Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #415693 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-10 06:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-04-26 13:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 175 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 06:07 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-10 15:40 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 09:49 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-10 19:09 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-10 17:47 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 09:53 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 08:04 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 05:51 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 14:53 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 07:32 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-12 16:40 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 13:39 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 16:03 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 05:04 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Heki Entouba <buububu@enou3eh.ac> - 2017-04-13 12:09 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 12:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 23:00 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 12:57 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-13 15:04 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Wendi Maddox <ox@awdodww.oe> - 2017-04-14 14:25 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:09 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-15 10:44 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-14 08:22 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:07 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 22:07 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-17 05:17 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 16:00 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 13:13 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 13:40 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-04-10 14:52 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-10 15:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-10 23:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 07:39 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-11 10:15 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 10:52 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 11:12 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-11 11:35 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 11:41 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 21:46 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-12 04:31 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 06:07 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-11 20:32 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-11 21:51 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 16:07 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 20:35 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-11 23:18 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-12 05:45 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-12 16:06 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-12 10:40 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-13 05:03 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-13 13:09 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-04-13 13:17 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-13 21:43 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 15:18 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-15 01:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-15 12:34 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-15 23:07 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:14 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-16 10:23 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Emma Harmony <aymmmaeo@anownwrm.cm> - 2017-04-16 15:05 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-15 15:14 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-16 05:42 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-16 16:54 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-17 06:11 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 12:37 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-18 14:42 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-04-18 18:25 -0400
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 05:26 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 13:08 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 12:30 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 19:34 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 13:16 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 13:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 13:45 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 14:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 07:16 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 13:08 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-20 14:05 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 21:05 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 14:26 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-08 13:44 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-20 06:24 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 06:50 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 14:45 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 13:00 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-19 13:22 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-19 23:20 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-20 12:11 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 07:06 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Python <python@example.invalid> - 2017-04-20 16:47 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 09:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-20 23:48 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 15:13 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-21 10:49 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:13 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-18 13:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Ward Jenkins <uaar@rwjawr2r.aa> - 2017-04-19 13:02 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-19 15:40 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 18:05 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-17 06:34 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-17 16:03 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-17 13:11 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 01:42 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-18 06:17 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-18 20:17 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-04-19 20:30 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-19 19:37 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-19 13:19 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-04-20 14:09 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:12 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 15:26 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-25 01:29 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-25 10:35 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-25 14:21 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-26 05:58 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-26 14:26 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:07 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-26 06:53 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-26 05:55 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-26 17:51 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 12:30 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 06:43 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 13:02 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-27 14:53 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-27 14:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-28 05:37 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 16:44 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-29 06:47 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:11 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 07:49 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 07:59 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-01 11:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:20 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:23 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 22:41 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:11 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-02 12:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-05-03 07:47 +0100
Re: New Gravity Theory "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> - 2017-04-28 14:18 +0100
