McCoin Last Thread

[MacM]

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.

He He. I have a favorite of my own it is the definition difference between "Intelligence" and "Genius"

Your are intelligent if you know and understand to believe only half of what you hear and see.

You are a genius if you know which half to believe.

 

[wackyvorlon]

Actually, I don't believe that's correct. Genius is more directly tied to output. Einstein may have known he was right, but if he hadn't written it down and developed a rigorous theoretical treatment he would not have been considered a genius.

 

[MacM]

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.

Well I do not believe myself but we have and have had lifelong best friends that are devoute and I respect their right to be so and they have respected our right to not believe. We have set around the supper table many times while they prayed for their food and we merely sat and waited to pass the plates.

So I accept their prayers as appreciated well wishes. Thanks.

Where would these "NPA materials" be located?

http://www.worldnpa.org/main/

This is a group of anti-relativity scientists (quacks included) that exceed 1,200 membership world wide and conduct telecomferences, chats, direct e-mail exchanges, etc.

You have to sort of thumb through and find those papers you might find of interest if not totally agreeable with. Your input there might be an interesting exercise.

Not all are quacks, in fact NPA had (or may still have) a Nobel Prize Winner as a member. There are many notable and published physicist, etc. members there. They all disagree with relativity as the exclusivephysics reality and have numerous alternative theories, all of which cannot be correct if any one is.

So there it is - have fun.

I assume you refer to:

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]

OK I didn't introduce my gravity patent here, another member did as a means of attempting to either embarass me or deminish anything I might post. I responded before I knew I had cancer and since I don't really want to part this world as a perpetual motion geek let me clarify.

1 - This patent was from my youth, before my formal education and is not something I've been putting on my "Resumes'" - . Just thought I would have a bit of payback fun.

2 - For those not knowledgeable let me clarify. "IT DOESN'T WORK". Now let me also caution that that does NOT mean gravity is not an energy pushing force.

3 - For those that do not already know it to cause a column of fluid to become imbalanced one must do work to establish the differential height gravity potential.

That imbalance is supported by pressure differential across the column. When a stack of bouyant spheres pushes one sphere over the top into the free-fall chamber gravity will provide kenetic energy for the sphere to theoretically be able to re-enter the high pressure chamber.

However, as you can see the device requires a control valve between the chambers and that means the sphere does not fall as far from the potential as it was raised.

HINT: You will have less energy from free fall than required to re-enter the lower high pressure chamber - regardless of how exotic a valve you might design.

Re-entering the high pressure chamber requires F x D (Force times Distance).

Given a cylinder instead of a sphere: The Force is Psi x Area and Distance is cylinder length or L x A = Volume. The volume of air being displaced in the lower chamber would equal the work potential of the Ke from free fall ONLY if the potential height of the fluid column and the distance of free fall are equal (no room for a valve).

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

I hope to be around to take you up on that bet. FYI: My eldest son Mark McCoin has been assigned all my patents and fabricated the Rotary engine shown on "U-Tube" under McCoin Rotary Engine ((5) videos there scroll down)for which we just received patent this January. So he is continuing to work on these devices. You can find many other VALID patent through USPTO.Gov and I/n McCoin on advanced search.

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)

Mine too -

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?

He He - I've been at this for many years and know what it takes to stir the pot. Helps sort out the wanna-bees from the real thinkers.

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.

He He - Actually I also spell well when I choose to care but in my later years I just smack the keyboard and hope it is readable. I know that hurts credability a bit but then having my view does anyhow -
-----------------

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.

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

Actually it has to do with my 68 y/o mental retention. If I just use
"Quote" I don't know what your comments are in reference to, so I either intersperse or "Cut and Paste" the post into my reply and then delete as I reply.

I hope you defeat those nasty invaders!

Cheers,

Dave

Thanks once again. I'll try to not be so nasty from now on -

 

[MacM]

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.

Thank you and

 

[MacM]

Actually, I don't believe that's correct. Genius is more directly tied to output. Einstein may have known he was right, but if he hadn't written it down and developed a rigorous theoretical treatment he would not have been considered a genius.

