McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

Gentlemen.

1 - I have not abandoned this forum. I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months. I plan to prove them wrong about that but then I must also live in the real world and not one of personal wishfulness.

So I have many things to achieve in a short [period time and cannot dedicate time to this forum where it has been made clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.

Where pragmatically you must consider the alternative possibilities (invariance of light is a consequence of a a different origin of light being based on v = c relative to a universal background energy relative to the observer absolute velocity as a function of some quantum energy level.

i.e. - simular to some form of dimensional binding energy release in which case different observers are seeing different photons rather than a photon have a physical invariant velocity to any observer regardless of veloicty to the source of ight which requires a form of relativity.

2 - Recognizing that the same results can be mathmatically reproduced from an absolute concept vs a SR concept and where the reciprocity of SR is prohibited in LR vs the mathematical consequence of a relative vleocity view of original SR and where current physics functions in a mathematical manner which also rejects reciprocity of the actual physical concepts but physcists refuse to acknowlege that motion "Relative" some inertial frame (not other clocks) is in fact an absolute physical measurement not a "Mere Relative Velocity) view.

3 - With respect to the Gravity Patent that you can replace the theoretical diaphragm valve with a hypothetical mechanical valve comprised of a series of thin layered iris plates where such that the differential prressure across the chambers is never felt by the shepe and where the volume of gas being pumped back into the lower chamber is virtuall "zero" and energy plus gravity weight of the system allowing passage ofthe sphere between ehyamcberw must "theretorically" be considered.

4 - With regard to an "Inertial Drive" The term has nothing to do with the historical hypothetical warp speed drives, etc, but simply means a mechanisim of converting rotary momentum forces in to some linear momentum force in which all acceleration/decelleration forces combined with centrifugal forces are accounted for and for which there becomes a net vector momentum force (torque around the source) that becomes a linear force on the frame by using counter rotating system. That force being a function of power (energy) input and is NOT pertetual motion or defies actual physics.

5 - Thanks to all that may have participated here and regardless of our curt and rather pointed posts I respect you all.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Sorry to hear of your troubles. But I'm unwilling to even consider alternatives.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months.

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope you beat the odds.

So I have many things to achieve in a short [period time and cannot dedicate time to this forum where it has been made clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.

MacM, I don't think you understand the crowd here. People are indeed willing to consider alternatives to currently accepted models. But in order to get them to do that, you need to do several things:

1) You need to demonstrate that you understand those currently accepted models, and why they were accepted in the first place.
2) You need to show shortcomings of those currently accepted models, ie, show where these models are contradicted by experiment.
3) You need to show that these alternatives match the currently accepted model in those cases where the currently accepted model works.
4) You need to show that these alternatives also match experiments where current models fail.

You have not actually managed to do any of these things, MacM. This is not any easy task either: in fact, even just understanding current models takes considerable time and effort. But if you don't understand them then how can you hope to show that they ever fail? And given that there are plenty of crackpots out there who think they've discovered why physics is all wrong and their pet model will reveal everything, how can you make your model stand out from the crackpots? You can't do it without showing mastery of those current models.

Where pragmatically you must consider the alternative possibilities (invariance of light is a consequence of a a different origin of light being based on v = c relative to a universal background energy relative to the observer absolute velocity as a function of some quantum energy level.

This is is symptomatic of your problems here. What does this even mean? Physics can often be confusing, which is why the math is so important: math is unambiguous. Our physics theories are often described with words, but they are always formulated in terms of math. What is the math behind your statement? I really have no idea. And so I cannot evaluate it. If you cannot express it mathematically, then it won't be clear to anyone else that you really know what you're talking about either.

3 - With respect to the Gravity Patent that you can replace the theoretical diaphragm valve with a hypothetical mechanical valve comprised of a series of thin layered iris plates where such that the differential prressure across the chambers is never felt by the shepe and where the volume of gas being pumped back into the lower chamber is virtuall "zero" and energy plus gravity weight of the system allowing passage ofthe sphere between ehyamcberw must "theretorically" be considered.

These details just don't matter. Either gravity is a conservative force, in which case you cannot power a perpetual motion device of any kind with it, or gravity is not a conservative force, in which case you don't need your perpetual motion device to be fancy at all. You have suggested you think it's not conservative, but have not given a mathematical description of what a non-conservative gravitational force should look like.

