Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #419246 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-12 13:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-16 16:15 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 63 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-12 13:11 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:18 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 06:37 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:54 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-14 06:43 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 16:59 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 05:56 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:03 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 10:06 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:14 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 15:20 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 02:37 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:05 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 06:52 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 16:14 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-13 09:21 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 12:47 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-14 15:11 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 13:56 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-14 06:50 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-14 13:58 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-14 15:19 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 17:02 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 06:07 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 08:24 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 09:39 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 11:52 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-15 10:15 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 12:55 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 04:21 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:43 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:32 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:14 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:50 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:15 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-15 23:26 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-12 20:16 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 07:07 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-13 01:41 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-13 20:01 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-12 21:17 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:57 +0200
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 07:14 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 16:37 +0200
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 14:54 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 08:01 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> - 2017-05-13 15:08 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-15 14:39 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 04:51 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe 01405 <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 06:22 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:44 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:07 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 18:41 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-16 15:27 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:42 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:29 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:13 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-17 05:57 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-17 11:18 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-17 18:30 +0000
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 10:48 -0500
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-16 12:36 -0700
Re: Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-16 16:15 -0500
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 13:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Unbounded math rules lead to a failed and unphysical model of our universe |
| Message-ID | <a4a9a7e0-ee4b-478e-a6dd-27a4d12278c1@googlegroups.com> |
In the past 100 years theoretical physics and cosmology development have been conducted almost exclusively on a mathematical basis. The rules of mathematics invented to do these theoretical developments are arbitrary and have no physical limits. For example: in our observable physical universe we see three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, in the latest developments of the String Theories, theorists claim 11 or 26 dimensions of space and time to describe our universe. The peril of using these unbounded rules of math will lead to unphysical and abstract mathematical objects or processes such as: unlimited number of space dimensions, fields/virtual particles, infinities, space-time, curvature in space-time, time dilation, length contraction, action at a distance, curled-up dimensions, Entanglement, Dark Energy, Dark Matter....etc. It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. That’s why after a 100 years of intense efforts we were not successful to come up with a theory of everything. I believe that there is one description of our universe that can give physical explanations for all the observed processes and interactions in our universe. I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: 1. There are three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time. No abstract mathematical object is allowed. 2. Search the literatures and identify the major problems of current theories. The result of this search identified the following major problems of the current theories: The lack of a physical explanation of gravity; The observed accelerated expansion of the universe; The Horizon problem; The Flatness Problem; The Galactic rotational curve problem; Dark Energy and Dark Matter. 