Re: New Gravity Theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-28 17:46 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-28 14:43 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:12 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 17:23 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-29 13:58 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-29 13:56 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 15:59 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-04-30 00:55 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 08:01 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 22:47 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-02 14:13 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-03 04:01 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 13:04 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 14:25 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-01 22:52 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-04-29 10:09 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 07:42 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-04-30 18:19 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-01 02:39 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-01 07:57 -0500
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-19 23:15 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-20 01:21 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-04-26 20:18 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> - 2017-04-26 19:20 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-04-20 07:44 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> - 2017-04-20 17:09 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-07 02:06 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-07 07:14 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Bordamos Alamidade <dd@dsmdawo.ab> - 2017-05-07 14:19 +0000
Re: New Gravity Theory Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-07 17:45 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-04-17 10:24 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-26 13:08 -0700
Re: New Gravity Theory Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 22:23 +0200
Re: New Gravity Theory JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 13:38 -0700
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 06:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e0a6c598-3fe1-467a-ba17-14cdb37514bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416459 |
On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 7:54:49 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 5:42:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 6:14:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:18:03 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG: > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > Jan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are > > > > > > > wasting your time on this. End of story. > > > > > > > > > > > > What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it? > > > > > > > > > > You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have > > > > > no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE > > > > > ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry. > > > > > > > > No...that's an idiotic mathematician's point of view. > > > > > > No, it's not any specific person's point of view, it's a universal pattern. Again I'm asking: would > > > you allow a surgery to be done on you by a post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_? > > > No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in that sense? > > > > It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view. > > It's no a "point of view", it's a QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to be done on you by a > post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_? > > No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in that sense? That's a poor analogy......The surgeon refuses to adopt new improved method of doing surgery. Math without physical constraints will lead to non-existing mathematical objects. I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that is capable explaining all the processes of nature. Also Model Mechanics provides physical explanation for all the successful math developed. That means that the combination of Model Mechanics and existing math can lead to a theory of everything. I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 16:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od2p0h$4j5$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #416493 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> > It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view. >> It's no a "point of view", it's a QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to >>be done on you by a >> post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_? >> No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in >> that sense? >That's a poor analogy......The surgeon refuses to adopt new improved method > of doing surgery. >Math without physical constraints will lead to non-existing mathematical objects. You really didn't understand the question at all, did you. >I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that has failed completely and utterly. >I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: >http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-17 13:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d728933f-ebe9-42dd-b76b-6fcc5d255cd3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416513 |
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> > It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view. > > >> It's no a "point of view", it's a QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to > >>be done on you by a > >> post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_? > > >> No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in > >> that sense? > > >That's a poor analogy......The surgeon refuses to adopt new improved method > > of doing surgery. > >Math without physical constraints will lead to non-existing mathematical objects. > > You really didn't understand the question at all, did you. > > >I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that > > has failed completely and utterly. > that you change your name > >I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: > >http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work? The link I provided works just fine.....Maybe the internet towns that your name is Moron-y and that's why it refuse to let you read it or perhaps it knows you changed the link and it provide itself a defense mechanism.....namely not let that Moron-y to view the correct link. In any case I suggest that you change your name to avoid further trouble from the net.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 01:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od3qt9$ee6$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #416529 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that >> has failed completely and utterly. >> that you change your name >> >I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: >> >http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf >> How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work? >The link I provided works just fine.....Maybe the internet towns that your >name is Moron-y and that's why it refuse to let you read it or perhaps it >knows you changed the link and it provide itself a defense mechanism.....namely >not let that Moron-y to view the correct link. In any case I suggest that >you change your name to avoid further trouble from the net. Stupid Ken, you're really babbling nonsense now. p.s. fix your link.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 06:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2ed89337-3d1c-4d12-b0e6-85dada780512@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416553 |
On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 9:42:03 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that > >> has failed completely and utterly. > >> that you change your name > >> >I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: > >> >http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > >> How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work? > > >The link I provided works just fine.....Maybe the internet towns that your > >name is Moron-y and that's why it refuse to let you read it or perhaps it > >knows you changed the link and it provide itself a defense mechanism.....namely > >not let that Moron-y to view the correct link. In any case I suggest that > >you change your name to avoid further trouble from the net. > > Stupid Ken, you're really babbling nonsense now. > > p.s. fix your link. Hey moron.....The link I provided works just fine. It doesn't work if you redirect it to the following non-existing link: www.xn--modlmechanics-y3k.org/2016ibook.pdf Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-18 20:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od5s91$jgk$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #416582 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >www.xn--modlmechanics-y3k.org/2016ibook.pdf Wow, Ken, not only is your link still broken, it is really obviously broken this time. You're slipping...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-19 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <od8acj$ear$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #416493 |
