McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

Why is 9*10^16 correct and 4.5*10^17 wrong?

Logical assumption. E = mc^2 as the basis for the concept of energy vs mass form and the view that space is comprised of unbound free flowing energy (energetic 3D space).

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem is not that I don't do physics units I do.

Maybe you can, but you haven't.

But that you can't seem to think if everything isn't laid out in some formal mathematical precise way where all units are resolved.

That could be true, but it's irrelevant. Whether or not I can think without units, the fact remains that if you include the units and the units don't work out, you did something wrong. I'm telling you that the units don't work out. The easiest way to prove me wrong is to simply show what happens to the units. But you haven't done so. Why not, MacM?

Hell I'm making general points of interest not some formal outlay.

It doesn't take a lot to keep track of units, MacM. You've spent more time trying to defend the fact that you haven't included units than it would have taken to just demonstrate what happens with the units.

The fact is somewhere I made the conversion myself. I'll see if I can locate it.

Please do. Or alternatively, just do it again. What you're suggesting isn't exactly very complicated math.

9E16 is NOT a meaningless number it is a ratio of compaction between space and mass; which accounts forthe conversion of E -nto mass. Space is E!.

But it is only that ratio in a particular system of units. Pick another system of units and you get a different number, but it's still the same ratio. Which is why whenever c is listed, they always include the units. The number alone is indeed meaningless. 9x10¹⁶ acres/fortnight² has exactly the same dimensions as c², but different dimensions. Substituting one for the other will change any answer you get. So let's see the units, MacM.

 

[MacM]

You still have not got the trick of citation or answering questions so lets try again.
"Dr Edward Allard - Chapter (7)" of what?

• Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
• Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?

• 
  
  Dr Edward Allard is the physicist of infered fame and author of Chapter (7) - Calculus in my manuscript. It was 300+ pages and not something that can be clearly posted here.
  

"Dr Lincoln - Debates" - Is Debates a book or a journal?

• Is he the "High Energy Physicist" and if so what did he actually acknowledge?
• Is he the "somewhat famous physicist" and if so what was the "Calculus" chapter the standard calculus as found in any math textbook?

Dr Lincoln was the high energy particle physicist for which (3) formal moderated debates were presented on another web site. He acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically but for which he still favored SR. i.e. - the fact that spatial contraction need not exist in reality.

However, after having done so I would not let them continue to spread rhetoric in other threads and ultimately was banned from the site because they grewctired of qualifying their posts.

Citation to their paper?
Alternately you must have a copy of the paper - Could you make it available?

What paper?

You also need to show your calculation for the perturbation so that it can be matched against this 50 year old observation and checked for validity.
Have you checked it against other data?
And just what the cause of this "pertabation" of gravity? Why the lunar eclipse important?
As far as I know, gravity perturbations happen all the time because the Earth and Moon are not perfect spheres.

Not so fast. Actually I don't need to show the calculation. In my historical data file you can find a letter from the US Army stating they had found my prediction verified in a German research document and would forward it as soon as it had been translated into english. When I received the document I learned my predicton had been confirmed.

You seem to be under the impression that this is something to do with "units conversions". That is wrong. It is to do with a basic bit of mathematical physics that high school students should know about. You may have forgotten it in your long career so here is an explanation of dimensional analysis.

Here is what you actually stated:

Now you just throw "9E16" into the mix (when c^2 is actually 8.98755179 × 10¹⁶ m² / s²).

What a lot of crap. 9E16 vs 8.9755179 with or without units. Shsssh! You really are strapped to the old test book. What happens if they forget to number the pages?

Which leads to these questions:

1. How is the compaction ratio of space into mass calculated?
2. What is the numeric value of the compaction ratio of space into mass?
3. What has it got to do with E=mc^2 which is nothing to do with either volume or space?
4. What are the units of 9E16?
5. Or is it a dimensionless value - in that case why do you think quoting a number with units (c^2) makes thing "simpler"?
6. Why did you originally not quote the number and state how you calculated it?

The compaction factor is just that a general concept not some finite calculation. Get over it. Think.

