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 7 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 Next page →
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <odqmn0$f5a$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #417305 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, April 24, 2017 at 7:29:26 PM UTC-4, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> This is how crackpots work: >> 1. Misunderstand current science due to lack of knowledge and interest. Check. Ken never did understand SR and is apparently uninterested in learning it. >> 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. Check. >> 3. Come up with pseudo-scientific word salad to seemingly solve >> the perceived problem. >Model Mechanics is a real proposed scientific thereof the universe. And a fine example of word salad. > The reviewer at the Copy Right Office said it's original and therefore >granted the copy-right. So eat your heart out. Stupid Ken, look up the definition of "original". It doesn't mean "good", it doesn't mean "correct", all it means is that you didn't copy your crap from someone else. Which would probably be impossible anyway, who else could possibly come up with a complete failure as bad as Model Mechanics? >> 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 Good job at claiming your pseudo-science is superior to current science and patting yourself on the back! And Ken passes all four "crackpot" tests with flying colors! Good job!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 12:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1431e649-184b-48b0-808e-925d011cd3ee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417305 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > 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 It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being even remotely correct. Your text is just daydreaming. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <956f55e7-3610-42a9-974c-919793554707@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417345 |
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > 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 > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > even remotely correct. > > Your text is just daydreaming. ROFLOL, pot kettle black. Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. Also constant light speed is another example......everything including light are sensitive to relative motion. Model Mechanics has three observable dimensions and the speed of lights sensitive to relative motion. That's why it is a superior theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d1d82f8f-4c30-4283-9152-cbcd48fe4188@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417409 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > 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 > > > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > > even remotely correct. > > > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. For example, the standard 19th-century theory called "Hamiltonian mechanics" needs a 12-dimensional "phase fluid" to describe the motion of just TWO particles. The details of this correspondence are exactly the type of thing you are missing and that's why you constantly run off the road and CRASH. You mistake superficial details (like the number of some dimensions in some model) for some sort of plausability that exists only thanks to your ignorance. If you knew anything, you wouldn't have wasted so much of your time on COMPLETE NONSENSE. > Also constant light speed is another example......everything including light are sensitive to relative motion. Gobbledygook. You don't regret wasting your life away on garbage? > Model Mechanics has three observable dimensions and the speed of lights sensitive to relative motion. That's why it is a superior theory. Total nonsense. You have NO THEORY, just a worthless fantasy. Stop wasting your time on this. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <36d42f5d-36b5-4b0b-b223-0b333a862d11@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417451 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:02:04 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > 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 > > > > > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > > > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > > > even remotely correct. > > > > > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. > > Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 > dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. Such theories do not work.....that's why there is no valid quantum theory of gravity. > For example, > the standard 19th-century theory called "Hamiltonian mechanics" needs > a 12-dimensional "phase fluid" to describe the motion of just TWO > particles. That's why Hamiltonian Mechanics is not a valid physical theory. Model mechanics need just three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time to describe the motion of two particles. > The details of this correspondence are exactly the type > of thing you are missing and that's why you constantly run off the > road and CRASH. You mistake superficial details (like the number of > some dimensions in some model) for some sort of plausability that > exists only thanks to your ignorance. Only three dimensions of space are observable. Other added dimensions are COMPLETELY NONSENSE. > > If you knew anything, you wouldn't have wasted so much of your time > on > > > Also constant light speed is another example......everything including light are sensitive to relative motion. > > Gobbledygook. You don't regret wasting your life away on garbage? > > > Model Mechanics has three observable dimensions and the speed of lights sensitive to relative motion. That's why it is a superior theory. > > Total nonsense. You have NO THEORY, just a worthless fantasy. Stop wasting > your time on this. MY THEORY OF GRAVITY IS COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE WITH ALL THE OTHER FORCES OF NATURE AND THUS THE UNIFICATION OF ALL THE FORCES OF NATURE BECOME FEASIBLE. EAT YOU HEART OUT.