3. Formulate a physical model that can account for these problems. The formulator is free to assume any physical model of the current state of the universe. The assumed physical model must be capable of explaining all the forces and processes of nature. In addition, the mathematics of the current theories must be derivable from this physical model. 4. Use this physical model to develop a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other forces of nature and derive a complete theory of relativity from this physical model that is compatible with quantum field theories. 5. Formulate a new theory of relativity that avoids all the paradoxes of the current Special Relativity Theory. The end result after the application of the Pyramid Technique is a unified theory of everything called Model Mechanics. A description of Model Mechanics is available in my book entitled “Model Mechanics: The Final Theory”. For a limited time only the complete content of this book is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 15:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of55ah$1k7q$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419246 |
On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all mathematical? - Atoms - Electrons - Neutrinos - Genes - Enzyme molecules - Molecular isomers - Energy - Plasma - Magnetic field - Covalent bond -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 06:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6bd4bdb-1c9e-47a2-a317-508f735fdbf4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419249 |
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. > > So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look > at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you > have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you > have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all > mathematical? > > - Atoms > - Electrons > - Neutrinos > - Genes > - Enzyme molecules > - Molecular isomers > - Energy > - Plasma > - Magnetic field > - Covalent bond These items are detected and thus they are both mathematical and physical. Extra dimensions of space are not detected and thus they are not physical and only mathematical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 13:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of7kph$11ak$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419317 |
On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. >> >> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look >> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you >> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you >> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all >> mathematical? >> >> - Atoms >> - Electrons >> - Neutrinos >> - Genes >> - Enzyme molecules >> - Molecular isomers >> - Energy >> - Plasma >> - Magnetic field >> - Covalent bond > > These items are detected Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular isomers? What about covalent bonds? And neutrinos were predicted in 1930 and detected in 1956. So in 1940, after the prediction and before the detection, did neutrinos exist? Yes, of course they existed in 1940. Likewise, dark matter was first concretely proposed in the 1970s and hasn't yet been predicted. So right now we are in the same place we were with neutrinos in 1940. So if neutrinos existed in 1940, how do you know dark matter does not exist today? > and thus they are both mathematical and physical. Extra dimensions of space are not > detected and thus they are not physical and only mathematical. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 06:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0043649-6bef-42af-9fba-94a85b43acbd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419351 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. > >> > >> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look > >> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you > >> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you > >> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all > >> mathematical? > >> > >> - Atoms > >> - Electrons > >> - Neutrinos > >> - Genes > >> - Enzyme molecules > >> - Molecular isomers > >> - Energy > >> - Plasma > >> - Magnetic field > >> - Covalent bond > > > > These items are detected > > Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular > isomers? What about covalent bonds? What is your point? Model mechanics does not refute the normal way of detecting these particles. Model Mechanics provides a physical explanation how these particles are formed. BTW how does Math provides detection procedure to detect these particles??? > > And neutrinos were predicted in 1930 and detected in 1956. So in 1940, > after the prediction and before the detection, did neutrinos exist? Yes, > of course they existed in 1940. What is your post? Model Mechanics predicts that neutrino was formed during the Big Bang. > Likewise, dark matter was first concretely proposed in the 1970s and > hasn't yet been predicted. So right now we are in the same place we were > with neutrinos in 1940. So if neutrinos existed in 1940, how do you know > dark matter does not exist today? What is your point? Model mechanics proposes that dark matters are free S-Patricles. Read the Chapter. Read Chapter 6 of my book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 16:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofak09$1ei0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419416 |