4 - With regard to an "Inertial Drive" The term has nothing to do with the historical hypothetical warp speed drives, etc, but simply means a mechanisim of converting rotary momentum forces

You are using words in a way which makes no sense. Momentum and force are completely different things. Furthermore, they are both nouns, neither one is an adjective. So even grammatically, a "momentum force" makes absolutely no sense. Whatever it is you mean, if you can't find a better way to express it, nobody is going to accept it. And with good reason.

 

[BenBurch]

The best of luck to you.

 

[Horatius]

Gentlemen.

1 - I have not abandoned this forum. I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months. I plan to prove them wrong about that but then I must also live in the real world and not one of personal wishfulness.

Well, that totally sucks. I hope it works out for you.

5 - Thanks to all that may have participated here and regardless of our curt and rather pointed posts I respect you all.

Having been a part of the thread on your patents, I appreciate your thanks.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry as a survivor of the little c, I am sorry to read that.

 

[Uncayimmy]

1) You need to demonstrate that you understand those currently accepted models, and why they were accepted in the first place.
2) You need to show shortcomings of those currently accepted models, ie, show where these models are contradicted by experiment.
3) You need to show that these alternatives match the currently accepted model in those cases where the currently accepted model works.
4) You need to show that these alternatives also match experiments where current models fail.

I hope this gets repeated in upcoming threads - especially #1. It amazes me how many people make the mistake of assuming their (mis)understanding of something means that everybody else has it wrong.

 

[CaveDave]

Gentlemen.

Just a reminder, one or more of your correspondents might not have been "men", though I understand that usage is general and not sex-exclusive.

1 - I have not abandoned this forum. I have just returned from two weeks in the hospital where they drainded (5); liters of fluid from my chest, heart/lung(s) area and advised me that I have Stage (4) lung Cancer. Prognosis 9 - 12 months. I plan to prove them wrong about that but then I must also live in the real world and not one of personal wishfulness.

I (and I am sure I speak for all the others here) am saddened by your diagnosis, and hope for you the best possible outcome. Those among us who believe in prayer, I am certain, are going to put out great effort on your behalf; the others will still wish you a rapid recovery.
Newcomer or not, despite what your early impressions were, you are welcome and appreciated here, even as a stimulus to unlimber the thinkin' muscles and promote a lively debate. Get better soon!!

So I have many things to achieve in a short [period time and cannot dedicate time to this forum where it has been made clear that I am being misunderstood (perhaps my falult or yours) or deliberately oposed by an entrenched group of zealots unwilling to even consider alternatives and use the preachings of SR as prove of SR.

It is a shame that you still seem to harbor the misconception that there is some "entrenched group of zealots" and/or religiously adherent group of Tru-B-Leever(C)'s that are somehow set to resist any assault on their "inviolably sacred" precepts; you are, sadly, mistaken.
You, as has been abundantly pointed out, fail to "sling the lingo" in the way which is accepted by the physics community and then demand to be understood by the professionals. (You evidently live in El Paso... try speaking Portugese or just making up words at your whim and see where it gets you)

Where pragmatically you must consider the alternative possibilities (invariance of light is a consequence of a a different origin of light being based on v = c relative to a universal background energy relative to the observer absolute velocity as a function of some quantum energy level.

i.e. - simular to some form of dimensional binding energy release in which case different observers are seeing different photons rather than a photon have a physical invariant velocity to any observer regardless of veloicty to the source of ight which requires a form of relativity.

2 - Recognizing that the same results can be mathmatically reproduced from an absolute concept vs a SR concept and where the reciprocity of SR is prohibited in LR vs the mathematical consequence of a relative vleocity view of original SR and where current physics functions in a mathematical manner which also rejects reciprocity of the actual physical concepts but physcists refuse to acknowlege that motion "Relative" some inertial frame (not other clocks) is in fact an absolute physical measurement not a "Mere Relative Velocity) view.

Were you not paying attention? ISTR that others have already dealt with that and/or asked for clarification or equations (the Lingua Franca of Physics) which you failed to provide).

3 - With respect to the Gravity Patent that you can replace the theoretical diaphragm valve with a hypothetical mechanical valve comprised of a series of thin layered iris plates where such that the differential prressure across the chambers is never felt by the shepe and where the volume of gas being pumped back into the lower chamber is virtuall "zero" and energy plus gravity weight of the system allowing passage ofthe sphere between ehyamcberw [ I assume you meant "the chambers"?]must "theretorically" be considered.