 

[MacM]

Maybe you can, but you haven't.



That could be true, but it's irrelevant. Whether or not I can think without units, the fact remains that if you include the units and the units don't work out, you did something wrong. I'm telling you that the units don't work out. The easiest way to prove me wrong is to simply show what happens to the units. But you haven't done so. Why not, MacM?



It doesn't take a lot to keep track of units, MacM. You've spent more time trying to defend the fact that you haven't included units than it would have taken to just demonstrate what happens with the units.



Please do. Or alternatively, just do it again. What you're suggesting isn't exactly very complicated math.



But it is only that ratio in a particular system of units. Pick another system of units and you get a different number, but it's still the same ratio. Which is why whenever c is listed, they always include the units. The number alone is indeed meaningless. 9x10¹⁶ acres/fortnight² has exactly the same dimensions as c², but different dimensions. Substituting one for the other will change any answer you get. So let's see the units, MacM.

Well bitch all you want but I don't waste my time with minor details. 9E16 vs 8.9E16 Who the hell cares. This is a general discussion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well bitch all you want but I don't waste my time with minor details. 9E16 vs 8.9E16 Who the hell cares. This is a general discussion.

I'm not the one who made the distinction between 9E16 and 8.9E16. That's only a matter of precision, not one of units. My objection is much more fundamental. I'm saying that the units don't work at all. Now, either you can just ignore me, or you can prove me wrong. But ignoring me doesn't make my objection a "minor detail". If I'm right, then whatever you did is not simply a little bit inaccurate, it's nonsensical, because units MUST work out right in any correct calculation. And if I'm wrong, it should only take a moment to demonstrate how you do this conversion with units. So what's it going to be, MacM? Are you going to prove me wrong, or are you going to ignore a criticism which, if correct, would mean that nothing you did made sense?

 

[Belz...]

I pick B.

 

[Reality Check]

Dr Edward Allard is the physicist of infered fame and author of Chapter (7) - Calculus in my manuscript. It was 300+ pages and not something that can be clearly posted here.

What is "infered fame"?
Is the Calculus chapter a description of standard textbook calculus?

Dr Lincoln was the high energy particle physicist for which (3) formal moderated debates were presented on another web site. He acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically but for which he still favored SR. i.e. - the fact that spatial contraction need not exist in reality.

However, after having done so I would not let them continue to spread rhetoric in other threads and ultimately was banned from the site because they grewctired of qualifying their posts.

What is the URL of the web site so that we can look at the "(3) formal moderated debates"?

ETA: Is it On the Theory of Relativity - Lorentz Contraction?

What paper?

The paper where the institute published their results.

Not so fast. Actually I don't need to show the calculation. In my historical data file you can find a letter from the US Army stating they had found my prediction verified in a German research document and would forward it as soon as it had been translated into english. When I received the document I learned my predicton had been confirmed.

Did the US Army do the calculation then?
You do need to show the calculation so that we can be sure that your theory actually produced the result rather then you just comining up with the number out of thin air. It would also be good to verify that it was a prediction (you did the calculation then it was confirmed - not the other way around).

URL to the "historical data file"?

What a lot of crap. 9E16 vs 8.9755179 with or without units. Shsssh! You really are strapped to the old test book. What happens if they forget to number the pages?

You are really ignorant of textbooks so here is a simple example for the simple:
Let us try to calculate the volume of a cube scaled by a factor X.
The formula is V= X*v (V= increased volume, v=original volume)
Any one with 2 brain cells will see that V and v are in units of length cubed and thus the units of v and X multiplied together must be length cubed. Therefore X must have no units.
If someone tries to plug X = c^2 then everyone will know that they are wrong.

The compaction factor is just that a general concept not some finite calculation. Get over it. Think.

Then what use is it? It sounds like just an idea in your head with no possible use in science.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is "infered fame"?

Maybe that's like more than famous.

 

[Reality Check]

Dr Lincoln was the high energy particle physicist for which (3) formal moderated debates were presented on another web site. He acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically but for which he still favored SR. i.e. - the fact that spatial contraction need not exist in reality.