On 5/14/17 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. >>>> >>>> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look >>>> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you >>>> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you >>>> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all >>>> mathematical? >>>> >>>> - Atoms >>>> - Electrons >>>> - Neutrinos >>>> - Genes >>>> - Enzyme molecules >>>> - Molecular isomers >>>> - Energy >>>> - Plasma >>>> - Magnetic field >>>> - Covalent bond >>> >>> These items are detected >> >> Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular >> isomers? What about covalent bonds? > > What is your point? My point is you claim these are detected but you can't say how. So you don't actually know if they've been directly detected or not. > Model mechanics does not refute the normal way of detecting these particles. > Model Mechanics provides a physical explanation how these particles are formed. > BTW how does Math provides detection procedure to detect these particles??? > >> >> And neutrinos were predicted in 1930 and detected in 1956. So in 1940, >> after the prediction and before the detection, did neutrinos exist? Yes, >> of course they existed in 1940. > > What is your post? Model Mechanics predicts that neutrino was formed during the Big Bang. That's a postdiction. In 1940, did neutrinos exist or not? > >> Likewise, dark matter was first concretely proposed in the 1970s and >> hasn't yet been predicted. So right now we are in the same place we were >> with neutrinos in 1940. So if neutrinos existed in 1940, how do you know >> dark matter does not exist today? > > What is your point? Model mechanics proposes that dark matters are free S-Patricles. > Read the Chapter. Read Chapter 6 of my book. > So it's interesting, isn't it, Ken, that from one side of your mouth you say that dark matter is a nonsense concept that stems from a mathematical approach to physics. Then you say that dark matter is real and should be understood as free S-particles. So you say it's not real and then say it's real in short order. You can't figure out WHAT you want to say, can you? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 05:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a0cc393c-c860-4e65-b04d-5ae8cff31ee3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419452 |
On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:59:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/14/17 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. > >>>> > >>>> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look > >>>> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you > >>>> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you > >>>> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all > >>>> mathematical? > >>>> > >>>> - Atoms > >>>> - Electrons > >>>> - Neutrinos > >>>> - Genes > >>>> - Enzyme molecules > >>>> - Molecular isomers > >>>> - Energy > >>>> - Plasma > >>>> - Magnetic field > >>>> - Covalent bond > >>> > >>> These items are detected > >> > >> Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular > >> isomers? What about covalent bonds? > > > > What is your point? > > My point is you claim these are detected but you can't say how. So you > don’t actually know if they've been directly detected or not. Some detected by microscope, some detected by by streaks in liquid.....but how does that refute the PT or Model mechanics? > > > Model mechanics does not refute the normal way of detecting these particles. > > Model Mechanics provides a physical explanation how these particles are formed. > > BTW how does Math provides detection procedure to detect these particles??? > > > >> > >> And neutrinos were predicted in 1930 and detected in 1956. So in 1940, > >> after the prediction and before the detection, did neutrinos exist? Yes, > >> of course they existed in 1940. > > > > What is your post? Model Mechanics predicts that neutrino was formed during the Big Bang. > > That's a postdiction. In 1940, did neutrinos exist or not? If it is detected then it exists. Model mechanics accepts the existence of neutrino and it is the first particle born during the Big Bang. See Chapter 6 of my book. > > > > >> Likewise, dark matter was first concretely proposed in the 1970s and > >> hasn't yet been predicted. So right now we are in the same place we were > >> with neutrinos in 1940. So if neutrinos existed in 1940, how do you know > >> dark matter does not exist today? > > > > What is your point? Model mechanics proposes that dark matters are free S-Patricles. > > Read the Chapter. Read Chapter 6 of my book. > > > > So it’s interesting, isn't it,after Ken, that from one side of your mouth you > say that dark matter is a nonsense concept that stems from a > mathematical approach to physics. No dark matter and dark energy were not stem from a mathematical approach.....they were invented to fit observations. BTW I never said that Dark Matter and Dark energy are nonsense. I said that physicists have no idea what they were. Model mechanics posits the existence of these particles as follows: 1. Dark Matters are the free S-Patricles--those S-Patricles that are not orbiting around an E-String. 2. Dark Energy is the observed fact that object follow the the divergent geometries of the E-Matrix--dur to the orbiting motion of the S-Paticles that composed the object. >Then you say that dark matter is real > and should be understood as free S-particles. So you say it's not real > and then say it’s real in short order. I never said that Drak Matter is not real---I said that physicists have no idea what dark matter is composed of. How can I say dark matter is not real when Model Mechanics explains that dark matters are the free S-Particles???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 08:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofc8vi$1sh8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419506 |