Den 17.04.2017 15.34, skrev kenseto: > > I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf From where I quote: << The Horizon Problem ------------------- One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang Model is the observed horizon problem. The age of our universe is determined to be 14 billion years old in all directions and yet we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe to be 28 billion years apart. In fact if all the regions are included the observed horizon of the universe is estimated to be 46 billion years. This means that these opposite regions of our universe cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang and this is known as the horizon problem. >> No comment! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-19 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <od8e9k$1d7f$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #416684 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: >> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > From where I quote: > The Horizon Problem ------------------- > One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang Model is > the observed horizon problem. The age of our universe is determined > to be 14 billion years old in all directions and yet we observe the > horizon for the opposite regions of our universe to be 28 billion > years apart. In fact if all the regions are included the observed > horizon of the universe is estimated to be 46 billion years. This > means that these opposite regions of our universe cannot be in > contact with each other at the Big Bang and this is known as the > horizon problem. > No comment! Fully consistent, as the length contraction, well beknown, only takes place in the orthogonal direction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-19 13:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2034830f-d34f-4a1a-8f2c-db1dfadc8dba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416684 |
On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 2:30:45 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 17.04.2017 15.34, skrev kenseto: > > > > I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > From where I quote: > << > The Horizon Problem > ------------------- > One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang > Model is the observed horizon problem. The age of our universe > is determined to be 14 billion years old in all directions and yet > we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe > to be 28 billion years apart. In fact if all the regions are included > the observed horizon of the universe is estimated to be 46 billion > years. This means that these opposite regions of our universe > cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang and this is > known as the horizon problem. > >> > > No comment! Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the Horizon Problem?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-20 14:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oda8el$e92$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #416698 |
Den 19.04.2017 22.19, skrev kenseto: > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 2:30:45 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Den 17.04.2017 15.34, skrev kenseto: >>> >>> I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf >> >> From where I quote: >> << >> The Horizon Problem >> ------------------- >> One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang >> Model is the observed horizon problem. The age of our universe >> is determined to be 14 billion years old in all directions and yet >> we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe >> to be 28 billion years apart. In fact if all the regions are included >> the observed horizon of the universe is estimated to be 46 billion >> years. This means that these opposite regions of our universe >> cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang and this is >> known as the horizon problem. >> >> >> >> No comment! > > Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the Horizon Problem? OK. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf From where I quote: << Model Mechanics explains the horizon problem naturally without resorting to the ad hoc Inflation hypothesis. The earth is in a state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This motion curves the E-Strings surrounding the earth. What we perceive as normal and straight E-Strings are actually severely curved E-Strings. In other words, when we look up in the sky we are actually receiving light from these curved E-Strings. This means that no matter what direction we look we are looking into the same curved E-Strings and thus the same region of the universe. >> Still no comment! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Loma Bibee <miube@oeeele.ei> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-20 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odaq55$19sv$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #416735 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the >> Horizon Problem? > > OK. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > From where I quote: > Model Mechanics explains the horizon problem naturally without > resorting to the ad hoc Inflation hypothesis. The earth is in a state > of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This motion curves the E-Strings > surrounding the earth. What we perceive as normal and straight > E-Strings are actually severely curved E-Strings. In other words, > when we look up in the sky we are actually receiving light from these > curved E-Strings. This means that no matter what direction we look we > are looking into the same curved E-Strings and thus the same region > of the universe. > Still no comment! Of course, since you don't understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-20 15:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6344e44b-5f81-407f-a4b8-91c463806854@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #416735 |
On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 8:10:00 AM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 19.04.2017 22.19, skrev kenseto: > > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 2:30:45 PM UTC-4, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 17.04.2017 15.34, skrev kenseto: > >>> > >>> I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link: > >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > >> > >> From where I quote: > >> << > >> The Horizon Problem > >> ------------------- > >> One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang > >> Model is the observed horizon problem. The age of our universe > >> is determined to be 14 billion years old in all directions and yet > >> we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe > >> to be 28 billion years apart. In fact if all the regions are included > >> the observed horizon of the universe is estimated to be 46 billion > >> years. This means that these opposite regions of our universe > >> cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang and this is > >> known as the horizon problem. > >> >> > >> > >> No comment! > > > > Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the Horizon Problem? > > OK. > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > From where I quote: > << > Model Mechanics explains the horizon problem naturally without > resorting to the ad hoc Inflation hypothesis. The earth is in > a state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This motion curves > the E-Strings surrounding the earth. What we perceive as normal > and straight E-Strings are actually severely curved E-Strings. > In other words, when we look up in the sky we are actually > receiving light from these curved E-Strings. This means that > no matter what direction we look we are looking into the same > curved E-Strings and thus the same region of the universe. > >> > > Still no comment! Got it.....So that means that you don't understand the horizon problem and its ad hoc solution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 01:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1691132.1P58zdDbaM@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #416735 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 19.04.2017 22.19, skrev kenseto:
>> Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the
>> Horizon Problem?
>
> OK.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> From where I quote:
> <<
> Model Mechanics explains the horizon problem naturally without
> resorting to the ad hoc Inflation hypothesis. The earth is in
> a state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This motion curves
> the E-Strings surrounding the earth. What we perceive as normal
> and straight E-Strings are actually severely curved E-Strings.
> In other words, when we look up in the sky we are actually
> receiving light from these curved E-Strings. This means that
> no matter what direction we look we are looking into the same
> curved E-Strings and thus the same region of the universe.
> >>
>
> Still no comment!
Indeed, other than “Not even wrong” nothing comes to mind.
This is how crackpots work:
1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest.
2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current
science (bonus points for using fancy labels).
3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve
the perceived problem.
4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and
pat oneself on the back.