Picky, picky, picky -

 

[MacM]

Change of subject here. I just saw something about problems at LHC. Anybody care to say briefly what happened?

PS: FYI - IF OK with management I would like to keep this as a single thread for me to follow which may involve a variety of subjects so I don't have to look all over and try to keep up. Other threads have exceeded 1,000 posts and I can't reply to everybody now. - Thanks and let me know.

 

[MacM]

FYI: NPA links. It appears the Nobel may have passed on but here are some links to info on NPA.

NPA Listed

Notables:
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists

Scientists
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Notables

McCoinProfile
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Admin&tab1=Display&id=1327

McCoin Gravity Test
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Experiments&tab1=Display&id=38

I have had e-mail contact and dialog with the following NPA notables:

Tom Van Flandern - Recently deceased. For many years; He and I had a very simular concept of pushing gravity but shared little else in common.

Ronald Hatch - Current views on GPS

Paul Marmet - Sometime ago and briefly - Relativity.

Plus numerous other members.

Seems there are about 7,000 papers available to scan or review there.

Some testing - of which I also have a test posted. More info available on request.

 

[MacM]

To refocus this discussion let me attempt to put my view into common language because I don't have a great difference with how SR is actually applied mathematically but more symantically how it is described which misleads lesser educated members.

In my view your adaption of the frame switching scheme actually is now based on an absolute system of measure but you continue to merely refer to the "Relative Velocity" aspect to an unidentified absolute frame.

i.e.:

F0, F1 F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, .....Fn, Finf, etc".

Such that your math is a "Relative Velocity Differential" between some unknown value of "Abolute Frames of reference. That is you and I may share an underlying absolute velocity of some unknown value

i.e. -F1 = 0.6c but where I appear at inertial rest at 0.6c at F1 = 0.6c Kmps universally but locally = "0" Kmps and you have known accelerations from that frame putting you into a cycle having been in frames F10 = 0.95c or a "Relative velocity to the F1 frame = "0" to F10 = 0.36c.

This is why the "Relative Velocity" between clocks is void and irrelevant.

My issue of "No spatial Lorentz Contraction and a consequences of measured relative velocity differential is based on a different view of the cause of "Measured" invariance of light vs "Actual Invariance" of light.

Perhaps we might tnow be able to have civil discussion of such possibilities.

Thanks.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Take care Mac, I hope it all turns out good for you!

Kuko

 

[Ziggurat]

First off, a suggestion: use the quote tags to separate your comments from the comments you respond to. Otherwise anyone replying to you has to manually insert your comments into their reply.

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.

The existence of absolute acceleration is separate from the existence of absolute velocity. Even under Galilean relativity, you have the former but not the latter. And the whole point of inertial reference frames is that they are not absolute: there are an infinitude of inertial reference frames, each moving with respect to the others, and in each of them the laws of physics look exactly the same. So none of them can sensibly be called absolute. Rather than demonstrating a shortcoming of the existing model, this response suggests a shortcoming in your understanding of that model. Again: we don't even have to look at special relativity, all of these issues arise under Galilean relativity, and you don't even seem to have a firm grasp of that.

I recognize the difficulty and appreciate the problem. It is not simple to describe even in words much less a formalized mathematicaly model

It doesn't matter if it's difficult: the point is, you have not done so. Without such a mathematically defined model, nobody else can evaluate it in any sensible fashion. Hell, you can't even make quantitative predictions yourself if you can't frame your theory in mathematical terms. That's not physics. It is, at best, philosophy.

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.

Have you ever heard of pickle bugs? They lay eggs in cucumbers, and when the eggs hatch, the larva start to eat the cucumbers from the inside, growing to fill the hole they create. When the larva are full grown and before they go through metamorphosis, they take on the appearance of the cucumber they consumed. In fact, they're often mistakenly picked by farmers, who throw them in with other cucumbers. Normally not a problem, they finish metamophosis and crawl away, and no one is the wiser. But metamorphosis gets interrupted and the larva dies if the cucumbers are pickled. So these pickle bug larva get canned along with all the other pickles, and unsuspecting consumers end up taking out a pickle bug larva and biting into it, thinking it's a pickle. At which time they notice that a pickle bug larva tastes... just like a pickle.

