Origin of the universe.

Budduck Here is my explanation for dark matter. Its can only be seen
if the EM force is strong enough for our light detectors,or that it is
gases that are transparent. Dark energy is a bigger mystery. It accounts
for 65% of the universe. My theory on that is "Dark energy is created by
the annihilation of particles and their anti-particle pairs. It fits
Bert

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
On 2006-12-31 17:02:38 +0000, "malibu" said:

You are good at quacking, Duck.
But when asked direct questions, I've never heard
anything intelligible (or intelligent) issue forth
from that beak.

Unplug your ears then.

I think it's sweet that you are still so attached to
your childhood stories- perhaps that's
when you felt secure- but there are very few
Br'er Rabbits or Toads running around, Duck.

Perhaps you would like to explain your understanding
of some of these things like BHs and DM, Duck?


Why don't you John, after all you've proved your complete lack of
understanding of GR and QM, I could do with some good laughs about your
Black Hole theories.

You're walking proof of the dangers of a vegan diet.

Duck, Duck, Duck.
Black Holes are spin.
They are not caused by gravitational collapse,
(which doesn't occur, ever, due to gravity's nature)
but by movement in the Universe.
They are 3D standing waves which NEVER decay.
They are called protons, nuclei, and galactic nuclei.
John
Galaxy Theory of the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

On 2006-12-31 20:00:01 +0000, "malibu" said:

Duck, Duck, Duck.
Black Holes are spin.
They are not caused by gravitational collapse,
(which doesn't occur, ever, due to gravity's nature)

Really. So all that business with gravity being an attractive central
force is nonsense then. I must be standing on this floor with suckers
then.

but by movement in the Universe.
They are 3D standing waves which NEVER decay.
They are called protons, nuclei, and galactic nuclei.

Nonsense.

John
Galaxy Theory of the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john


--

This space reserved for Jeff Relf's 5-dimensional metric.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2006-12-31 20:00:01 +0000, "malibu" said:

Duck, Duck, Duck.
Black Holes are spin.
They are not caused by gravitational collapse,
(which doesn't occur, ever, due to gravity's nature)
but by movement in the Universe.
They are 3D standing waves which NEVER decay.
They are called protons, nuclei, and galactic nuclei.
John
Galaxy Theory of the Atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john

What about ellipticals, barred spirals, dwarf galaxies, irregular's ???
--

This space reserved for Jeff Relf's 5-dimensional metric.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 2006-12-31 20:00:01 +0000, "malibu" said:

Duck, Duck, Duck.
Black Holes are spin.
They are not caused by gravitational collapse,
(which doesn't occur, ever, due to gravity's nature)
but by movement in the Universe.
They are 3D standing waves which NEVER decay.
They are called protons, nuclei, and galactic nuclei.
John
Galaxy Theory of the Atom

Did the telepathic aliens tell you this?

http://www.petcom.com/~john/close%20encounter.htm



--

This space reserved for Jeff Relf's 5-dimensional metric.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

On 2006-12-31 20:00:01 +0000, "malibu" said:

Duck, Duck, Duck.
Black Holes are spin.
They are not caused by gravitational collapse,
(which doesn't occur, ever, due to gravity's nature)
but by movement in the Universe.
They are 3D standing waves which NEVER decay.
They are called protons, nuclei, and galactic nuclei.
John
Galaxy Theory of the Atom

Did the telepathic aliens tell you this?

That's a new one for me (BH is spin), I thought I'd heard them all in
alt.astronomy, but apparently not.

http://www.petcom.com/~john/close%20encounter.htm

--
Official "netcabal.com mascot demon"

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_jWlh.289587$FQ1.251981@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Scott Miller" wrote in message
...
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

.
Mr. Seto merely mentions that he expects the delta-T's to
be "greater than zero", but with no estimates as to how much.
Hopefully he'll fix that in his 2007 variant of his experiment. :-)

I am simply quibbling with his definitions. There seems to be a lot
needed to be swallowed to proceed to his conclusions. It smells a lot
like knowing the answer one wishes to arrive at and creating the
circumstances that will drive home that answer. That is not how
science
operates.

Every theory contains basic assumptions. The E-Matrix is my basic
assumption. I have designed doable experiments that can falsify my
proposed
model. That's all one can expect for a new proposed theory. You need to
read
the complete theory before you arrive at your uninformed conclusions. I
suggest that you read the paper "Unification of Physics" in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm


Ken Seto



But your assumption of "E-Matrix" is so nebulous as to be nonexistent.
It serves no purpose AFAICT.

****ing idiot runt......Model Mechanics unites all the forces of nature.

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_jWlh.289587$FQ1.251981@attbi_s71...

But your assumption of "E-Matrix" is so nebulous as to be nonexistent.
It serves no purpose AFAICT.

****ing idiot runt......Model Mechanics unites all the forces of nature.



Just how has it united the strong force with the electro-weak?

By royal decree.

On 2007-01-01 16:59:25 +0000, Art Deco said:

Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:_jWlh.289587$FQ1.251981@attbi_s71...

But your assumption of "E-Matrix" is so nebulous as to be nonexistent.
It serves no purpose AFAICT.

****ing idiot runt......Model Mechanics unites all the forces of nature.



Just how has it united the strong force with the electro-weak?

By royal decree.

His Royal KookNess ken Seto the Turd.
--

This space reserved for Jeff Relf's 5-dimensional metric.


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote:
Budduck Here is my explanation for dark matter. Its can only be seen
if the EM force is strong enough for our light detectors,or that it is
gases that are transparent. Dark energy is a bigger mystery. It accounts
for 65% of the universe. My theory on that is "Dark energy is created by
the annihilation of particles and their anti-particle pairs. It fits
Bert


Actually, it does not fit - claiming otherwise does not make it so. And
the point of dark matter is that it is not detectable across all
wavelength bands. It is not a lack of detector strength (of course,
don't let the fact stand in your way). As I pointed out earlier,
barionic matter is pretty much ruled out - that would include
transparent gas, which by the way we can detect.