On 5/15/17 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:59:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/14/17 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. >>>>>> >>>>>> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look >>>>>> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you >>>>>> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you >>>>>> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all >>>>>> mathematical? >>>>>> >>>>>> - Atoms >>>>>> - Electrons >>>>>> - Neutrinos >>>>>> - Genes >>>>>> - Enzyme molecules >>>>>> - Molecular isomers >>>>>> - Energy >>>>>> - Plasma >>>>>> - Magnetic field >>>>>> - Covalent bond >>>>> >>>>> These items are detected >>>> >>>> Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular >>>> isomers? What about covalent bonds? >>> >>> What is your point? >> >> My point is you claim these are detected but you can't say how. So you >> don’t actually know if they've been directly detected or not. > > Some detected by microscope, some detected by by streaks in liquid.....but how does that refute the PT or Model mechanics? Molecular isomers were not detected by microscope or by streaks in liquid. Do you know what molecular isomers are? Covalent bonds, energy, magnetic field, plasma were not discovered by microscope or by streaks in liquid. You don't know whether these things have been detected or not, do you? > >> >>> Model mechanics does not refute the normal way of detecting these particles. >>> Model Mechanics provides a physical explanation how these particles are formed. >>> BTW how does Math provides detection procedure to detect these particles??? >>> >>>> >>>> And neutrinos were predicted in 1930 and detected in 1956. So in 1940, >>>> after the prediction and before the detection, did neutrinos exist? Yes, >>>> of course they existed in 1940. >>> >>> What is your post? Model Mechanics predicts that neutrino was formed during the Big Bang. >> >> That's a postdiction. In 1940, did neutrinos exist or not? > > If it is detected then it exists. In 1940, neutrinos were not detected yet. They were detected in 1956. They were predicted in 1930. Did neutrinos exist in 1940 or not? > Model mechanics accepts the existence of neutrino and it is the first particle born during the Big Bang. See Chapter 6 of my book. >> >>> >>>> Likewise, dark matter was first concretely proposed in the 1970s and >>>> hasn't yet been predicted. So right now we are in the same place we were >>>> with neutrinos in 1940. So if neutrinos existed in 1940, how do you know >>>> dark matter does not exist today? >>> >>> What is your point? Model mechanics proposes that dark matters are free S-Patricles. >>> Read the Chapter. Read Chapter 6 of my book. >>> >> >> So it’s interesting, isn't it,after Ken, that from one side of your mouth you >> say that dark matter is a nonsense concept that stems from a >> mathematical approach to physics. > > No dark matter and dark energy were not stem from a mathematical approach.....they were invented > to fit observations. BTW I never said that Dark Matter and Dark energy are nonsense. I said that > physicists have no idea what they were. Here is what YOU said in your first post in this thread: "The peril of using these unbounded rules of math will lead to unphysical and abstract mathematical objects or processes such as: unlimited number of space dimensions, fields/virtual particles, infinities, space-time, curvature in space-time, time dilation, length contraction, action at a distance, curled-up dimensions, Entanglement, Dark Energy, Dark Matter....etc." You very definitely said that dark matter and dark energy are unphysical and abstract mathematical objects. Then you turned right around and said they are real and described by Model Mechanics. So it turns out you say opposite things from different sides of your mouth. > > Model mechanics posits the existence of these particles as follows: > 1. Dark Matters are the free S-Patricles--those S-Patricles that are not orbiting around an E-String. > 2. Dark Energy is the observed fact that object follow the the divergent geometries of the E-Matrix--dur > to the orbiting motion of the S-Paticles that composed the object. > >> Then you say that dark matter is real >> and should be understood as free S-particles. So you say it's not real >> and then say it’s real in short order. > > I never said that Drak Matter is not real---I said that physicists have no idea what dark matter is composed > of. How can I say dark matter is not real when Model Mechanics explains that dark matters are the free S-Particles??? Exactly. Now look at your first post in this thread, where you explicitly stated that it is unphysical and an abstract mathematical object. Idiot. Flaming idiot. Kerosene-soaked flaming idiot. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6826a9e2-fc6b-4174-a2c0-ab0b27e02bd1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419507 |
On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:03:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/15/17 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:59:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/14/17 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look > >>>>>> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you > >>>>>> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you > >>>>>> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all > >>>>>> mathematical? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Atoms > >>>>>> - Electrons > >>>>>> - Neutrinos > >>>>>> - Genes > >>>>>> - Enzyme molecules > >>>>>> - Molecular isomers > >>>>>> - Energy > >>>>>> - Plasma > >>>>>> - Magnetic field > >>>>>> - Covalent bond > >>>>> > >>>>> These items are detected > >>>> > >>>> Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular > >>>> isomers? What about covalent bonds? > >>> > >>> What is your point? > >> > >> My point is you claim these are detected but you can't say how. So you > >> don’t actually know if they've been directly detected or not. > > > > Some detected by microscope, some detected by by streaks in liquid.....but how does that refute the PT or Model mechanics? > > Molecular isomers were not detected by microscope or by streaks in > liquid. Do you know what molecular isomers are? > > Covalent bonds, energy, magnetic field, plasma were not discovered by > microscope or by streaks in liquid. > > You don’t know whether these things have been detected or not, do you? Model Mechanics does not dispute that they were detected. Model Mechanics provide explanation how these items are derived....from the basics physical model of the universe. > > > > >> > >>> Model mechanics does not refute the normal way of detecting these particles. > >>> Model Mechanics provides a physical explanation how these particles are formed. > >>> BTW how does Math provides detection procedure to detect these