McCoin Last Thread

[Uncayimmy]

Uh, no. This is simply wrong. Math, for example, is what led to the prediction that electromagnetic fluctuations could travel as waves, and that this might explain what light was.

I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong because his statement doesn't seem to make any sense:

"Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts."

Math defines the experiments: Aren't the experiments physical in nature?

Physical concepts: Is there such a thing? A concept is an idea. It's not physical. Or does he mean a concept about the physical world? If so, see the first half of that sentence.

For this layman it's just double-talk. However, it does explain why MacM never shows his math and refuses to solve the math for problems presented to him.

 

[MacM]

I assume you mean "energetic" rather than "ergetic." I tried to look up the deifinition of "energetic 3D space" - the only references in all of Google were written by you. Please define.

Why would I want to reverse time? Do I also want to reverse matter?[/QUOTE]

The view is that space is formed by free flowing (unbound) energy. Mass is compacted space by the ratio E = mc^2. That is you can convert mass into an equivelent spatial volume based on energy.

Passage of flowing energy through a mass produces a slight drag (attenuates the spatial field) such that the flow impeding another mass produces slightly less drag in that vector. Considering that the flow is substantially multidirectional that results in a net loss of drag between object which appears as an attraction.

To compute it properly you must consider not only a new "G" but an attenuation factor "~". Instead of "G" I use "U" for universal energy.

G = U * ~ = 6.67E=11 N . m^2 / Kg^2 For example considering maximum gravity near a Black Hole one might find that U = 2.2233E60 n . m / s and ~ = 3.0E-71 m . s / Kg^2

The following link is to some files showing testing done( 1st UniKEF file) , UniKEF Calculus done, etc. The calculus was done by Dr Edward Allard, physicist of infered fame.

It doesn't prove the concept but shows that locally it at least produces the 1/r^2 result expected.

http://mac.mccoinunikeftheory.yuku.com/fs/ls

Why would I want to reverse time? Do I also want to reverse matter?

Actually it would be neat if it were possible but it is not and all the BS about reversing time via about relativity or FTL particles having negative time and time-space cones, etc is out and out BS.

 

[MacM]

I'm not sure how you can tell him he's wrong because his statement doesn't seem to make any sense:

"Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts."

Math defines the experiments: Aren't the experiments physical in nature?

Physical concepts: Is there such a thing? A concept is an idea. It's not physical. Or does he mean a concept about the physical world? If so, see the first half of that sentence.

For this layman it's just double-talk. However, it does explain why MacM never shows his math and refuses to solve the math for problems presented to him.

I don't have a problem with the math so why waste time. Math merely defines relationships but doesn't provide any underlying physical concepts.

For example in my limited work, I deal more with physical concepts and haven't developed the math. I have had (45 years+ ago) higher mathematics but have never had to use it in my work and don't even pretend anymore. But that does not mean I don't understand what is being done. I do.

In my work there is a physical principle involved, not some mysterious force of every particle of mass attracting every other particle of mass in the universe.

If anybody elects to pursue this mathematically I predict you will be able to compute the actual dimensions of the universe (not merely the observed diameter). That is by looking at the rate of change in gravity from local to galatic then cosmic one will find the finite dimension.

 

[Ziggurat]

The view is that space is formed by free flowing (unbound) energy. Mass is compacted space by the ratio E = mc^2. That is you can convert mass into an equivelent spatial volume based on energy.

Not with that equation, you can't. It is not possible to arrange that equation, or even the quantities in that equation, in any way to produce something with units of volume.

The following link is to some files showing testing done( 1st UniKEF file) , UniKEF Calculus done, etc. The calculus was done by Dr Edward Allard, physicist of infered fame.

It doesn't prove the concept but shows that locally it at least produces the 1/r^2 result expected.

http://mac.mccoinunikeftheory.yuku.com/fs/ls

Your link doesn't work. It requires a login and password.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't have a problem with the math so why waste time.

But you do have a problem with math. You demonstrated that above with a wrong claim regarding conversion of units.

For example in my limited work, I deal more with physical concepts and haven't developed the math.

In other words, you have vague ideas which you can't quantify, and therefore can't formulate into a falsifiable theory. Which means that whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

If anybody elects to pursue this mathematically I predict you will be able to compute the actual dimensions of the universe (not merely the observed diameter). That is by looking at the rate of change in gravity from local to galatic then cosmic one will find the finite dimension.

Why haven't you done this yourself? And if you can't do it, then how can you make conclusions about the results one would get?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I still don't understand what you mean by, "Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts."

