Gravity Test

Hello Mac,

I'm new here as well. It looks like you have some interesting work of your own. I curious, it seems as though your work contradicts Dr. VanFlanderns work, so why would you post on this board?

Just learning!
Magoo

magoo,

Actually I see more things in common than I do differences. The biggest attraction is a group of intelligent and capable people that have seen through Einstein's Relativity. He was wrong more than once before and Relativity is full of pot holes.

thanks for taking a look. Feel free to leave comments or ask question on my board also.


Mac

Einstien was in theoretical physics and he could come close, but he was onlt limited to theory where us experimenters are basing are answers on evidence, Big difference


The intuitive mind

Mac, I tried to go to the site and take a peek at your Unikef theory. It would really help if you had a more organized presentation for your ideas. I would like to be able to go to a page where I can just methodically read a presentation rather than have to tree my way through dozens of records of email exchanges. It is like Tom says, there are so many theories out there it becomes double important to make the knowledge quickly accessible and methodically organized. I'm afraid that I don't have the time to puzzle out other people's thinking and I have certain ground rules that I use in weeding out sites that I will pay attention to. One of my rules of thumb is that I don't devote much effort to sites that make me tree around all over the place and puzzle out how it all relates as a unified concept. I hope you don't take offense at my comments but rather use it as a guidepost on how to improve your presentation.

Jermey,

First I have replied to your post regarding "Posting on this forum".

Thanks for having made the effort to have a look. I agree it is not yet in good order. It is infact being re-structured to do as you suggest.

Right now the main work is under "UniKEF Theory/Documents/Abstract.
The abstract is in (3) Volumes.

Along the left margin you will find topics like "Mass Change", "D = V x T Invalid", etc which are like Executive Summaries without having to search the abstract.

As I indicated in my other reply I would suggest that you at least read the "Introduction" to give you a feel for my tone about my own work.


Thanks.


Mac

Gravity tests are not yet concluded but after two days of trial runs we are getting the type of data anticipated.

Also, UniKEF views each person having their own universe. As such we are all each at the center of our universe.

While the earth can not be in a spot considered the origin of the Big Bang, data suggests that the earth is at the center of the universe, just as predicted. See "UniKEF Theory"/"Documents"/Abstract"/"Vol_1, line 1627-1632.

Varshni,Y.P.: 1976, Astrophys.Space Sci., 43, 3. < adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1976Ap&SS..43....3V >

Abstract.

It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result:

Namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Consequences of this result are examined.

home.achilles.net/%7Ejtalbot/V1976a/index.html >


How does the above data fit MM?



Mac