It looks like you are talking about the threads on the Science Philosophy Chat Forums site, e.g. On the Theory of Relativity - Lorentz Contraction.

Now all you have to do is point out the posts where Dr Lincoln did "acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically".
So far all I can see is him trying to correct your confusion about Special Relativity.

Interesting comment from Dr Lincoln about MacM:

I am NOT overcomplicating the problem. Nor am applying an arbitrary number. I am pounding through your stubborn misconceptions by trying to force you to confront relativity, not the twisted variant against which you rail so energetically. Real relativity is both much, much more and much less than you think. And I'm NOT going to let you push me into solving the problem so you can dismiss the answer, rather than focusing on each step. I've done that before and we never got anywhere.

Sound familiar anyone?

However, after having done so I would not let them continue to spread rhetoric in other threads and ultimately was banned from the site because they grewctired of qualifying their posts.

Who is "them"?
How did they get the moderators of a forum that includes areas for non-statndard theories to ban you for stating a non-standard theory?
What does "qualifying their posts" mean?

This sounds more than a little paranoid on your part.

 

[RussDill]

Then the next question would be "Why the question"?

What possible relevence does it have?

One of your claims that confuses me is that you claim that I cannot treat the inertial frame of a muon headed at near light speed towards earth the same as the reference frame of the earth.

I'm trying to understand what makes the earth reference frame special. I'm trying how you decide on which frame of reference calculations must be done from. It can't always be the earth, right?

 

[RussDill]

Why is 9*10^16 correct and 4.5*10^17 wrong?

Logical assumption. E = mc^2 as the basis for the concept of energy vs mass form and the view that space is comprised of unbound free flowing energy (energetic 3D space).

Ok, so I have a volume. I multiply it by 9*10^16, right? Thats the speed of light in meters per second squared with the units chopped off.

I'd rather use meters per nanosecond. Thats ok, right? What is the difference, both values are c. c^2 then is 0.09 m^2/ns^2. Ok, so now I multiply a volume by the unitless 0.09. It gives me a smaller volume than I started with rather than a larger one. Which one is right?

 

[MacM]

It looks like you are talking about the threads on the Science Philosophy Chat Forums site, e.g. On the Theory of Relativity - Lorentz Contraction.

Now all you have to do is point out the posts where Dr Lincoln did "acknowledge a number of things in my views which were workable physically".
So far all I can see is him trying to correct your confusion about Special Relativity.

Interesting comment from Dr Lincoln about MacM:

Sound familiar anyone?


Who is "them"?
How did they get the moderators of a forum that includes areas for non-statndard theories to ban you for stating a non-standard theory?
What does "qualifying their posts" mean?

This sounds more than a little paranoid on your part.

I will answer more completely once I get a response back from the site. I have requested a listing of where the original debates threads have been placed. It was in those threads that certain concessions were made. After that I was banned because I refused to contain my comments to Alternative Theories" and kept upsetting the apple cart when over reaching rhetoric was being made about relativity.

So your postings is showing some of the down fall process and not the formal debates which were more constrained and controlled.

 

[MacM]

Maybe that's like more than famous.

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "


Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

 

[MacM]

Ok, so I have a volume. I multiply it by 9*10^16, right? Thats the speed of light in meters per second squared with the units chopped off.

I'd rather use meters per nanosecond. Thats ok, right? What is the difference, both values are c. c^2 then is 0.09 m^2/ns^2. Ok, so now I multiply a volume by the unitless 0.09. It gives me a smaller volume than I started with rather than a larger one. Which one is right?

Are trying to be deliberately funny? Your not. You don't call something a "Factor" and then apply units to it. You certainly don't reduce units to some minor value then post this sort of trash.

 

[MacM]

One of your claims that confuses me is that you claim that I cannot treat the inertial frame of a muon headed at near light speed towards earth the same as the reference frame of the earth.

I'm trying to understand what makes the earth reference frame special. I'm trying how you decide on which frame of reference calculations must be done from. It can't always be the earth, right?

