Origin of the universe.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

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...

He'd have a home where he would be accepted as he is, E-Matrix and all.

On 2006-12-29 22:23:52 +0000, Art Deco said:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

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...

He'd have a home where he would be accepted as he is, E-Matrix and all.

He'd have to make the concession that it flows - bullett time ;-)

--

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

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

On 2006-12-29 22:23:52 +0000, Art Deco said:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

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...

He'd have a home where he would be accepted as he is, E-Matrix and all.

He'd have to make the concession that it flows - bullett time ;-)

They still haven't said what happens when that flowing gunk reaches the
black hole -- how does it get back to the origin? I guess these are
just picky little details that aren't worth bothering about in light of
the obvious correctness of the flowing-space model.

--
Official "netcabal.com demon"

On 2006-12-29 23:47:16 +0000, Art Deco said:

They still haven't said what happens when that flowing gunk reaches the
black hole -- how does it get back to the origin? I guess these are
just picky little details that aren't worth bothering about in light of
the obvious correctness of the flowing-space model.

Have a nose at the thread in A.A - Bill makes himself a role-model for
evading direct questions, preferring to make the standard "VS'er" type
comment and refusing to answer direct questions. I love watching
maroons dig the holes they are in deeper with every post.



--

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

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

On 2006-12-29 23:47:16 +0000, Art Deco said:

They still haven't said what happens when that flowing gunk reaches the
black hole -- how does it get back to the origin? I guess these are
just picky little details that aren't worth bothering about in light of
the obvious correctness of the flowing-space model.

Have a nose at the thread in A.A - Bill makes himself a role-model for
evading direct questions, preferring to make the standard "VS'er" type
comment and refusing to answer direct questions. I love watching
maroons dig the holes they are in deeper with every post.

What a coward. He realizes he can't argue his position in a rational
fashion, yet seeing his pet idea shredded really puts a burr under his
saddle, so he has to resort to replying through a proxy ally
(Double-A).

--
Official "netcabal.com demon"

On 2006-12-30 00:07:01 +0000, Art Deco said:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:

On 2006-12-29 23:47:16 +0000, Art Deco said:

They still haven't said what happens when that flowing gunk reaches the
black hole -- how does it get back to the origin? I guess these are
just picky little details that aren't worth bothering about in light of
the obvious correctness of the flowing-space model.

Have a nose at the thread in A.A - Bill makes himself a role-model for
evading direct questions, preferring to make the standard "VS'er" type
comment and refusing to answer direct questions. I love watching
maroons dig the holes they are in deeper with every post.

What a coward. He realizes he can't argue his position in a rational
fashion, yet seeing his pet idea shredded really puts a burr under his
saddle, so he has to resort to replying through a proxy ally
(Double-A).

And now with Warhol adding extra insanity, a Christmas bonus of madness...

--

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:11:26 GMT
2wflh.286918$FQ1.202878@attbi_s71:
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:neelh.195962$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.

Surely, you jest, Seto--There is no definition with those words. You
take us for fools? But, of course you do!

Kenseto has in fact partially defined the E-matrix in his
papers (as you've excerpted below). I for one am not sure
how well; absent additional information one might take it
as an absolute aether, much like the one the MMX disproved.
This makes it inconsistent of course with the statement
that IRT/MM is an extention or improvement of SR.

However, Mr. Seto will probably call me a runt for pointing out
that obvious issue. :-) (Either that, or an idiot.)



_______________________________


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.



It is clear that there is very little math in this
definition. Since the S-particle has mass, one can
surmise that it takes energy to move it, and ask, hopefully
reasonably, how much energy it takes to move an S-particle
to a certain velocity, given that the S-particle's mass
is known.

It is also reasonable for Kenseto to predict, ideally in detail, the
interaction of various S-particle clusters -- e.g., an electron and
positron coming together with various energies. These experiments
are routinely done in many particle acceleration systems, and the
predictions readily checkable.

How about it Mr. Seto? Feel up to it? :-)

--
#191,
fortune: not found

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

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:2wflh.286918$FQ1.202878@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:neelh.195962$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.

Surely, you jest, Seto--There is no definition with those words. You
take us for fools? But, of course you do!

****ing idiot runt Here's the defintion:
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 E-Matrix 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 well-known
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.

On 2006-12-30 14:28:26 +0000, "kenseto" said:

****ing idiot runt Here's the defintion:
Model Mechanics supposes that

Seto, give it up - its nonsense.

--

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley

wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:11:26 GMT
2wflh.286918$FQ1.202878@attbi_s71:
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:neelh.195962$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.

Surely, you jest, Seto--There is no definition with those words. You
take us for fools? But, of course you do!

Kenseto has in fact partially defined the E-matrix in his
papers (as you've excerpted below). I for one am not sure
how well; absent additional information one might take it
as an absolute aether, much like the one the MMX disproved.
This makes it inconsistent of course with the statement
that IRT/MM is an extention or improvement of SR.

What additional information do you need? You are a fool and you don't have
the ability to comprehend beyond the teaching of SR. The MMX does not
disprove an absolute aether. The MMX merely proved that the speed of light
is independent of the motion of the source and source independency is a
property of an absolute aether.

However, Mr. Seto will probably call me a runt for pointing out
that obvious issue. :-) (Either that, or an idiot.)

But you are an idiot.....your above statements proved that.

Ken Seto



_______________________________


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.



It is clear that there is very little math in this
definition. Since the S-particle has mass, one can
surmise that it takes energy to move it, and ask, hopefully
reasonably, how much energy it takes to move an S-particle
to a certain velocity, given that the S-particle's mass
is known.

It is also reasonable for Kenseto to predict, ideally in detail, the
interaction of various S-particle clusters -- e.g., an electron and
positron coming together with various energies. These experiments
are routinely done in many particle acceleration systems, and the
predictions readily checkable.

How about it Mr. Seto? Feel up to it? :-)

--
#191,
fortune: not found

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