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-27 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <174ce92a-359f-4df3-9132-7025903abfa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417473 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:53:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:02:04 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > > > > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > > > > even remotely correct. > > > > > > > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > > > > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > > > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. > > > > Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 > > dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. > > Such theories do not work.....that's why there is no valid quantum theory of gravity. No, WRONG, the reason they don't work is NOT because "math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming", as you put it. > > For example, > > the standard 19th-century theory called "Hamiltonian mechanics" needs > > a 12-dimensional "phase fluid" to describe the motion of just TWO > > particles. > > That's why Hamiltonian Mechanics is not a valid physical theory. We have nothing to discuss. The point remains you have nothing except a lot of wasted time. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 05:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c156a100-6f7e-4a5d-9895-f6287bb349e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417474 |
On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:56:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:53:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:02:04 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > > > > > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > > > > > even remotely correct. > > > > > > > > > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > > > > > > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > > > > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. > > > > > > Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 > > > dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. > > > > Such theories do not work.....that's why there is no valid quantum theory of gravity. > > No, WRONG, the reason they don't work is NOT because "math invention of 11 > dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming", as you > put it. The reason they don't work because mathematicians' invented day dreaming models of 11 and 26 dimensions. If they restrict themselves to three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time they will be able to come up with a valid theory such as Model Mechanics. The right way to do physics: 1. It is assumed that there is only one physical model of our universe. 2. Find this physical model using the Pyramid Technique (Chapter 2 of my book) 3. Develop the necessary math based on this physical model or see if this physical model can be use to explain all the valid math developed so far. 4. Do the experiments that can verify this physical model. 5. The end result is Model Mechanics. > > > > For example, > > > the standard 19th-century theory called "Hamiltonian mechanics" needs > > > a 12-dimensional "phase fluid" to describe the motion of just TWO > > > particles. > > > > That's why Hamiltonian Mechanics is not a valid physical theory. > > We have nothing to discuss. The point remains you have nothing except > a lot of wasted time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 16:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <93c3face-d0f9-4c4f-93c3-7b6485e18822@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417542 |
On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 5:37:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:56:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:53:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:02:04 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > > > > > > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > > > > > > even remotely correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > > > > > > > > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > > > > > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. > > > > > > > > Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 > > > > dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. > > > > > > Such theories do not work.....that's why there is no valid quantum theory of gravity. > > > > No, WRONG, the reason they don't work is NOT because "math invention of 11 > > dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming", as you > > put it. > > The reason they don't work because mathematicians' invented day dreaming models of 11 and 26 dimensions. No, that's NOT the reason. The reason has nothing to do with how exotic the theory may or may not appear or how many dimensions it has in some model, etc. etc. You won't get ANYWHERE with this if you avoid difficult mathematics and simply designate stuff you decide not to study as "dreaming". -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 06:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0727c27-0719-4996-90e6-3671697f8515@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417606 |