Herein lies your problem. You want to claim both frames are equal. They are not since one has accelerated more than the other and hence the muon is more dilated (remember we aren't looking at the illusions of motion during relative motion but the fact of accumulated time difference once the muon and earth are in a commom frame).

It is the muon that was dilated, not the earth and that is because the muon was ticking slower due to it's energy level subsequent to acceleration. Don't waste time telling me the muon was born with velocity and hence never accelerated. It was formed by a charged particle which had been accelerated and that momentum is carried forward at transition.

 

[Terry]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "


Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

So "Infered" is infrared then?

 

[Ziggurat]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

"Infered" isn't a word. Spelling-wise, it's closest to "inferred", which makes no sense in this context. I actually suspected that you meant "infrared" (and yes, I know what it means), but I decided to make a joke because I think it's funny. Apparently your spelling is so bad you missed the joke because you didn't even realize you misspelled it. Which is funny too, actually.

 

[RussDill]

I don't adhere to any conspiracy theory at all. It is AD HOC reality. Those that oppose relativity don't get or keep good jobs, regardless of their education and/or experience before opposing relativity.

Facts are not a conspiracy. Many many good scientists reputations have been slandered just for speaking out. It has to do with the selfrightous attitude of relativists, not some conspiracy.

So you are saying that individuals who study theories that would supplant relativity get blacklisted, but its out in the open. Its just what people do. Well gee, then I can provide quite a few counter examples. How about everyone studying things like quantum loop gravity?

Second, if there is some experiment that can be performed that shows that results that are outside the predictions of SR and/or GR, that'd be a surefire way to fame.

Science is all about disagreement. But there is a catch, I like to call it, "Show me the money". There are two ways to do that. One is to show a problem with a current theory, either an internal consistency, or perform an experiment that produces results counter to a current theory.

Another is to create a new theory with testable predictions and perform experiments that either confirm or deny those predictions. A good place to look here is the history of atomic spectra.

If someone continually proclaims that some currently accepting theory is wrong and slings ad hominems against those in the scientific community ("self-righteous attitude"), but never can get to the "Show me the money" point, then what are they accomplishing? They certainly aren't making any scientific contributions.

You might consider string theory in this camp because they do not yet have testable predictions, but I don't think you'll find some claim by string theorists that the Standard Model is BS or that they are getting blacklisted and not given jobs, or that all the other scientists who won't listen to them are "self-righteous". They fully understand the state of their work. It isn't prime-time yet.

...implying that GR and SR make predictions backed by experiment. [...] you seem to be claiming that SR makes predictions that disagree with experiment.

Both are true.

So...All experimental data matches the predictions of SR *AND* there is experimental data that doesn't match the predictions of SR?!?!?!

SR predicts contraction of distance as a function of relative velocity (for one frame) but in another frame clocks are dilated.

It does nothing of the sort. It gives you transforms for transforming coordinates from one inertial reference frame to another. The transformation between reference frames both contracts distance along the direction of motion and dilates time.

A common physical cause does not generate two different physical consequences based on mere perspective of frames.

Oh really? Thats a really interesting argument. But can you site the source of your facts there? Also, you use the phrase "physical cause" and "physical consequence". What does this mean? I think you'll find that in minkowski space, there are no "physical consequence". Its just a different perspective. In fact, since GR and SR wrap up time and space together, I'd be expected that any effect in the time direction would cause an effect in a space direction.

Lorentz contraction has never been demonstrated physically.

It depends on what you mean. It certainly has been demonstrated with muons and particle accelerators, as objects would need to travel faster than c if the lorentz contraction were not occuring. It has also been demonstrated with electric fields and electrons traveling in parallel with strips of wire are shorter from the electron's frame of reference. We've never accelerated objects big enough to see and observed the length contraction by taking a picture or other similar measurements. That experiment is actually in queue for LHC with nanoscale electrically charged barbells.

If you could provide a theory that matches current experimental data without lorentz contraction then you'd be taken more seriously.