No, it won't work, obvious just by inspection (IOTTMCO). C'mon, an engineer has to be able to see that!

4 - With regard to an "Inertial Drive" The term has nothing to do with the historical hypothetical warp speed drives, etc, but simply means a mechanisim of converting rotary momentum forces in to some linear momentum force in which all acceleration/decelleration forces combined with centrifugal forces are accounted for and for which there becomes a net vector momentum force (torque around the source) that becomes a linear force on the frame by using counter rotating system. That force being a function of power (energy) input and is NOT pertetual motion or defies actual physics.

ETA: You have always done this on the GROUND, and even with rails, low friction or not, you are reacting against it. take away THAT factor if you want to honestly test your concept.
Try it on a small scale, neutrally buoyant, in water (submarine) or air (blimp) and see if it works there. Dont waste TOO much money or your precious time on it, though.
I predict you will get some shaking but no net motion... IOTTMCO (Just in case you never picked that acronym up in engineering school, "Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer".)
Others have told you how the principles work.

5 - Thanks to all that may have participated here and regardless of our curt and rather pointed posts I respect you all.

Always have to make the jabs at others, don'cha?


I bid you peace and the best possible health, and a speedy recovery.


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

Some random suggestions: (I hope you heed them)
Get a spell checker.
Use the "preview post" button to check readability before submission.
Learn about Homophones and how they're NOT equivalent in meaning.

Really and truly, honest injun, no foolin', sloppy typing habits indicate sloppy, lazy, thinking! Learn it and love it!


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

Get healthy soon,

Dave

 

[MacM]

Sorry to hear of your troubles. But I'm unwilling to even consider alternatives.

Thanks and sorry you are entrenched.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Good luck, MacM.

 

[MacM]

I'm sorry to hear that, and hope you beat the odds.

Thanks


MacM, I don't think you understand the crowd here. People are indeed willing to consider alternatives to currently accepted models. But in order to get them to do that, you need to do several things:

1) You need to demonstrate that you understand those currently accepted models, and why they were accepted in the first place.

Again I actually believe I do but I may have communication problems in that regard.

2) You need to show shortcomings of those currently accepted models, ie, show where these models are contradicted by experiment.

Again I believe the change from the initial "Relative Velocity" concept as proposed between cocks to the current consideration of "Who Accelerated (Switxched Frames) puts SR into an actual absolute system vs "Mere Relative Veloicty". You are measuring a "Relative" velocity change to some unknown absolute inertial frame velocity and not relative velocity between clocks..

3) You need to show that these alternatives match the currently accepted model in those cases where the currently accepted model works.

If you look at some of the better mathematical work ups using LR (an absolute reference system) they are consistant in results with SR asd applied today. There fore both are mathematically useable. SR if by far more simple butLR ismore pragmatic as a physical theory.

4) You need to show that these alternatives also match experiments where current models fail.

They do.

This is is symptomatic of your problems here. What does this even mean? Physics can often be confusing, which is why the math is so important: math is unambiguous. Our physics theories are often described with words, but they are always formulated in terms of math. What is the math behind your statement? I really have no idea. And so I cannot evaluate it. If you cannot express it mathematically, then it won't be clear to anyone else that you really know what you're talking about either.

I recognize the difficulty and appreciate the problem. It is not simple to describe even in words much less a formalized mathematicaly model of a spatial medium thatis omnidirectional multi-energetic (virtually infinite velocity components) which interact only at the v = c to an observer with relative velocity to any inertial absolute velocity light source so as to generate a photon. Every observer with different relative velocity to the light source therfore is seeing different photons and light is NOT actually invariant but merely the measurement is invariant to the observer frame..

These details just don't matter. Either gravity is a conservative force, in which case you cannot power a perpetual motion device of any kind with it, or gravity is not a conservative force, in which case you don't need your perpetual motion device to be fancy at all. You have suggested you think it's not conservative, but have not given a mathematical description of what a non-conservative gravitational force should look like.

Untrue. If a calculation of passage (theoretically friction free, absolute seal, minimal theoretical "0" contact pressure, where kenetic energy is captured by submersing the sphere into the valve body volume and once sealed in the upper area then exposed to minimal thin film gap hence only sphere volume of air to re-compress as "Gravity" continues to move the sphere down through the valve, results in an out put mathemaitcally.