particles??? > >>> > >>>> > >>>> And neutrinos were predicted in 1930 and detected in 1956. So in 1940, > >>>> after the prediction and before the detection, did neutrinos exist? Yes, > >>>> of course they existed in 1940. > >>> > >>> What is your post? Model Mechanics predicts that neutrino was formed during the Big Bang. > >> > >> That's a postdiction. In 1940, did neutrinos exist or not? > > > > If it is detected then it exists. > > In 1940, neutrinos were not detected yet. They were detected in 1956. > They were predicted in 1930. Did neutrinos exist in 1940 or not? > > > Model mechanics accepts the existence of neutrino and it is the first particle born during the Big Bang. See Chapter 6 of my book. > >> > >>> > >>>> Likewise, dark matter was first concretely proposed in the 1970s and > >>>> hasn't yet been predicted. So right now we are in the same place we were > >>>> with neutrinos in 1940. So if neutrinos existed in 1940, how do you know > >>>> dark matter does not exist today? > >>> > >>> What is your point? Model mechanics proposes that dark matters are free S-Patricles. > >>> Read the Chapter. Read Chapter 6 of my book. > >>> > >> > >> So it’s interesting, isn't it,after Ken, that from one side of your mouth you > >> say that dark matter is a nonsense concept that stems from a > >> mathematical approach to physics. > > > > No dark matter and dark energy were not stem from a mathematical approach.....they were invented > > to fit observations. BTW I never said that Dark Matter and Dark energy are nonsense. I said that > > physicists have no idea what they were. > > Here is what YOU said in your first post in this thread: > "The peril of using these unbounded rules of math will lead to > unphysical and abstract mathematical objects or processes such as: > unlimited number of space dimensions, fields/virtual particles, > infinities, space-time, curvature in space-time, time dilation, length > contraction, action at a distance, curled-up dimensions, Entanglement, > Dark Energy, Dark Matter....etc." > > You very definitely said that dark matter and dark energy are unphysical > and abstract mathematical objects. First of all dark matter and dark energy are invented to explain unexplainable observations. Physicists have no idea what they are. The physical model of Model Mechanics provided physical explanation what they are. So what is your problem? > > Then you turned right around and said they are real and described by > Model Mechanics. Yes they are real within the physical model of Model Mechanics. > > So it turns out you say opposite things from different sides of your mouth. No I said no opposite things. > > > > > Model mechanics posits the existence of these particles as follows: > > 1. Dark Matters are the free S-Patricles--those S-Patricles that are not orbiting around an E-String. > > 2. Dark Energy is the observed fact that object follow the the divergent geometries of the E-Matrix--dur > > to the orbiting motion of the S-Paticles that composed the object. > > > >> Then you say that dark matter is real > >> and should be understood as free S-particles. So you say it's not real > >> and then say it’s real in short order. > > > > I never said that Drak Matter is not real---I said that physicists have no idea what dark matter is composed > > of. How can I say dark matter is not real when Model Mechanics explains that dark matters are the free S-Particles??? > > Exactly. Now look at your first post in this thread, where you > explicitly stated that it is unphysical and an abstract mathematical object.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-15 12:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ofcnlc$r4s$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419539 |
On 5/15/17 12:06 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 15, 2017 at 9:03:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/15/17 7:56 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 14, 2017 at 5:59:41 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/14/17 8:43 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:54:45 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/17 8:37 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:18:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> It is posited that these abstract mathematical objects do not exist in our universe physically. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So let's see what things you think are mathematical. Let's take a look >>>>>>>> at the below list and see if you can say they are physical because you >>>>>>>> have direct observational experience with them. If you can't say you >>>>>>>> have direct observational experience, shouldn't you say they're all >>>>>>>> mathematical? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Atoms >>>>>>>> - Electrons >>>>>>>> - Neutrinos >>>>>>>> - Genes >>>>>>>> - Enzyme molecules >>>>>>>> - Molecular isomers >>>>>>>> - Energy >>>>>>>> - Plasma >>>>>>>> - Magnetic field >>>>>>>> - Covalent bond >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These items are detected >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, good, so tell me how genes are detected? What about molecular >>>>>> isomers? What about covalent bonds? >>>>> >>>>> What is your point? >>>> >>>> My point is you claim these are detected but you can't say how. So you >>>> don’t actually know if they've been directly detected or not. >>> >>> Some detected by microscope, some detected by by streaks in liquid.....but how does that refute the PT or Model mechanics? >> >> Molecular isomers were not detected by microscope or by streaks in >> liquid. Do you know what molecular isomers are? >> >> Covalent bonds, energy, magnetic field, plasma were not discovered by >> microscope or by streaks in liquid. >> >> You don’t know whether these things have been detected or not, do you? > > Model Mechanics does not dispute that they were detected. Model Mechanics provide > explanation how these items are derived....from the basics physical model of the universe. I never said Model Mechanics disputed whether they were detected or not. The point, which