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

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?

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.

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

"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.

"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.

"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

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

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

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.