Please define what you mean by "defines the experiments" and "physical concepts" and then compare/contrast the two.

 

[Reality Check]

Math defines the experiments but provides NO physical concepts..

How does math "define the experiments"?
For example what mathematics did Galileo use to define his experiments before he did them? How did he pick what maths to use to "define the experiments"?

There is a general sense in which math "defines the experiments" - experiments do measurements and you need mathematics to do measurements.

You are right that mathematics produces no physical concepts. By definition mathematics is about abstract concepts, e.g. numbers, lines, sets, etc.
It is scientific theories using mathematics to match experimental results and observations that provide physical concepts such as atomic orbitals, wave/particle duality, the curvature of space/time, time dilation.

 

[MacM]

But you do have a problem with math. You demonstrated that above with a wrong claim regarding conversion of units.

In other words, you have vague ideas which you can't quantify, and therefore can't formulate into a falsifiable theory. Which means that whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

Why haven't you done this yourself? And if you can't do it, then how can you make conclusions about the results one would get?

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

 

[MacM]

But you do have a problem with math. You demonstrated that above with a wrong claim regarding conversion of units.

In other words, you have vague ideas which you can't quantify, and therefore can't formulate into a falsifiable theory. Which means that whatever you're doing, it isn't science.

Why haven't you done this yourself? And if you can't do it, then how can you make conclusions about the results one would get?

I have no real interest in pursueing the math. I'd have to go back and completely relearn. I can see the trend and that is good enough for me. Now get off your high horse and do some math yourself.

What I do is better than science. You get to roll around and wallow in the work of others. I get to think for myself.

 

[MacM]

How does math "define the experiments"?
For example what mathematics did Galileo use to define his experiments before he did them? How did he pick what maths to use to "define the experiments"?

There is a general sense in which math "defines the experiments" - experiments do measurements and you need mathematics to do measurements.

You are right that mathematics produces no physical concepts. By definition mathematics is about abstract concepts, e.g. numbers, lines, sets, etc.
It is scientific theories using mathematics to match experimental results and observations that provide physical concepts such as atomic orbitals, wave/particle duality, the curvature of space/time, time dilation.

You can't measure something before you know what it is you want to detect. That requires physical concepts. When you take observed data and produce math to describe it you do not produce a physical concept along with it. You only produce a mathematical re;ationship.

 

[Uncayimmy]

What I do is better than science. You get to roll around and wallow in the work of others. I get to think for myself.

So why are you here? For someone who seems so very proud of thinking for himself and who looks down on mainstream scientists, you spend an awful lot of time trying to convince others of something (what, I'm still not sure). Why? Honestly, I just don't get it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have no real interest in pursueing the math. I'd have to go back and completely relearn. I can see the trend and that is good enough for me. Now get off your high horse and do some math yourself.

I do plenty of math. But we're not talking about my ideas, we're talking about yours. I can't do the math for your theory for you.

What I do is better than science.

You aren't doing science, you're waving your hands around. Doing science would require making quantifiable, falsifiable predictions. But you won't do that, because you can't be troubled to do any math. It's a common refrain among cranks. You claim that you aren't like all the other cranks, but you refuse to do the one thing which might actually separate yourself from them.

I get to think for myself.

So do poets, philosophers, and playwrites. Doesn't make what they do science.

 

[Ziggurat]

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

A nucleon does not have a well defined volume, and since c is not dimensionless or unitless, this statement wouldn't make sense even if it did.

 

[RussDill]

No you have a problem with common language. E=mc^2 is nothing more than a compaction factor. Take the mass/volume of a nucleon for example and increase the volume by c^2.

ok...I'm really doubting the usability of further discussion.

First, c^2 is a constant area, not volume. Second, increasing the volume of something would involve a multiplication by a unit-less constant. For example, if you have an area of 1 m^2, doubling the area would be a multiplication by 2, not 2 m^2.

Second, why are you singling out nucleons?

Third, what is the volume of a nucleon and what would it mean for the volume of a nucleon to increase?

Fourth, you seem to have a strong bias against mathematics. I'm not sure why. I know it may seem daunting and abstract, but certainly no more abstract than any other form of language or thought. When things are expressed in English, there can be a great deal of ambiguity. Definitions of words are never definite, grammatical structures can be interpreted in a variety of ways, etc. Mathematics allows ideas to be expressed in unambiguous ways.