This can be easily envisioned if you follow the process carefually. This does not mean "Petual Motion" because by definition it is only perpetual if there is no outside source of power.

What it would mean is gravity is a function of energy flow in the universe (a form of pushing gravity).

FYI: 55 years ago when I first concienved of UniKEF I predicted that massive gravitating bodies would be found to have a heat component linked to gravitational poetential. In 1964 NASA found just such component which as yet may not have been satisfactorliy explained.

I also made several other priori's which have been found to be true. So whuile my theory is only barely mathematically considered the general concept seems correct which is why Iam perhaps more stuborn than most to accept rhetoric and current physics as the exclusive answer.

You are using words in a way which makes no sense. Momentum and force are completely different things. Furthermore, they are both nouns, neither one is an adjective. So even grammatically, a "momentum force" makes absolutely no sense. Whatever it is you mean, if you can't find a better way to express it, nobody is going to accept it. And with good reason.

It is unfortunate that professionals are unable to have dialog in common language because your use of terms assume certin conditions which are not supported in the alternative views.

 

[MacM]

The best of luck to you.

Thank You

 

[MacM]

Well, that totally sucks. I hope it works out for you.


Thank You





Having been a part of the thread on your patents, I appreciate your thanks.

Ditto

 

[MacM]

Sorry as a survivor of the little c, I am sorry to read that.

Well it is fair to say I'd rather not be where I am but I must live in the real world and just do what I can. Your survival is an encouragement. Thaks.

 

[MacM]

I hope this gets repeated in upcoming threads - especially #1. It amazes me how many people make the mistake of assuming their (mis)understanding of something means that everybody else has it wrong.

I do appreciate your standards but must also isist that it is a double edged sword, That is communications difficulaties tends to cause you to believe misunderstandings that may not exits and causes lack of understanding of the proposed alternative. That is mostly my fault but to some degree also a falut of the professinal for not understanding that terms use in your standards makes assupmtion not valid in the alternative.

 

[MacM]

Just a reminder, one or more of your correspondents might not have been "men", though I understand that usage is general and not sex-exclusive.

Point noted and your interpretation is a good one. Thanks.


I (and I am sure I speak for all the others here) am saddened by your diagnosis, and hope for you the best possible outcome. Those among us who believe in prayer, I am certain, are going to put out great effort on your behalf; the others will still wish you a rapid recovery.
Newcomer or not, despite what your early impressions were, you are welcome and appreciated here, even as a stimulus to unlimber the thinkin' muscles and promote a lively debate. Get better soon!!

Again thanks in spite of the fact that I give God or Gods virtually zero possibility. I only say virtualy because I nor anyone can prove otherwise but God or Gods are simply ludricrus concepts that add nothing but another layer of unknowns (not sound solutions) for our ignorance of nature

It is a shame that you still seem to harbor the misconception that there is some "entrenched group of zealots" and/or religiously adherent group of Tru-B-Leever(C)'s that are somehow set to resist any assault on their "inviolably sacred" precepts; you are, sadly, mistaken.
You, as has been abundantly pointed out, fail to "sling the lingo" in the way which is accepted by the physics community and then demand to be understood by the professionals. (You evidently live in El Paso... try speaking Portugese or just making up words at your whim and see where it gets you)



Were you not paying attention? ISTR that others have already dealt with that and/or asked for clarification or equations (the Lingua Franca of Physics) which you failed to provide).

Actually there are numerous indpeth studies and mathematical work ups out there but you have not and likely will not bother to even consider them. I haven't time to seek them all out for you you neeed to scan some NPA materials.

No, it won't work, obvious just by inspection (IOTTMCO). C'mon, an engineer has to be able to see that!

Well as an engineer viewing this in the exptreme theoretical - SEE above discussing about the patent.

ETA: You have always done this on the GROUND, and even with rails, low friction or not, you are reacting against it. take away THAT factor if you want to honestly test your concept.
Try it on a small scale, neutrally buoyant, in water (submarine) or air (blimp) and see if it works there. Dont waste TOO much money or your precious time on it, though.
I predict you will get some shaking but no net motion... IOTTMCO (Just in case you never picked that acronym up in engineering school, "Intuitively Obvious To The Most Casual Observer".)
Others have told you how the principles work.

I understand the suspended test method but have seen enough to be convinced it works in space.

Verely Verely I say to thee yee who look but cannot see'.

Always have to make the jabs at others, don'cha?

