it continues to orbit around the sun at an uncalculated rate for an fairly long duration. Many other celestial objects will follow a similar pattern, but there are various other celestial objects which are piloted by more malicious reindeer and will collide at an unspecified future time with an uncalculated amount of energy. In summarry this new theoretical breakthrough predicts that things will gravitate.

According to Webster's definition horoscopes also predict. The bar for a prediction to be considered scientific is quite a bit higher. I reassert that UniKEF is long on explanation and short on prediction.

-Dale

DaleSpam said:
Breaking news! Brand new "holiday gravity theory" successfully predicts all future gravitation:

The core element of this theory is that all matter is piloted by tiny little reindeer. The net result of this enormous collection of reindeer is that the earth will continue to exert some unspecified amount of gravitational attraction on its inhabitants as it continues to orbit around the sun at an uncalculated rate for an fairly long duration. Many other celestial objects will follow a similar pattern, but there are various other celestial objects which are piloted by more malicious reindeer and will collide at an unspecified future time with an uncalculated amount of energy. In summarry this new theoretical breakthrough predicts that things will gravitate.

According to Webster's definition horoscopes also predict. The bar for a prediction to be considered scientific is quite a bit higher. I reassert that UniKEF is long on explanation and short on prediction.

-Dale

Glad to see we are in agreement.

Calculation is a totally different issue than prediction.

Now if it turns out that indeed gravity is a function of reindeer then your prediction will have been confirmed and your theory gets one plus mark.

You say that there is only one uniKEF theory but it has the folloing alternative and give an expample which seems to me to contradict what you told us in the uniKEF balls thread (second quote of MacM taken from that thread.)
MacM said:
...The alternative is linear accumulated mass but an attenuation which has a variable barns cross-section as a function of energy level such that penetration of a given mass compared to twice as much mass that will result in increased attenutation yielding the same result as though it was mass squared.
For example where U = 1.000 and the % amount of attenutation "~" is set to 1.000 then when U = 0.707, "~" = 0.5 not 0.707.
There is no purpose here in discussing this alternative. But do continue with the evaluation of the basic view.

If U = 1.000, then U~ = 1.000 but if U = 0.707 then U~ = 0.3535

MacM said:
Collectively U * ~ = UG which is a term comperable to "G" in Newtonian gravity but adjusted such that a specific case (i.e. congruent identical spheres in surface contact) calculated in Newtonian gravity will result in the same force of gravity when used in UniKEF's:
Fg = UG * PM1 *PM2

Here you call U~ "UG" and say it plays the same role as "G" of Newton, but Newrton's G is a constant and "universal", called the "universal gravitational constant."

How can it have two different values? (1.000 & 0.3535)

Billy T,

You say that there is only one uniKEF theory but it has the folloing alternative and give an expample which seems to me to contradict what you told us in the uniKEF balls thread (second quote of MacM taken from that thread.)

“ Originally Posted by MacM
...The alternative is linear accumulated mass but an attenuation which has a variable barns cross-section as a function of energy level such that penetration of a given mass compared to twice as much mass that will result in increased attenutation yielding the same result as though it was mass squared.
For example where U = 1.000 and the % amount of attenutation "~" is set to 1.000 then when U = 0.707, "~" = 0.5 not 0.707.

There is no purpose here in discussing this alternative. But do continue with the evaluation of the basic view. ”

If U = 1.000, then U~ = 1.000 but if U = 0.707 then U~ = 0.3535

This does not come from anything I have posted.

“ Originally Posted by MacM
Collectively U * ~ = UG which is a term comperable to "G" in Newtonian gravity but adjusted such that a specific case (i.e. congruent identical spheres in surface contact) calculated in Newtonian gravity will result in the same force of gravity when used in UniKEF's:
Fg = UG * PM1 *PM2 ”

Here you call U~ "UG" and say it plays the same role as "G" of Newton, but Newrton's G is a constant and "universal", called the "universal gravitational constant."

How can it have two different values? (1.000 & 0.3535). I am confused by your comments.

Pointing out again that the correct alternative value would be 0.5 not 0.3535. I have no idea how you could come up with such a post.

However, there should be no confusion. In the basic view UG is merely a constant as is G but of a different fixed value.

In the alternative where resistance to passage through mass depends on the energy level "~" continuously changes and UG is not constant.

Physics Monkey said:
MacM, why are you dumb as hell? While you talk a big talk, the real scientists are out there making real progress. Your theory is a piece of garbage, meanwhile those of us who actually know something about the way the world works continue to make wonderful progress with our "conventional methods." General relativity and the standard model are the most accurate human intellectual creations ever, meanwhile you stutter baseless nonsense in the corners of the internet. Talk about wasting your time in a corner! I can't help but laugh at your stupendous arrogance and pity your gross ignorance.

You sound like a scientific fundamentalist.

I have heard people quoting the bible that make statements like this.

Are you a Christian by chance?

"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence." AE

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." AE

"A little less explanation, a little more prediction, PLEASE!"

ELVIS

I concluded that:
If U = 1.000, then U~ = 1.000 but if U = 0.707 then U~ = 0.3535
MacM said:
For example where U = 1.000 and the % amount of attenutation "~" is set to 1.000 then when U = 0.707, "~" = 0.5 not 0.707.
And
MacM said:
Collectively U * ~ = UG which is a term comperable to "G" in Newtonian gravity but adjusted such that a specific case
If my conclusion does not follow, then what is the meaning of the first of your posts? When I multiply 0.707 by 0.5, I get the product U*~ = UG =0.3535

Billy T said:
I concluded that:
If U = 1.000, then U~ = 1.000 but if U = 0.707 then U~ = 0.3535