A Theory on the Origin of Our Universe

On 2/18/13 11:27 PM, John Gogo wrote:
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.


Give me an example.

On Feb 19, 9:54*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
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

I see .....so you elected to stay stupid.

On Feb 19, 12:22*am, 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?

Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the
universe.

On 2/19/13 10:44 AM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:54 am, Sam Wormley wrote:


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

I see .....so you elected to stay stupid.


You are not the last to accuse me of being stupid, Seto.

On Feb 19, 9:55*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 11:27 PM, John Gogo wrote:

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.

* *Give me an example.

Falied to predict accelerated expansion of the universe.
failed to predict the galactic motion correctly.

On 2/19/13 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 12:22 am, 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?

Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the
universe.


There is a version of General Relativity, that does indeed model the
accelerated expansion of the universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

On 2/19/13 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:55 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 11:27 PM, John Gogo wrote:

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.

Give me an example.

Falied to predict accelerated expansion of the universe.
failed to predict the galactic motion correctly.


See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

On 2/19/2013 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
On Feb 19, 12:22 am, 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?

Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the
universe.


yes they do. what makes you think they don't?

On Feb 19, 11:59*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/19/13 10:47 AM, kenseto wrote:





On Feb 19, 9:55 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/18/13 11:27 PM, John Gogo wrote:

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.

* * Give me an example.

Falied to predict accelerated expansion of the universe.
failed to predict the galactic motion correctly.

* *See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model-

Cosmological constant and cold dark matters are add on
epicyles....that is post-diction not prediction.

On Feb 19, 11:57*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 2/19/13 10:45 AM, kenseto wrote:

On Feb 19, 12:22 am, 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?

Current theories do not predict the accelerated expansion of the
universe.

* *There is a version of General Relativity, that does indeed model the
* *accelerated expansion of the universe.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model-

Post-dictions don't count.