|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics"
is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
kenseto wrote: A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Who cares? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Quoting the first three sentences of "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" found at http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm "Introduction -- A new model of our Universe, called Model Mechanics, has been formulated. The current state of our Universe as interpreted by Model Mechanics is as follows: Space is occupied by a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting medium called the E-Matrix. A mass-bearing particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle exists in our Universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all the observed particles such as the electron and the different quarks". The "paper" begins with the incorrect concept of "absolute motions"! This is a stupid comment. There is no such thing as the incorrect concept of absolute moiton. Imagine a universe with only one object, say something called an S-Particle. What does it mean to say that object is moving? How would you define the velocity of that single object? Hey idiot it is moving in the E-Matrix. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Quoting the first three sentences of "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" found at http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm "Introduction -- A new model of our Universe, called Model Mechanics, has been formulated. The current state of our Universe as interpreted by Model Mechanics is as follows: Space is occupied by a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting medium called the E-Matrix. A mass-bearing particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle exists in our Universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all the observed particles such as the electron and the different quarks". The "paper" begins with the incorrect concept of "absolute motions"! This is a stupid comment. There is no such thing as the incorrect concept of absolute moiton. Imagine a universe with only one object, say something called an S-Particle. What does it mean to say that object is moving? How would you define the velocity of that single object? Hey idiot it is moving in the E-Matrix. OK... And how is the E-Matrix defined physically? Read the paper: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
"kenseto" wrote in message ... A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm The wonders of the internet which allow cranks to post nonsense and claim it is a "scientific" paper. Your "paper" is nonsense. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:bwblh.286738$FQ1.85118@attbi_s71... kenseto wrote: Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Quoting the first three sentences of "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" found at http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm "Introduction -- A new model of our Universe, called Model Mechanics, has been formulated. The current state of our Universe as interpreted by Model Mechanics is as follows: Space is occupied by a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting medium called the E-Matrix. A mass-bearing particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle exists in our Universe. The different absolute motions of the S-Particles in the E-Matrix gives rise to all the observed particles such as the electron and the different quarks". The "paper" begins with the incorrect concept of "absolute motions"! This is a stupid comment. There is no such thing as the incorrect concept of absolute moiton. Imagine a universe with only one object, say something called an S-Particle. What does it mean to say that object is moving? How would you define the velocity of that single object? Hey idiot it is moving in the E-Matrix. OK... And how is the E-Matrix defined physically? Read the paper: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf The word "E-Matrix" appears in the paper dozens of times, but it is *never* defined physically or mathematically. Hand waving without definition! Hey idiot it is described physically in the first page. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
"T Wake" wrote in message ... "kenseto" wrote in message ... A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm The wonders of the internet which allow cranks to post nonsense and claim it is a "scientific" paper. Your "paper" is nonsense. You are a runt of the SRians. Definition for a runt of the SRians: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
On 2006-12-29 18:04:35 +0000, "kenseto" said:
You are a runt of the SRians. Definition for a runt of the SRians: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto I love this c'n'p - its a big flag that says "I cannot argue with you" -- For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
On 2006-12-29 16:13:50 +0000, Sam Wormley said:
Hey idiot it is moving in the E-Matrix. OK... And how is the E-Matrix defined physically? Perhaps you have to take the blue pill first? -- For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Origin of the universe.
Sam Wormley wrote: kenseto wrote: A paper entitled "Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics" is available in the following website: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm Ken, would I be correct if I state the following? o A is a rest with respect to the E-Matrix as "defined" in Seto's paper, http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf . NO......no object is at rest in the E-Matrix. In IRT A is the observer. He is moving in the E-Matrix. That motion of A in the E-Matrix defines the rate of A's clock. o B, having a relative velocity with respect to A, is therefore, not at rest with respect to the E-Matrix as "defined" in Seto's paper, http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2006universe.pdf . NO.....B is also moving in the E-Matrix. The rate of B's clcok is also defined by the absolute motion of B in the E-Matrix. The relative motion between A and B is the vector components difference of their absolute motions along the line joining A and B. _______________________ Assume two light sources A and B in intergalactic space in two different inertial frames that are in relative motion with respect to each other, such that dv/dt = 0 and c |dr/dt| 0 . Observer in the frame of the clock (A) measures the frequency of light from (B) shifted according to Doppler's equations.... Observer in the frame of the clock (B) measures the frequency of light from (A) shifted according to Doppler's equations.... _______________________ According to Seto, if A is "at rest" with respect to the E-Matrix as "defined" in Seto's paper, then B cannot be "at rest" with respect to the E-Matrix. This is not according to Seto's paper. This is according to the runt wormy. Accoridng to IRT both A and B are moving in the E-Matrix. According to Seto, if B is "at rest" with respect to the E-Matrix as "defined" in Seto's paper, then A cannot be "at rest" with respect to the E-Matrix. This is not according to Seto's paper. This is accoriding to the runt Wormy. Accoridng to IRT both A and B are moving in the E-Matrix. A and B can be arbitrarily interchanged. There is no experiment that can show otherwise. Seto's E-Matrix is not detectable, nor exists. NO....IRT said: if A's clock is running fast then B's clock must be running slow. There is no reciprocity. There is no experimental support for reciprocity. This is proven by the GPS system. From the ground clock point of view the SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow. From the GPS point of view the SR effect on the ground clock is 7 us/day running fast. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Origin of the Universe | kenseto | Astronomy Misc | 11 | December 3rd 06 09:04 PM |
Origin of the Universe | Chris H. Fleming | Misc | 0 | January 9th 06 02:19 AM |
Origin of the Universe | nightbat | Misc | 2 | January 8th 06 08:26 PM |
Origin of the Universe | Richard Smol | Misc | 0 | January 8th 06 12:49 PM |
ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE | GRAVITYMECHANIC2 | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 27th 04 05:54 PM |