--
PointedEars
Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 10:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7aa0b9a9-e213-4d50-9426-16dda5970564@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417161 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 01:29:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > This is how crackpots work: > > 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. > > 2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current > science (bonus points for using fancy labels). > > 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve > the perceived problem. > > 4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and > pat oneself on the back. And the above is how a follower of The Shit works: As anyone can see, apart from arm waving he represents exactly nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-25 14:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b30c4327-5212-4a65-b9e7-221a19160b70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417221 |
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:35:25 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 01:29:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > > > This is how crackpots work: > > > > 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. > > > > 2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current > > science (bonus points for using fancy labels). > > > > 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve > > the perceived problem. > > > > 4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and > > pat oneself on the back. > > And the above is how a follower of The Shit works: > As anyone can see, apart from arm waving he represents > exactly nothing. You cannot make sweeping statements like this one because you don't understand the subject. Feel free to comment on small simple tidbits but general claims you make are worthless. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <be8ed526-afdd-438c-964f-67fb4d954345@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417239 |
On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:21:43 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:35:25 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 01:29:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > > > > > This is how crackpots work: > > > > > > 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. > > > > > > 2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current > > > science (bonus points for using fancy labels). > > > > > > 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve > > > the perceived problem. > > > > > > 4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and > > > pat oneself on the back. > > > > And the above is how a follower of The Shit works: > > As anyone can see, apart from arm waving he represents > > exactly nothing. > > You cannot make sweeping statements like this one because you don't > understand the subject. Feel free to comment on small simple tidbits > but general claims you make are worthless. > You don't understand that physical theory is superior to math theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Himère Bezuinig <numunenen@wgngiweig.mc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odqalj$6sb$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417306 |
kenseto wrote: >> You cannot make sweeping statements like this one because you don't >> understand the subject. Feel free to comment on small simple tidbits >> but general claims you make are worthless. > > You don't understand that physical theory is superior to math theory. ah ah, the other way around.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe2a8e$rl9$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417306 |
On 4/26/17 7:58 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 5:21:43 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:35:25 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: >>> W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 01:29:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: >>> >>>> This is how crackpots work: >>>> >>>> 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. >>>> >>>> 2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current >>>> science (bonus points for using fancy labels). >>>> >>>> 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve >>>> the perceived problem. >>>> >>>> 4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and >>>> pat oneself on the back. >>> >>> And the above is how a follower of The Shit works: >>> As anyone can see, apart from arm waving he represents >>> exactly nothing. >> >> You cannot make sweeping statements like this one because you don't >> understand the subject. Feel free to comment on small simple tidbits >> but general claims you make are worthless. >> > > You don't understand that physical theory is superior to math theory. > A physical theory that is lacking mathematical support is not a physical theory. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 06:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac618480-f890-4226-a657-6f3479b3c9bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417239 |
W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 23:21:43 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał: > On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 10:35:25 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 25 kwietnia 2017 01:29:26 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napisał: > > > > > This is how crackpots work: > > > > > > 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. > > > > > > 2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current > > > science (bonus points for using fancy labels). > > > > > > 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve > > > the perceived problem. > > > > > > 4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and > > > pat oneself on the back. > > > > And the above is how a follower of The Shit works: > > As anyone can see, apart from arm waving he represents > > exactly nothing. > > You cannot make sweeping statements like this one because you don't > understand the subject. Besides, you're a queen of England. And, of course, syntax schmyntax too. Right, poor idiot?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 05:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4757171-aa27-450c-84f4-b098ae5fd6eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417161 |
On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:29:26 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > Den 19.04.2017 22.19, skrev kenseto: > >> Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the > >> Horizon Problem? > > > > OK. > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > From where I quote: > > << > > Model Mechanics explains the horizon problem naturally without > > resorting to the ad hoc Inflation hypothesis. The earth is in > > a state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This motion curves > > the E-Strings surrounding the earth. What we perceive as normal > > and straight E-Strings are actually severely curved E-Strings. > > In other words, when we look up in the sky we are actually > > receiving light from these curved E-Strings. This means that > > no matter what direction we look we are looking into the same > > curved E-Strings and thus the same region of the universe. > > >> > > > > Still no comment! > > Indeed, other than “Not even wrong” nothing comes to mind. That's because your mind is empty. > This is how crackpots work: > > 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. Your understanding of science is hand waving. > > 2. Claim an unsolved, actually non-existing, problem within current > science (bonus points for using fancy labels). The Horizon problem exits and the problem was resolved by inventing the inflation concept. > > 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve > the perceived problem. Model Mechanics is a real proposed scientific thereof the universe. The reviewer at the Copy Right Office said it's original and therefore granted the copy-right. So eat your heart out. > > 4. Claim that the pseudo-science is superior to current science and > pat oneself on the back. Idiot.....The physical model of Model Mechanics resolved all the problems encountered by current theories and therefore it is a superior theory
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web