On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 7:44:30 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 5:37:15 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:56:21 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:53:14 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 4:02:04 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:43:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 5:55:10 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It resolves NOTHING because you don't even know the basic of the science > > > > > > > you are trying to "solve". Without this knowledge you have NO CHANCE of being > > > > > > > even remotely correct. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > > > > > > > > > > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > > > > > > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming. > > > > > > > > > > Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 > > > > > dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. > > > > > > > > Such theories do not work.....that's why there is no valid quantum theory of gravity. > > > > > > No, WRONG, the reason they don't work is NOT because "math invention of 11 > > > dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples of day dreaming", as you > > > put it. > > > > The reason they don't work because mathematicians' invented day dreaming models of 11 and 26 dimensions. > > No, that's NOT the reason. The reason has nothing to do with how exotic > the theory may or may not appear or how many dimensions it has in some > model, etc. etc. Yes, that's exactly the reason. You mathematicians keep on inventing non-existing math object to describe the physical universe. That's the reason why you failed to come up with a quantum theory of gravity. What nature is telling you that exchanging of gravitons will not lead to a valid theory of gravity. Why? Because gravity is the combined result of an attractive electromagnetic force and a repulsive CRE force between the interacting objects. > > You won't get ANYWHERE with this if you avoid difficult mathematics and > simply designate stuff you decide not to study as "dreaming". You won't get any where if you keep on doing math alone.......you need to first come up with a physical model of the universe then develop the math based on that physical model. As it turns out the physical model of Model Mechanics can be used to explain all the successful math developed so far.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-29 10:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe2af2$rl9$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417542 |
On 4/28/17 7:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > The right way to do physics: Bullshit. This is YOUR idea of doing physics, which has nothing whatsoever to do with how physics is done in the real world. If it is your claim that you intend to reinvent the scientific method itself, then take it to a philosophy forum. > 1. It is assumed that there is only one physical model of our universe. > 2. Find this physical model using the Pyramid Technique (Chapter 2 of my book) > 3. Develop the necessary math based on this physical model or see if this physical model can be use to explain all the valid math developed so far. > 4. Do the experiments that can verify this physical model. > 5. The end result is Model Mechanics. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a35d4396-e6c9-44a5-b2b5-3cece6cfd225@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417648 |
On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:11:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/28/17 7:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The right way to do physics: > > Bullshit. > This is YOUR idea of doing physics, which has nothing whatsoever to do > with how physics is done in the real world. If it is your claim that you > intend to reinvent the scientific method itself, then take it to a > philosophy forum. It is much easier to find the ONE physical model of our universe than to invent a zoo of mathematical objects to describe the universe. > > > 1. It is assumed that there is only one physical model of our universe. > > 2. Find this physical model using the Pyramid Technique (Chapter 2 of my book) > > 3. Develop the necessary math based on this physical model or see if this physical model can be use to explain all the valid math developed so far. > > 4. Do the experiments that can verify this physical model. > > 5. The end result is Model Mechanics. > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 07:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe7bfh$j47$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417710 |
On 4/30/17 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:11:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/28/17 7:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> The right way to do physics: >> >> Bullshit. >> This is YOUR idea of doing physics, which has nothing whatsoever to do >> with how physics is done in the real world. If it is your claim that you >> intend to reinvent the scientific method itself, then take it to a >> philosophy forum. > > It is much easier to find the ONE physical model of our universe than to invent a zoo of mathematical objects to describe the universe. Ken, you are still trying to reinvent the scientific method. You are still trying to claim that simpler is always better. If what you said were true, then someone would simply come up and announce that "1" was everything, and that everything was "1". It cannot get simpler, and yours would be lost in the dust by your own standard. >> >>> 1. It is assumed that there is only one physical model of our universe. >>> 2. Find this physical model using the Pyramid Technique (Chapter 2 of my book) >>> 3. Develop the necessary math based on this physical model or see if this physical model can be use to explain all the valid math developed so far. >>> 4. Do the experiments that can verify this physical model. >>> 5. The end result is Model Mechanics. >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 11:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f356f9e-14e2-4a72-9604-ca5056f86e70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417764 |