I guess I have to repeat for you, is that YOU DO NOT KNOW how the existence of those things I listed was established. Therefore, you have absolutely no idea on what grounds they are believed to exist. Therefore, YOU ALSO DO NOT KNOW how the existence of other things like dark matter or spacetime or the things you call "unphysical and abstract mathematical concepts" is being established. And so you have no basis for saying that one exists and the other does not. You are making these statements from a position of abject ignorance. That is a foolish thing to do. >>> No dark matter and dark energy were not stem from a mathematical approach.....they were invented >>> to fit observations. BTW I never said that Dark Matter and Dark energy are nonsense. I said that >>> physicists have no idea what they were. >> >> Here is what YOU said in your first post in this thread: >> "The peril of using these unbounded rules of math will lead to >> unphysical and abstract mathematical objects or processes such as: >> unlimited number of space dimensions, fields/virtual particles, >> infinities, space-time, curvature in space-time, time dilation, length >> contraction, action at a distance, curled-up dimensions, Entanglement, >> Dark Energy, Dark Matter....etc." >> >> You very definitely said that dark matter and dark energy are unphysical >> and abstract mathematical objects. > > First of all dark matter and dark energy are invented to explain unexplainable observations. > Physicists have no idea what they are. The physical model of Model Mechanics provided physical > explanation what they are. So what is your problem? My problem, Ken, is that you said that dark matter is an "unphysical and abstract mathematical concept". Then, within 24 hours, you said dark matter is real and physical. That's a real problem, Ken. > >> >> Then you turned right around and said they are real and described by >> Model Mechanics. > > Yes they are real within the physical model of Model Mechanics. Just earlier you said dark matter was an "unphysical and abstract mathematical concept". Can you not read your own post? > >> >> So it turns out you say opposite things from different sides of your mouth. > > No I said no opposite things. >> >>> >>> Model mechanics posits the existence of these particles as follows: >>> 1. Dark Matters are the free S-Patricles--those S-Patricles that are not orbiting around an E-String. >>> 2. Dark Energy is the observed fact that object follow the the divergent geometries of the E-Matrix--dur >>> to the orbiting motion of the S-Paticles that composed the object. >>> >>>> Then you say that dark matter is real >>>> and should be understood as free S-particles. So you say it's not real >>>> and then say it’s real in short order. >>> >>> I never said that Drak Matter is not real---I said that physicists have no idea what dark matter is composed >>> of. How can I say dark matter is not real when Model Mechanics explains that dark matters are the free S-Particles??? >> >> Exactly. Now look at your first post in this thread, where you >> explicitly stated that it is unphysical and an abstract mathematical object. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-12 15:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of55f7$1k7q$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419246 |
On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is completely different than your "Pyramid Technique". But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science in the dictionary. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 02:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6f1ad1fa-5dff-4ebb-87b6-869a150cd5c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419250 |
W dniu piątek, 12 maja 2017 22:21:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the > scientific method And since communism is DEFINED as the best system possible...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of7arv$64g$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #419300 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >W dniu piątek, 12 maja 2017 22:21:04 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: >> But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the >> scientific method >And since communism is DEFINED as the best system >possible... No, communism is not defined that way, so that is not a proper comparison. Communism is defined as a certain socialeconomic system with ownership of everything by the state etc. There certainly is propaganda that states communism is the best system possible but now you're comparing a definition (of science) to propaganda.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 06:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0aaa2029-9609-470c-a53b-b74ae8faa040@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419250 |
On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > > I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: > > So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is > completely different than your “Pyramid Technique". The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math alone. The PT specified the development of the physical model before the development of the math model. > > But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the > scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid > Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since > it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science > in the dictionary. Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. With the current scientific method (mathematical method) it is vertically impossible to come up with a TOE. Why? Because you will get a zoo of math models and each will give a limited description of a certain aspect of our universe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of7bdv$64g$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #419320 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is >> completely different than your "Pyramid Technique". >The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math >alone. No, Stupid Ken, you can't even *do* any math, much less include math in a theory. Which is one reason why Model Mechanics is such a catastrophe of a failure. >> But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the >> scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid >> Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since >> it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science >> in the dictionary. >Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything quickly.. >.eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. Which is another reason why Model Mechanics failed so spectacularly and completely. Nowhere enough time to test and develop everything. Real science developed over hundreds of years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 09:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <82fa2ea9-3901-4911-be2d-9f2408149683@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419337 |
W dniu sobota, 13 maja 2017 18:14:57 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is > >> completely different than your "Pyramid Technique". > > >The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math > >alone. > > No, Stupid Ken, you can't even *do* any math, much less include math in a > theory. Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your idiot guru has rejected its oldest and one of most succesful parts, just because common sense is a collection of prejudices.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 12:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of9jl1$1kn0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419337 |
Michael Moroney wrote: >>Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything >>quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. > > Which is another reason why Model Mechanics failed so spectacularly and > completely. No. The only reason, for you to say it, is that you can't read. English.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 15:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <of9s3f$itm$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #419405 |
The nymshifting troll, now pretending to be Houchiko Inatsuki <uatci@swckskuwe.io> writes: >Michael Moroney wrote: >>>Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything >>>quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. >> >> Which is another reason why Model Mechanics failed so spectacularly and >> completely. >No. The only reason, for you to say it, is that you can't read. English. Yes, English, nymshifter. You should learn it some time, so that we can understand what you write some day.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-13 13:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <of7ktd$11ak$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #419320 |
On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: >> >> So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is >> completely different than your “Pyramid Technique". > > The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math alone. The scientific method is not based on math alone. Good heavens, Ken, you don't even know what the scientific method IS???? > The PT specified the development of the physical model before the development of the math model. > >> >> But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the >> scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid >> Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since >> it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science >> in the dictionary. > > Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. With the current scientific > method (mathematical method) it is vertically impossible to come up with a TOE. Why? Because you will get a zoo of math models and each will give a limited > description of a certain aspect of our universe. > Ken, it's still not science. It's PTology, but since it's not the scientific method, it can't be science. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-14 06:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee1b9ed6-3c05-446c-afe5-1872d84006cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #419352 |
On Saturday, May 13, 2017 at 2:56:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/13/17 8:52 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, May 12, 2017 at 4:21:04 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/12/17 3:11 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics to find this ultimate description. The rules of the Pyramid Technique are as follows: > >> > >> So you are saying you do not like or use the scientific method, which is > >> completely different than your “Pyramid Technique". > > > > The pyramid technique (PT) includes the scientific method based on math alone. > > The scientific method is not based on math alone. > Good heavens, Ken, you don’t even know what the scientific method IS???? So according to you what is the scientific method? How does the PT violate the scientific method? Why finding the physical model of the universe before the development of the math model violate the scientific method?????? > > > The PT specified the development of the physical model before the development of the math model. > > > >> > >> But since science is DEFINED as the investigatory endeavor that uses the > >> scientific method, then isn't it improper to say that using the "Pyramid > >> Technique" is doing science? Maybe you could call it PTology, but since > >> it's not the scientific method, then it's not science. Look up science > >> in the dictionary. > > > > Not at all....the PT will lead to a physical theory of everything quickly...eg Model Mechanics was developed within a few years. With the current scientific > > method (mathematical method) it is vertically impossible to come up with a TOE. Why? Because you will get a zoo of math models and each will give a limited > > description of a certain aspect of our universe. > > > > Ken, it's still not science. It's PTology, but since it's not the > scientific method, it can't be science. > Why? Because you say so????
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web