TeleMad: Dan, Dan, Dan, what happend to your UniKEF theory?

Mac: I am afraid this post eludes me?

TeleMad: Are you sure you want to stick to that story?

Give me a few minutes to pull together some circumstantial evidence that indicates otherwise.

And here we go.

Here is your first post in this thread.

Mac: Hello, this is my first post here. I am very interested in the facts regarding the many failures of Special Relativity which seem to be generally ignored.

************************************************** ***************

Relativity is touted as being the most highly tested and proven theory in history. The facts are that all data todate, after 100 years of the theory only demonstrates a Lorentz Gamma Function and not Special Relativity.

The "Gamma function not only works in Relativity but in the "Absolute" space view as well; hence it does not distinguish itself between the two views.

But most importantly is the fact that data regarding time dilation shows a failure of Special Relativity (SRT) most clearly and it is merely ignored. That is SRT stipulates that all motion is relative and hence each of two observers always see themselves at rest and that it is the other that has motion.

This causes paradox's such as "Both" clocks must run slower than each other (called Reciprocity). That is more than merely "Counter Intiutive" (the escape goat phrase used by Relativists to avoid the issue) it is physically impossible.

The actual recording of time dilation of ONE clock is direct proof of the failure of Einstein's Relativity, not proof of it. GPS proves that the proper relativistic view is to use three, not two referances.

By using three referances it is established if one observer actually has a higher absolute velocity and it eliminates the "Reciprocity" problem or reversability claims of SRT.

GPS PROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY INVALID

Proof: GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles or Earth Center Frame.

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss may be disregarded.

Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for a collective decrease by -38.5776 microseconds/day due to the collective affects of an increase in tick rate due to General Relativity (Gravity affect) of +45.7776 microseconds/day and for -7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not Special Relativity's "Relative Velocity between clocks" as Relativists would have you believe), GPS does not use Special Relativity. It uses the Lorentz Relativity's gamma function concept of absolute velocities and not Special Realtivity relative velocity.

Further since the velocites and calculations are based on absolute velocities relative to a common preferred rest frame the two components are not reversable as they are in Special Relativity where each can claim to be at rest. In this format the orbiting clock always has higher velocity and always is the clock which shows dilation.

This is what we physically observe and it is Lorentz Relativity's Gamma function but is not Einstein's Special Relativity; which inherently includes reciprocity.

And lastly while relavistic type affects are known facts, it is the details that make or break a theory. The details and claims of Einstien's Relativity is what makes it invalid.

In General Relativity it is claimed that gravity affects time and slows time in higher gravity fields.

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?

************************************************** **************

Notice that you gave no reference, which indicates that these are your own thoughts.

Now let’s see what a Mac – that is, McCoin – said at another site.

McCoin:

Relativity is touted as being the most highly tested and proven theory in history. The facts are that all data todate, after 100 years of the theory only demonstrates a Lorentz Gamma Function and not Special Relativity.

The "Gamma function not only works in Relativity but in the "Absolute" space view as well; hence it does not distinguish itself between the two views.

But most importantly is the fact that data regarding time dilation shows a failure of Special Relativity (SRT) most clearly and it is merely ignored. That is SRT stipulates that all motion is relative and hence each of two observers always see themselves at rest and that it is the other that has motion.

This causes paradox's such as "Both" clocks must run slower than each other (called Reciprocity). That is more than merely "Counter Intiutive" (the escape goat phrase used by Relativists to avoid the issue) it is physically impossible.

The actual recording of time dilation of ONE clock is direct proof of the failure of Einstein's Relativity, not proof of it. GPS proves that the proper relativistic view is to use three, not two referances.

By using three referances it is established if one observer actually has a higher absolute velocity and it eliminates the "Reciprocity" problem or reversability claims of SRT.

GPS PROVES SPECIAL RELATIVITY INVALID

Proof: GPS satellites have a velocity (V1) of 3,874.5 m/s. A surface clock (at the equator) has an absolute velocity (V2) of 463.8 m/s and "0" m/s at the poles or Earth Center Frame.

The "Relative Velocity" between the orbiting clock and a clock at the equator is V3 = (V1 - V2) = (3,874.5m/s - 463.8m/s) = 3,410.7m/s.

Using Special Relativity in GPS one gets: 3,410.7/c = 1.1369E-5, squared = 1.2925E-10. Divided by 2 = 6.4627E-11.

Time loss would be 6.4627E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 5.58378E-6 or - 5.58 micro-seconds per day.

HOWEVER: Using the absolute velocity of orbit of 3,874.5 m/s and NOT "Relative Velocity" per SRT one gets 1.2915E-5c, squared = 1.66797E-10. Divided by 2 = 8.33986E-11.

8.33986E-11 * 24 * 3,600 = 7.205E-6 or 7.2 micro-seconds per day due to orbit velocity.

For the earth surface clock I calculate V2 = 463.8 m/s = 1.546E-6c. Squared = 3.29E-12. Divided by 2 = 1.195058E-12 * 24 * 3,600 = 1.0325E-7 or -0.10325 Micro-seconds per day being only about 1% in the daily time loss may be disregarded.

*************** Issue Close *********************

Since it is known that GPS clocks are preadjusted for a collective decrease by -38.5776 microseconds/day due to the collective affects of an increase in tick rate due to General Relativity (Gravity affect) of +45.7776 microseconds/day and for -7.2 microseconds loss per day (which matches absolute velocity of orbit and not Special Relativity's "Relative Velocity between clocks" as Relativists would have you believe), GPS does not use Special Relativity. It uses the Lorentz Relativity's gamma function concept of absolute velocities and not Special Realtivity relative velocity.

Further since the velocites and calculations are based on absolute velocities relative to a common preferred rest frame the two components are not reversable as they are in Special Relativity where each can claim to be at rest. In this format the orbiting clock always has higher velocity and always is the clock which shows dilation.

This is what we physically observe and it is Lorentz Relativity's Gamma function but is not Einstein's Special Relativity.

And lastly while relavistic type affects are known facts, it is the details that make or break a theory. The details and claims of Einstien's Relativity is what makes it invalid.

In General Relativity it is claimed that gravity affects time and slows time in higher gravity fields.

Actually one should think more in terms of "Clock Dilation" and not "Time Dilation". That is there is no clock that actually measures something identified or called time. All clocks actually merely mark the time interval at some frequency by various energy processes.

A change in such clocks frequency no more alters time than having the battery in my timex getting low and my watch slowing down.

Take an atomic clock and a pendulum grandfathers clock and calibrate them and synchronize them in LA, at sea level. Now move them to Denver, Colorado. What happens?

The atomic clock speeds up, the GF clock slows down. Has gravity affected time or just affected clock processes?

(http://groups.msn.co...veninvalid.msnw)

Recognize that? Gee, it’s the very same material – typo for typo – you posted here as being your own thoughts.

Also,the person who posted at that other site was McCoin…. Mac….McCoin…hmmm.

Also, that other person apparently went by the name … get this … Mac at the other site! Check out this page where he mentions the UniKEF theory:

http://groups.msn.co...420447296623637And here we have, apparently, Mac spelling out his UniKEF theory.

http://www.unikef-gr...niKV2/page1.htmSo you may not be Mac (Dan McCoin), but if not, you sure left a great deal of misleading clues that indicate you are ... as well as being guilty of plagiarism.

So which (losing) position do you wish to take?