You've used way too many pronouns here. I have no clue what you are attempting to say. You seem to be saying that:

a) There must be some absolute clock that ticks throughout space and has some kind of importance.

b) You can formulate a theory based on this if you eliminate length contraction.

Recall that both length contraction and time dilation were both part of physics years before SR. They did not grow out of SR.

And the Earth as the center of all motion preceeded that. It wasn't correct either.

So is it (a) or (b)? Pick one or give me a (c). Your insinuation that theory must be wrong because other theories can be wrong is quite uninteresting since it would apply equally to whatever your theory is.

According to who? Why are distance and time special units of measure and velocity a composite unit of measure? You can just as easily claim that time and velocity are special units of measure and define distance as a composite of velocity and time.

This is actually a matter of choice and logic. The point being you must pick one and not flip-flop from one to the other changing frames.

I asked a question about units of measure. You responding with a choice about reference frames. Can you please explain how the two are related?

One could argue that distance contracts but clocks continue to tick at a common rate but logically that carries with it certain unpleasant consequences - i.e.

1 - Under relavistic conditions you get closer to something the faster you receed from it.

Please to explain. I am on a collision course with the sun, I keep getting closer. I am 10,000km away, clearly I'm headed towards the sun. Ok, later I'm 1000km away, how am I (a) receding and (b) receding faster than before (when I wasn't receding)

2 - The whole of the universe collapses to virtual nothing for a particle accelerated to near light's v = c in a matter of milli-seconds.

Ok, first, we can't accelerate particles to nearly that speed. The particle still measures a huge distance from here to another galaxy. Second, length contraction is only in the direction of motion. Third, both time contraction and length contraction are just acticles of the coordinate system we use. We use a Cartesian 3d coordinate system for space coordinates and a separate linear coordinate system for time. No physical structures actually change.

3 - The accelerating expansion of the universe must in fact be due to decelleration since at relavistic velocities near the edge of the universe such objects would be subject to spatial contraction not expansion.

goobly-gook. You statement makes no sense. There is no edge of the universe.

Oscam's Razor would suggest it is clock tick rate based on some absolute universal energy level and not spatial contraction that produces the measured results - BUT not both as a matter of observer perspective.

OK, I'm really getting tired of you having your own language that you refuse to explain to anyone else.

ABSOLUTE UNIVERSAL ENERGY LEVEL

Please to define. Also define "energy level", "absolute energy level", and "universal energy level". If all 4 do not mean different things, then you are adding extra words to just obfuscate things.

Occam's razor does suggest that simpler theory for phenomenon are generally the correct one. However, the theory would still need to match prediction. You are claiming that SR is too complicated and therefore must be wrong but have not provided an alternate, simpler theory, just stated things that the simpler theory must not contain.

You are getting lost once again. This is NOT about what you might "Observe" or "Percieve"

Why not? The whole point of physics to make predictions about physical processes, what we "observe". The clocks send out signals and I measure them. A proper theory should predict what I measure. If it doesn't, it isn't a very useful theory, is it?

during relative motion but about permanent physical change as demonstrated by dilated clocks and accumulated time differences when compared in a common rest frame "After" having had relative velocity.

"permanent physical change", another term that would be useful to define. If a physical change isn't permanent, what cause the change to be undone? Can you describe this process and provide an example of a temporary physical change being undone?

Correct. The key here is the term "Measure" which is based on ds / dt and where they have different acceleration histories hence different (unknown) absolute velocities, therefor different dilated tick rates or "t" standards.

Their relative velocities aren't unknown. Assume both transmit a laser at a specific frequency. By measuring the blue shift of the laser from the other clock, the relative velocity can be determined.

Assume some universal absolute rest reference from which these vehicles have achieved the following respective velocities.

I can't assume some universal absolute rest frame. You'll have to give me one. Is it the sun? The earth? mars? Give me one.

M = 0.1c and E = 0.3c.

GammaM = 1.005037815

GammaE = 1.048284837

Respective ticks rates universally would be:

tM = 0.994987437

tE = 0.953939201

Now assuming Velocity Addition (which I don't BTW) they would see according to SR a common relative velocity of 0.338349515c, not 0.4c.