I strongly suggest a book like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality:_A_Complete_Guide_to_the_Laws_of_the_Universe

As it first builds a solid foundation in the language of mathematics. If you'd like something lighter, I think something like Feynman, like "Six Easy Pieces", or QED. The core of the mathematics get explained, but it stays as basic as possible. The ways in which Penrose describes entropy is especially enlightening.

I remember I read a lot of Kaku and Greene when I was young, but it really glosses over the foundation of the theories discussed that it really gets you no closer to understanding the topics discussed, it mearly tickles the brain.

 

[RussDill]

You aren't doing science, you're waving your hands around. Doing science would require making quantifiable, falsifiable predictions. But you won't do that, because you can't be troubled to do any math. It's a common refrain among cranks. You claim that you aren't like all the other cranks, but you refuse to do the one thing which might actually separate yourself from them.

I think people get the impression from pop science books that the hand waving is not only enough, but it is all that is involved. I realize that writers like Kaku and Greene actually do do serious work and publications, but their popularized books just include the hand waving.

 

[RussDill]

I think the best line of inquiry here is a thought experiment. Suppose man colonizes Mars. We'll need a GPS system for Mars. We build some satellites on Earth, and accelerate them over to Mars and into Mars orbit. We build some on Mars and put them into Mars orbit.

According to MacM, they accelerated from different initial reference frames and should thus behave differently. Is this a correct line of thinking MacM?

[Note, I utilize the "MacM" usage of acceleration here]

No. Once the satellites occupy the same frame they will tick the same. They will however have a different time accumuation history before reachingh that point. Assume Mars has been colonized and the GPS is being constructed at the same time on Mars and Earth. They will clearly have accumulated different amounts of time when berought together but will now be ticking at the same rate.

So then the Mars frame of reference must be used for calculations?

 

[MacM]

Not with that equation, you can't. It is not possible to arrange that equation, or even the quantities in that equation, in any way to produce something with units of volume.


Your link doesn't work. It requires a login and password.

I guess it is no big deal anymore so here is my username and password to access "Images". That way you don't have to join.


Please do not tamper with files. Thanks.
\
http://mac.mccoinunikeftheory.yuku.com/fs/ls

Username: Mac
Passwird: dkmllm

I'm currently trying to upload a file for the General Description of UniKEF but must first convert fro .tif to jpg.

 

[MacM]

A nucleon does not have a well defined volume, and since c is not dimensionless or unitless, this statement wouldn't make sense even if it did.

Gee I thought I knew that considering I've had nuclear engineering. Damn it stop being picky to get a general view take the normally given dimensions of a nucleon and it's mass and convert into a spatial volume using the c^2 factor. For such a sharp scientist I'd think you could figure that out.

Oh, I forgot. While I was being trained to operate a nuclear reactor on the moon (Apollo Moon Base - Funds cut by congress in 1965) so as to think for myself, since there is no ACE Hardware just around the corner there, you have been taught to recite the works of others.


You are incapable of seeing anything but what has been ground into your brain as the ultimate fact - when the facts are it isn't.

 

[MacM]

ok...I'm really doubting the usability of further discussion.

First, c^2 is a constant area, not volume. Second, increasing the volume of something would involve a multiplication by a unit-less constant. For example, if you have an area of 1 m^2, doubling the area would be a multiplication by 2, not 2 m^2.

Second, why are you singling out nucleons?

Third, what is the volume of a nucleon and what would it mean for the volume of a nucleon to increase?

Fourth, you seem to have a strong bias against mathematics. I'm not sure why. I know it may seem daunting and abstract, but certainly no more abstract than any other form of language or thought. When things are expressed in English, there can be a great deal of ambiguity. Definitions of words are never definite, grammatical structures can be interpreted in a variety of ways, etc. Mathematics allows ideas to be expressed in unambiguous ways.

I strongly suggest a book like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Reality:_A_Complete_Guide_to_the_Laws_of_the_Universe

As it first builds a solid foundation in the language of mathematics. If you'd like something lighter, I think something like Feynman, like "Six Easy Pieces", or QED. The core of the mathematics get explained, but it stays as basic as possible. The ways in which Penrose describes entropy is especially enlightening.

I remember I read a lot of Kaku and Greene when I was young, but it really glosses over the foundation of the theories discussed that it really gets you no closer to understanding the topics discussed, it mearly tickles the brain.

Perhaps I've tried to move to fast through this. Perhaps you might forget c^2 and just increase volume by 9E16 -

 

[MacM]

So then the Mars frame of reference must be used for calculations?

Depends on what you want to measure. Once devices are brought together they will tick at the same rate but their dilation history is full of accelerations and decelerations, hence they will have accumulated different amounts of time.