On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 4/30/17 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:11:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 4/28/17 7:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> The right way to do physics: > >> > >> Bullshit. > >> This is YOUR idea of doing physics, which has nothing whatsoever to do > >> with how physics is done in the real world. If it is your claim that you > >> intend to reinvent the scientific method itself, then take it to a > >> philosophy forum. > > > > It is much easier to find the ONE physical model of our universe than to invent a zoo of mathematical objects to describe the universe. > > Ken, you are still trying to reinvent the scientific method. > You are still trying to claim that simpler is always better. > If what you said were true, then someone would simply come up and > announce that "1" was everything, and that everything was "1". It cannot > get simpler, and yours would be lost in the dust by your own standard. There is no reinvention....physicists have been using physical model to to physics for centuries. for the past hundred years or so they let the mathematicians take over and they run wild inventing non-physical mathematics objects to explain the universe. the end result is a complex dead end such as the string theories. The physical model of Model Mechanics resolves all the problems. It is a superior way of doing physics. > > >> > >>> 1. It is assumed that there is only one physical model of our universe. > >>> 2. Find this physical model using the Pyramid Technique (Chapter 2 of my book) > >>> 3. Develop the necessary math based on this physical model or see if this physical model can be use to explain all the valid math developed so far. > >>> 4. Do the experiments that can verify this physical model. > >>> 5. The end result is Model Mechanics. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 14:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe81pi$1vlu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417797 |
On 5/1/17 1:56 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 4/30/17 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:11:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 4/28/17 7:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> The right way to do physics: >>>> >>>> Bullshit. >>>> This is YOUR idea of doing physics, which has nothing whatsoever to do >>>> with how physics is done in the real world. If it is your claim that you >>>> intend to reinvent the scientific method itself, then take it to a >>>> philosophy forum. >>> >>> It is much easier to find the ONE physical model of our universe than to invent a zoo of mathematical objects to describe the universe. >> >> Ken, you are still trying to reinvent the scientific method. >> You are still trying to claim that simpler is always better. >> If what you said were true, then someone would simply come up and >> announce that "1" was everything, and that everything was "1". It cannot >> get simpler, and yours would be lost in the dust by your own standard. > > There is no reinvention....physicists have been using physical model to to physics for centuries. No, they have not, Ken. This is strictly a perception from your lack of education. Mathematics has been heart and soul to mathematics since Galileo and Newton. Because you have never LEARNED physics, you are ignorant of this fact. The notion of a FIELD, for example, has been around for 160 years. A field is not a physical substance or material. Energy has been studied as a vital part of physics for centuries. Energy is not a substance, it is not material. > for the past hundred years or so they let the mathematicians take over and they run wild inventing > non-physical mathematics objects to explain the universe. the end result is a complex dead end such as the string theories. > The physical model of Model Mechanics resolves all the problems. It is a superior way of doing physics. No, Ken, it is not superior. It is what you WANT physics to be about, but those things that are aligned with what you WANT are not superior. What is true of you is the same thing that is true of Ed Lake. You do not LIKE mathematics. You are incompetent at mathematics, and you do not want to learn it. And so you attempt to dismiss the importance of mathematics in physics, saying that REAL physics does not need math. But that is a LIE that you are speaking, based purely on your desires and emotional needs. > > >> >>>> >>>>> 1. It is assumed that there is only one physical model of our universe. >>>>> 2. Find this physical model using the Pyramid Technique (Chapter 2 of my book) >>>>> 3. Develop the necessary math based on this physical model or see if this physical model can be use to explain all the valid math developed so far. >>>>> 4. Do the experiments that can verify this physical model. >>>>> 5. The end result is Model Mechanics. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 14:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oe820a$1vlu$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417803 |
On 5/1/17 2:20 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/1/17 1:56 PM, kenseto wrote: >> On Monday, May 1, 2017 at 8:59:32 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> On 4/30/17 9:49 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Saturday, April 29, 2017 at 11:11:35 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/17 7:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> The right way to do physics: >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. >>>>> This is YOUR idea of doing physics, which has nothing whatsoever to do >>>>> with how physics is done in the real world. If it is your claim >>>>> that you >>>>> intend to reinvent the scientific method itself, then take it to a >>>>> philosophy forum. >>>> >>>> It is much easier to find the ONE physical model of our universe >>>> than to invent a zoo of mathematical objects to describe the universe. >>> >>> Ken, you are still trying to reinvent the scientific method. >>> You are still trying to claim that simpler is always better. >>> If what you said were true, then someone would simply come up and >>> announce that "1" was everything, and that everything was "1". It cannot >>> get simpler, and yours would be lost in the dust by your own standard. >> >> There is no reinvention....physicists have been using physical model >> to to physics for centuries. > > No, they have not, Ken. This is strictly a perception from your lack of > education. Mathematics has been heart and soul to mathematics Mathematics has been heart and soul to physics.... > since > Galileo and Newton. Because you have never LEARNED physics, you are > ignorant of this fact. > > The notion of a FIELD, for example, has been around for 160 years. A > field is not a physical substance or material. > > Energy has been studied as a vital part of physics for centuries. Energy > is not a substance, it is not material. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 22:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fdef81d0-7dcd-44ad-87b2-c80e73fcb72e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417803 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 1 maja 2017 21:20:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > No, they have not, Ken. This is strictly a perception from your lack of > education. Mathematics has been heart and soul to mathematics since > Galileo and Newton. Because you have never LEARNED physics, you are > ignorant of this fact. Speking of mathematics, it's always good to remind that your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and second most succesful part, just because "common sense is a set of prejudices".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 14:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeallt$c2d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #417845 |
On 5/2/17 12:41 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 1 maja 2017 21:20:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > >> No, they have not, Ken. This is strictly a perception from your lack of >> education. Mathematics has been heart and soul to mathematics since >> Galileo and Newton. Because you have never LEARNED physics, you are >> ignorant of this fact. > > Speking of mathematics, it's always good to remind > that your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > second most succesful part, just because "common > sense is a set of prejudices". > Where did you learn that common sense and intuition are a vital part of physics? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-02 12:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60c8b8a0-cec4-4984-9a27-16befddac572@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #417879 |
On May 2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/2/17, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: >> it's always good to remind >> that your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and >> second most succesful part, just because "common >> sense is a set of prejudices". > > Where did you learn that common sense and intuition are a vital part of > physics? Ed Lake and Kevin Aylward, tenured faculty, U. sci.phy.relativity -- Rich
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-03 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7eadnV-zo7Gb4JTEnZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #417879 |
>-----Original Message----- >From: Odd Bodkin Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 8:11 PM Newsgroups: >sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: New Gravity Theory On 5/2/17 12:41 AM, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 1 maja 2017 21:20:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin > napisał: > >> No, they have not, Ken. This is strictly a perception from your lack of >> education. Mathematics has been heart and soul to mathematics since >> Galileo and Newton. Because you have never LEARNED physics, you are >> ignorant of this fact. > > Speking of mathematics, it's always good to remind > that your idiot guru has rejected it's oldest and > second most succesful part, just because "common > sense is a set of prejudices". > >Where did you learn that common sense and intuition are a vital part of >physics? In practice, they seem to be, despite "intuition" not appearing in any Physics course syllabus. Its on the same par of "consciousness", which is clearly a requirement for doing physics in the real world, also not on the syllabus. I think one would be hard pressed to convince anyone that people like Feynman, Einstein, Plank, Dirac etc.. etc... had no intuition to guide them. Of course, that does not imply that "common sense" does not lead one astray at times. Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Kevin Aylward" <kevinRemovAT@kevinaylward.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-28 14:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1MSdnSEsjqOO3J7EnZ2dnUU7-V_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #417451 |
"JanPB" wrote in message news:d1d82f8f-4c30-4283-9152-cbcd48fe4188@googlegroups.com... > > Your text is just daydreaming. > > ROFLOL, pot kettle black. > Your math invention of 11 dimensions or 26 dimensions are prime examples > of day dreaming. >Not even wrong, sorry. You confuse the mathematical details (11 or 26 >dimensions) with the question whether such theories WORK. The use of the word "dimension" by mathematicians is arbitrary, and somewhat akin to newspeak. All that there is, is that a phenomena being represented by a set of say, 11 numbers, or 26 numbers. There is nothing that leads to any deduction that the must be any real physical correspondence to those numbers. Without physical evidence, these alleged dimensions, are no more than a convenient calculation tool. I can plot pretty much any set of information on a graph, like $ dollars, it don't mean that money is "geometry", hint Tom Roberts :-) I see a fundamental problem in the obvious. Mathematicians are truly not engineers. They really don't understand the difference between mathematical inventions, and physical inventions. One only exists in the mind, the other, can, on occasions, actually generate, money. -- Kevin Aylward http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/gr/index.html http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/qm/index.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 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