A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe

A New Theory on the Origin of Our Universe

A new physical 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 isoccupied by a stationary, structured
and elastic light-conducting medium called the EMatrix.A mass-bearing
particle called the S-Particle is the only fundamental particle
existsin 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 DTG unites with the electromagnetic and nuclear
forces naturally [1, 2]. It alsoleads to a new theory of relativity
called Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). 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 of the current
theories:
1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of
the universe disagrees with the predictions.
2. The observed rotational curves of galaxies disagree with the
predictions of current theories.
3. The observed paths of travel of the spacecrafts Pioneer 10 and 11
disagree with the predictions of current theories.
4. The observable universe appears to have a much larger horizon than
it is allowed by its observed age.
5. The GRT description of gravity gives rise to the observed flatness
problem of the universe.
6. Dark matter....this is the free S-Particles that are not in
orbiting motions around the E-Strings.
7. Dark energy....this is a repulsive effect arises from the
interacting objects following the divergent structure of the E-
Matrix.

The above Model Mechanical description of our current Universe leads
to a new interpretation for the origin of our Universe. This new
interpretation provides explanation for the following mysteries of our
universe:
1. How the electrons and up quarks were produced during the Big Bang.
2. Why is there a preponderance of matter over anti-matter in our
universe?
3. How galaxies and galaxy crusters were formed.

A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

In article
,
kenseto wrote:

A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet?

--
David Dalton http://www.nfld.com/~dalton (home page)
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.html Newfoundland&Labrador Travel & Music
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html Salmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:


A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf


Your paper still has the same flaws as the last time you posted this.
In the second sentence of the Abstract, you write, "Space is occupied
by a stationary ... E-Matrix" -- Stationary with respect to what,
Seto?



A new physical 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.

On Feb 18, 4:52*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:



A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

* *Your paper still has the same flaws as the last time you posted this.
* *In the second sentence of the Abstract, you write, "Space is occupied
* *by a stationary ... E-Matrix" -- Stationary with respect to what,
* *Seto?

Stationary wrt all the objects moving within it (the E-Matrix)



A new physical 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.

On Feb 18, 4:36*pm, David Dalton wrote:
In article
,

*kenseto wrote:
A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal yet?

It has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Galilean
Electrodynamics

--
David Dalton *http://www.nfld.com/~dalton(home page)http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/nf.htmlN...dland&Labrador Travel & Musichttp://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.htmlSalmon on the Thorns (mystic page)
* *"Here I go again...back into the flame" (Sarah McLachlan)

On 2/18/13 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 18, 4:52 pm, Sam wrote:
On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:



A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Your paper still has the same flaws as the last time you posted this.
In the second sentence of the Abstract, you write, "Space is occupied
by a stationary ... E-Matrix" -- Stationary with respect to what,
Seto?

Stationary wrt all the objects moving within it (the E-Matrix)

Bzzzt! Ding! Doesn't work Seto.

On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:
1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of
the universe disagrees with the predictions.

How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations?

On Feb 18, 11:22*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:

1. The observed accelerated expansion of the far reached regions of
the universe disagrees with the predictions.

* *How so? What is the prediction? What are the observations?

Our mathematics is useless without our ability to predict.

On Feb 18, 11:27*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote:

On Feb 18, 4:52 pm, Sam *wrote:
On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:

A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

* *Your paper still has the same flaws as the last time you posted this.
* *In the second sentence of the Abstract, you write, "Space is occupied
* *by a stationary ... E-Matrix" -- Stationary with respect to what,
* *Seto?
Stationary wrt all the objects moving within it (the E-Matrix)

* *Bzzzt! Ding! Doesn't work Seto.

Hey idiot.....it works. A stationary observer in the E-Matrix frame is
like an SR observer in an inertial frame. What this mean is that SR
claims the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix frame to do physics.
That's why SR is incomplete....because no SR observer is at rest in
the E-Matrix frame.

On 2/19/13 8:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 18, 11:27 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 5:22 PM, kenseto wrote:

On Feb 18, 4:52 pm, Sam wrote:
On 2/18/13 2:58 PM, kenseto wrote:

A paper entitled "The Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics" is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf

Your paper still has the same flaws as the last time you posted this.
In the second sentence of the Abstract, you write, "Space is occupied
by a stationary ... E-Matrix" -- Stationary with respect to what,
Seto?
Stationary wrt all the objects moving within it (the E-Matrix)

Bzzzt! Ding! Doesn't work Seto.

Hey idiot.....it works. A stationary observer in the E-Matrix frame is
like an SR observer in an inertial frame. What this mean is that SR
claims the exclusive properties of the E-Matrix frame to do physics.
That's why SR is incomplete....because no SR observer is at rest in
the E-Matrix frame.


Sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. I'm sticking with something that agrees
with observation and experiment -- special relativity.