Origin of the universe.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

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"

It's the standard kenseto surrender screed -- perhaps he thinks he wins
debating points with it.

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




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.

Forget the clocks -- you still haven't stated what the "E-Matrix" is
yet.

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"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.

Blah blah.

You are the runt of the cranks.

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

And you, being an asshole who will attack anyone who disagrees with you is
different, how?

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
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




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.

Forget the clocks -- you still haven't stated what the "E-Matrix" is
yet.

Hey idiot runt it is described in the first page of the above link.

kenseto wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
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




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.

Forget the clocks -- you still haven't stated what the "E-Matrix" is
yet.

Hey idiot runt it is described in the first page of the above link.

"Space is occupied by a stationary, structured and elastic
light-conducting medium called the E-Matrix."

I can claim that space is filled with pixie dust, big deal. So what is
it, and why is it called the "E-Matrix"?

I recommend taking this thread to alt.astronomy, the saucerheads there
love to yak about flowing space filled with fluffy stuff. Maybe
they'll even buy your book.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:neelh.195962$aJ.9464@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:
"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
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



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.
Forget the clocks -- you still haven't stated what the "E-Matrix" is
yet.

Hey idiot runt it is described in the first page of the above link.



Well here's the first page, Seto. Where is the definition? If fact,
what even makes any sense?

What part of the definition of the E-Matrix that you don't understand?????
OTOH you are an idiot runt.......maybe that's why you don't have the
ability to understand anything that's beyond the teaching of SR.

_______________________________


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. Also, the
absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particle Systems give rise
to all the forces and processes of nature. Model Mechanics leads to a
new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) and
unites gravity with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces naturally
[1, 2]. It also leads to a complete theory of motion called IRT
(Improved Relativity Theory). IRT includes SRT as a subset. However,
unlike SRT, the equations of IRT are valid in all environments...
including gravity. In cosmology, Model Mechanics provides natural
solutions to the following problematic cosmological observations: The
observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of the
universe disagrees with the predictions of current theories. The
observed rotational curves of galaxies disagree with the predictions
of current theories. The observed paths of travel of the spacecrafts
Pioneer 10 and 11 disagree with the predictions of current theories.
The observable universe appears to have a much larger horizon than
it is allowed by its observed age. The GRT description of gravity
gives rise to the observed flatness problem of the universe.

The above Model Mechanical description of our current Universe leads
to a new interpretation for the origin of our Universe. This paper
gives a detail description of this new interpretation.

Model Mechanical Description of the Current Universe

Model Mechanics supposes that a stationary substance, called the
`E-Matrix', occupies all of pure-space (void) in our Universe.
Subsequently, we perceive the E-Matrix as space. The E-Matrix, in
turn, is composed of `E-Strings', which are very thin
three-dimensional elastic objects, of diameter estimated at 10 33 cm.
The length of an E-String is not defined. Away from matter, the
E-Strings are oriented randomly in all directions. This means that a
slice of the EMatrix in any direction will look the same. Near
matter, the E-Strings are more organized: some emanate from the
matter, and the number of these passing through a unit area followed
the wellknown inverse square law of physics. The E-Strings repel each
other. This means that there is an unknown outside force that is
compacting them together. The repulsive force and the compacting
force are in equilibrium. This state of the E-Matrix allows massive
matter particles to move freely within it. The motion of a matter
particle or particle system in the E-Matrix is called `absolute
motion'. The absolute motion of matter in the E-Matrix will distort
the local EStrings. The E-Strings will recover to the non-distorted
state after the passage of the matter particles. Light consists of
wave-packets in neighboring E-Strings. On its way toward its target,
a wave-packet will follow the geometry of these neighboring
E-Strings. This description of light embodies `duality', i.e. light
possessing properties of a mass-bearing particle as well as a wave
packet.

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
kenseto wrote:

"Art Deco" wrote in message
...
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




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.

Forget the clocks -- you still haven't stated what the "E-Matrix" is
yet.

Hey idiot runt it is described in the first page of the above link.

"Space is occupied by a stationary, structured and elastic
light-conducting medium called the E-Matrix."

I can claim that space is filled with pixie dust, big deal. So what is
it, and why is it called the "E-Matrix"?

Hey idiot runt you can call it what ever you want. The E-Matrix is a big
deal because it explains all the forces of nature and it explains action at
a distance without positing non-existing virtual particles.

I recommend taking this thread to alt.astronomy, the saucerheads there
love to yak about flowing space filled with fluffy stuff. Maybe
they'll even buy your book.

I recommend that you stick your head back into your arsehole:-)

On 2006-12-29 19:45:37 +0000, Art Deco said:

"Space is occupied by a stationary, structured and elastic
light-conducting medium called the E-Matrix."

I can claim that space is filled with pixie dust, big deal. So what is
it, and why is it called the "E-Matrix"?

I recommend taking this thread to alt.astronomy, the saucerheads there
love to yak about flowing space filled with fluffy stuff. Maybe
they'll even buy your book.

Yep - and they also run away when you point them to scientific facts
too, Ken would fit right in...
--

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

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:neelh.195962$aJ.9464@attbi_s21...
kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot runt it is described in the first page of the above link.



Well here's the first page, Seto. Where is the definition? If fact,
what even makes any sense?

What part of the definition of the E-Matrix that you don't understand?????
OTOH you are an idiot runt.......maybe that's why you don't have the
ability to understand anything that's beyond the teaching of SR.

Well there, Genius. Why don't you just repost the bit of the page which
defines the E-Matrix. As you are such a genius it would be no trouble for
you to do this.

You have shown you are an expert at copy and paste in the past....

On 2006-12-29 21:08:55 +0000, "kenseto" said:

Hey idiot runt you can call it what ever you want. The E-Matrix is a big
deal because it explains all the forces of nature and it explains action at
a distance without positing non-existing virtual particles.

Only in bizarro-world


I recommend taking this thread to alt.astronomy, the saucerheads there
love to yak about flowing space filled with fluffy stuff. Maybe
they'll even buy your book.

I recommend that you stick your head back into your arsehole:-)

OOhh temper temper....

--

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