What's that you say? There's no such thing as pickle bugs? How do you know? How can you be sure?

If there's no way to distinguish the existence of something from its non-existence, then it what sense can it exist at all? The same applies to the aether (as a medium for electromagnetic excitations) and to your excitations traveling at something other than c which are only observable at c. There is no way to distinguish between their existence and non-existence. Just like the pickle bug, you may be able to create a theory which posits their existence, but you can only do so by making them like the pickle bug: non-observable.

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.

Once again, these details do not matter. Unless the valve itself is doing net work on the ball (in which case you don't need gravity, the valve itself is your perpetual motion machine), the only possible way to extract energy is if the path integral of work done by gravity around a closed loop is nonzero - ie, gravity is non-conservative. There is no alternative. That you do not understand these very basic issues goes to my previous point 1: you have not demonstrated a solid grasp of what is already understood by physicists. And the issue of conservative vs. nonconservative force in regards to energy conservation is not simply a matter of theory: it's an absolute distinction for any theory.

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.

In other words, you think gravity is not only non-conservative, but it draws energy from somewhere else in order to do this work. Where this energy is being lost from remains unspecified. You'll have to do a lot better than that to convince anyone.

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.

Again, not good enough. What "heat component" has NASA found? How is it any different than simple compressional heating? Has NASA really not found any explanation for it using standard physics? And can your theory actually predict this heating quantitatively? None of these questions are answered, let alone addressed. Without them, your claim is pretty much meaningless.

I also made several other priori's which have been found to be true.

Also not good enough. Existing theories have made predictions which were found correct too. This in no way distinguishes your theory as any better than, or even as good as, existing theories. You need to show numbers 2-4 above. Which you haven't done.

So whuile my theory is only barely mathematically considered

Which makes it essentially useless.

the general concept seems correct

"seems" isn't good enough. It has to be something that can be evaluated quantitatively, which your theory cannot be.

which is why Iam perhaps more stuborn than most to accept rhetoric and current physics as the exclusive answer.

Exclusive answer? No, it's not the exclusive answer. If you were in the field (and no offense, but it's obvious you're not), then you'd know that there are MANY areas of active debate and contention. The areas that are not actively debated are so because they have been long settled: experimental evidence for the correctness of those theories is overwhelming. That does not mean that the theories are taken as being absolutely correct, but it DOES mean that, like Newtonian mechanics for moderately large and slow objects, they are at least excellent approximations. Any theory which aims to take their place must, just like special relativity does with Newtonian mechanics, reduce to existing theories in the limiting conditions in which existing theories work so well. But just as with pretty much everything else in physics, you need your theory to be framed in mathematical terms in order to be able to evaluate it in this manner. But you have not done so: your theory has no mathematical formalism, and so is essentially untestable. It cannot be disproven for the same reason it cannot be tested in any meaningful manner.

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.

No, MacM. The terms "momentum" and "force" do not assume anything. They are quantities which have rigorous definitions. A definition is not an assumption. You are using those words in ways which conflict with those accepted definitions. As a result, your statement was nonsensical. Now, if you would prefer to use some other definition besides the standard accepted definition, you may do so. But in such a case, the burden is on you to provide the definition you want to use. You have not done so. Without an alternative definition, I have no recourse but to try to apply the standard definitions. And the result, as already mentioned, is not even grammatically correct.

 

[wackyvorlon]

I may be misunderstanding you here, but isn't the equality of all reference frames a corner stone of relativity?

 

[Ziggurat]

I may be misunderstanding you here

Who is "you"?

but isn't the equality of all reference frames a corner stone of relativity?

No: the equivalence of all inertial reference frames is a corner stone of relativity (both Galilean and special). Non-inertial reference frames are not equivalent.