So the M clock will measure the E clock approaching it at 0.338c and the M clock will measure the E clock approaching at 0.338c? Can you please show where you obtained that number? Or if they are a light year apart, are you saying that from the universal rest frame, they will take 0.338 years to meet?

However that ignores the fact that one will ultimately be found to be ticking slower than the other according to accumulated times. Both are slightly dilated unversally.

Again, you say universally. Which reference frame?

tM / tE = 1.043030243

Hence (excluding velocity addition) M computes 0.1c * 1.005037815 = 0.100503c for himself relative to mars

ummm...ok. So two objects will calculate their velocity relative to each other based on a universal inertial frame of reference that you have arbitrarily chosen? If thats true, then we can measure our motion relative to that frame of reference. All such experiments have not found any such motion. Your math contradicts experimental data.

and computes E leaving earth at 0.3015c for a closing of 0.402c (with velocity addition) = 0.39017c!

While E computes 0.3c * 1.04828 = 0.31448c for himself and sees M as leaving mars at 0.104828c. For a closing rate of 0.419308c (with VA) = 0.44799c!

I don't think you understand velocity addition or under what circumstances it should be used. It only needs to be used when taking a velocity change in one inertial reference frame and measuring it from another, not for adding velocity vectors within a reference frame.

Also, your math would predict that an object leaving mars at 0.99c (gamma 7.09) would observe mars receding at 7.01c. How would the craft receive a radio message from mars?

Universally is the unknown, not measured absolute rest frame.

Care to get a little less metaphysical here? If calculations depend on performing measurements from a specific inertial frame of reference, then before any calculations can be performed, the frame of reference must be known.

Because if you merely accept physical properties as being truely physical

Physical properties are physical. SR and GR doesn't say that they are not. They just say that physics differ from our naive assumptions about space and time.

Are you saying that I will observe the car approaching me at a rate other than 60mph? Will it matter if the car is traveling east or west? north or south?

and not some flip-flop mathematical assumptions then clocks with motion have different tick rates and will compute different relative velocities.

There is no flip-floping in SR or GR. Cartesian coordinates just don't match reality. If you don't want to do transformations, use Minkowski space.

I fully acknowledge that this view becomes a bit more difficult to work with mathematically but that does not make it any less logical from a pure physicas vantage point.

So, its more complex than SR or GR. That would be an occam's razor fail. Also, you are claiming that SR and GR does not match experimental data. You need to show that first.

You are starting to ask appropriate questions. It would also be appropriate if you were to note that my calculations are correct or not. See I do the math also inspite of assertions to the contrary here..

You haven't shown all your work, so its difficult. You also are using a form of velocity addition I've never seen.

 

[Reality Check]

I will answer more completely once I get a response back from the site. I have requested a listing of where the original debates threads have been placed. It was in those threads that certain concessions were made. After that I was banned because I refused to contain my comments to Alternative Theories" and kept upsetting the apple cart when over reaching rhetoric was being made about relativity.

So your postings is showing some of the down fall process and not the formal debates which were more constrained and controlled.

Anither task for you - show where the site administraor states that you were banned because "because I refused to contain my comments to Alternative Theories" and kept upsetting the apple cart when over reaching rhetoric was being made about relativity".
The first reason is a standard forum rule (post in the appropriate fourum for your topic).
The second reason looks like the standard "attack the argument not the person" rule.

In other words it looks like you were banned because you broke the forum rules that you agreed to abide by when you joined the forum.
Naughty MacM

 

[RussDill]

Another stupid post.

I find it almost hilarious that purported self acclaimed scientist don't know what "Infered" is.

Shssh. "Foward Looking Infered "

Yes, I find your statement hilarious too.

Dr. Edward Allard, a FLIR inventor and designer, formerly with the Army's Night Vision Laboratory,

Just as with your previous argument by authority, you overstate your case. Edward Allard was not involved in any way in the invention of infrared imaging. Infrared scopes were used as early as WWII.

Secondly, you aren't bringing anything to the argument.