It's call "Turn about" -


I bid you peace and the best possible health, and a speedy recovery.

Thanks again


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

Some random suggestions: (I hope you heed them)
Get a spell checker.
Use the "preview post" button to check readability before submission.
Learn about Homophones and how they're NOT equivalent in meaning.

Really and truly, honest injun, no foolin', sloppy typing habits indicate sloppy, lazy, thinking! Learn it and love it!


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

Used to type 65 wpm correctly but the Rithus brother have moved in to this old man.

Get healthy soon,
Dave

Thanks

 

[MacM]

Good luck, MacM.

Thank You. I damn well intend to return here for a number of years.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Mac, here's a quote I think you should take to heart in future discussions:

Nobel [laureate] Richard Feynman wrote, "Today, we understand better that what counts are the equations themselves and not the model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are true or false. This is answered by experiments, and untold numbers of experiments have confirmed Maxwell's equations [as complete and accurate.] If we take away the scaffolding he used to build it, we find that Maxwell's beautiful edifice stands on its own."

So, while verbal arguments can be useful, I suggest you show some math.

 

[CaveDave]

Again thanks in spite of the fact that I give God or Gods virtually zero possibility. I only say virtualy because I nor anyone can prove otherwise but God or Gods are simply ludricrus concepts that add nothing but another layer of unknowns (not sound solutions) for our ignorance of nature

I, myself, am a lifelong (from about age 8) atheist, but I know that a non-negligible segment of the members here have beliefs ranging from agnostic to devoutly religious, and I was including them, as your thread is probably read by several of them, and I doubt anyone would read the OP and not wish you well.

Actually there are numerous indpeth studies and mathematical work ups out there but you have not and likely will not bother to even consider them. I haven't time to seek them all out for you you neeed to scan some NPA materials.

Where would these "NPA materials" be located?

Well as an engineer viewing this in the exptreme theoretical - SEE above discussing about the patent.

I assume you refer to:

Untrue. If a calculation of passage (theoretically friction free, absolute seal, minimal theoretical "0" contact pressure, where kenetic energy is captured by submersing the sphere into the valve body volume and once sealed in the upper area then exposed to minimal thin film gap hence only sphere volume of air to re-compress as "Gravity" continues to move the sphere down through the valve, results in an out put mathemaitcally.

Which does NOT, despite what you imagine, negate the delta P across the valve diaphragm. The "ball" still has to enter and exit the region, and the pressure differential is still there, killing any gain. Why would you want to lift the balls in the water column and let them fall, just to waste power in a pumped air lock (the only way to avoid the pressure drop)

[Humorous aside]
I once heard of a reformulation of the laws of Thermodynamics in the language of Poker told in a physics lecture:
)You can never win.
)You can never break even.
)You can never leave the table.
[/Humorous aside]

I understand the suspended test method but have seen enough to be convinced it works in space.

If by "suspended" you mean by wires or such, you can still have reaction. Try neutral buoyancy, I bet it'll fail.

Verely Verely I say to thee yee who look but cannot see'.

Irony, much?

It's call "Turn about" -

Another poster here has a sig line that clarifies the difference between ad hominem(sp?) and fair criticism, you should read it (I wish I could direct you to it, but my memory is quirky of late)

You came into this forum with an entire woodlot worth of chips on your shoulder, daring others to prove you wrong, and even being disingenuous in some of your statements to lure in challengers to your POV just to pick a fight: is it any wonder to you, honestly, that you might be met with a certain amount of hostility?

Used to type 65 wpm correctly but the Rithus brother have moved in to this old man.

Correct COPY typing at speed is one thing, but readable spelling and good grammar and syntax is another. Perhaps I should have stated it differently, but the really difficult aspect of decrypting your posts is, after the typos have been sorted out, one must still try to excavate your intended meaning from the melange of nonstandard usage and "sound-a-like" spelling you employ.

These remarks are intended to help you understand the difficulties we have had with communication, and not as personal attacks, BTW.
-----------------

One other thing, when you intersperse your replies within another's post, even when in color, it makes it complicated to quote your text in a response.

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



I hope you defeat those nasty invaders!

Cheers,

Dave

 

[wackyvorlon]

MacM, I too wish you good health and as speedy a recovery as possible.

However, in all honesty, I find your writing inscrutable. I can read physics books, and make sense of it. But what you have written here is a complete enigma to me.