 

[wackyvorlon]

Who is "you"?



No: the equivalence of all inertial reference frames is a corner stone of relativity (both Galilean and special). Non-inertial reference frames are not equivalent.

The "you" was MacM, a fellow posted before I had a chance and I didn't notice. Ahh yes, now I remember the bit about them being inertial. Me != physicist. Now I'm off to try to figure out where exactly one can find a *non* inertial reference frame....

EDIT: Ahh, now I get it! So the earth is non-inertial because it's rotating. The math for such a reference frame at relativistic velocities must get very interesting indeed....

 

[sol invictus]

MacM, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you recover and prove your doctors wrong.

If I could venture to give you one piece of advice, it would be this - forget about physics for now. Forget about this and other internet fora. Enjoy your life, your family, your friends, the summer. When you've recovered you can come back to this, but for now there are much more rewarding things to do.

We probably disagree on why, but I suspect you would agree with me that you have no chance of convincing anyone here. So don't waste your time!

 

[MacM]

I may be misunderstanding you here, but isn't the equality of all reference frames a corner stone of relativity?

Correct and I do understand the concept of reference frames but I still say:

F1=0, F2=0.1c, F3=0.2c, F4=0.3c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9C - F4) = 0.6c; IS still an absolute measure system. It is just that an inertial F4 locally = 0.

 

[MacM]

MacM, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you recover and prove your doctors wrong.

If I could venture to give you one piece of advice, it would be this - forget about physics for now. Forget about this and other internet fora. Enjoy your life, your family, your friends, the summer. When you've recovered you can come back to this, but for now there are much more rewarding things to do.

Correct. I get my first Chem Wed .

We probably disagree on why, but I suspect you would agree with me that you have no chance of convincing anyone here. So don't waste your time!

No I fully agree with you but I enjoy the batter.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi MacM. Sorry to hear about your health problems. I hope your treatment goes well.

I do have some questions about your reply to wackyvorlon:

Correct and I do understand the concept of reference frames but I still say:

F1=0, F2=0.1c, F3=0.2c, F4=0.3c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9C - F4) = 0.6c; IS still an absolute measure system. It is just that an inertial F4 locally = 0.

What is an "absolute measure system"?
How big is "locally"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offseting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

 

[Cuddles]

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.

That's one hell of a false dichotomy you've got yourself there. You may be better off taking it to the Conspiracies section. Alternatively, you could simply recognise a very obvious third possibility - you're wrong.

 

[MacM]

Hi MacM. Sorry to hear about your health problems. I hope your treatment goes well.

I do have some questions about your reply to wackyvorlon:

What is an "absolute measure system"?
How big is "locally"?
Is there a F10,000?

What about:
F1=0, F2=0.01c, F3=0.02c, F4=0.03c, Fn......Etc. Such that (F1,000=0.9c - F4) = 0.06c;
Is that an "absolute measure system" also and so what is the difference between the 2 absolute measure systems?

As far as I can see every one of the Fn is an inertial reference frame, i.e. an observer in it is moving at a constant velocity. All you are doing is picking out another arbitrary inertial reference frame and offseting the velocities measured in the Fn by that observers velocity.

Great question. Local I suspect is a planck volume and there are one for every possible planck increment of energy (motion) from some unknown absolute zero to whatever speed (velocity) might describe particle entanglement.

The thing is our physics are bound by Lorentz and v = c becomes an existance limit within our universe but if you blast off in space to high relavistic speeds I suspect you will begin to measure (see) or experience objects that were outside your c band universe inertial rest reference.

Also it would mean that some objects which would now exceed v = c that were before your acceleration were receeding have now ceased to exist in your new universal surroundings.

 

[MacM]

That's one hell of a false dichotomy you've got yourself there. You may be better off taking it to the Conspiracies section. Alternatively, you could simply recognise a very obvious third possibility - you're wrong.

Definitely possible - But my statement only applies to those that have posted SR rhetoric and not considered what is being said. That is it doesn't matter what SR says if the foundation of SR is being questioned.