Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426473 > unrolled thread

Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-28 13:47 -0700
    Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Ernard Hevalier <adrdo@tarlaab.lr> - 2017-07-28 20:48 +0000
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 06:14 -0700
    Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 14:00 -0700
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 06:13 -0700
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 05:57 -0700
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 17:54 +0000
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:14 -0500
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 11:46 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-31 18:52 +0000
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 10:37 -0500
              Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-02 10:08 -0700
              Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-02 13:22 -0700
                Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 09:59 -0500
                  Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 08:19 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 16:30 +0000
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 13:38 -0700
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-08-02 20:43 +0000
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 06:25 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-03 16:18 +0000
    Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-29 01:02 +0200
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-07-28 20:54 -0700
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 06:26 -0700
    Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 19:07 -0700
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 06:30 -0700
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Dorthy Percival <rivra@riwhte.cc> - 2017-07-29 15:39 +0000
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 11:44 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-29 11:58 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-30 00:07 +0200
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:23 +0000
              Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:34 +0000
                Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@hotspam.not> - 2017-07-30 13:39 +0200
                  Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 17:44 +0000
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 20:52 -0700
              Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 06:06 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:16 -0500
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 20:50 -0700
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-29 22:36 -0700
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 06:04 -0700
    Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:18 +0000
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 06:03 -0700
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 13:37 +0000
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:12 -0500
    Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-07-31 10:17 -0500
      Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 11:54 -0700
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-02 11:00 -0500
          Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-03 06:23 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 13:01 -0500
              Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-03 12:01 -0700
            Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-08-03 12:06 -0700
        Re: Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-02 16:51 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#426473 — Origin of the Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics

The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#426474

kenseto wrote:

> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe
> according to Model Mechanics:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf

Thank you, interesting material. The link works perfectly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426534

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 4:48:07 PM UTC-4, Ernard Hevalier wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> 
> > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe
> > according to Model Mechanics:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> 
> Thank you, interesting material. The link works perfectly.

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426476

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf

It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426533

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> 
> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> 
> --
> Jan

That’s because you are a 100% moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426608

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> 
> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> 

Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426630

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
>> 
>> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
>> 

>Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to 
>evaluate my gobbledygook.

Yes, mathematicians and physicists have way too much intelligence to
interpret gobbledygook.  Like parents with their own 3 year old child
who scribbles on a piece of paper.  The parents see the undecipherable
scribbling and say "That's beautiful! What is it?" and Junior proudly 
replies: "That's Mommy and Daddy!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426702

On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
>>
>> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
>>
> 
> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
> 

I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your 
complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast 
"mathematician" as a dirty word.

But of course, you're a retired chemical engineer, and everyone knows 
what retired chemical engineers are like.....

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426717

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> >>
> >> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> >>
> > 
> > Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
> > 
> 
> I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your 
> complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast 
> “mathematician” as a dirty word.

Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics. They use unbounded rules that allow them to invent non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions to explain the processes of nature. That’s why I advocated that they get of their high horse and come down to earth by using real physical system to develop their mathematics.

> 
> But of course, you're a retired chemical engineer, and everyone knows 
> what retired chemical engineers are like.....

We use real physical systems to develop our theory.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426718

Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 kenseto napsal(a):

> Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics. They use unbounded
> rules that allow them to invent non-existing mathematical objects such
> as extra dimensions to explain the processes of nature. That’s why I
> advocated that they get of their high horse and come down to earth by
> using real physical system to develop their mathematics.

Perfect approach. I'll double that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426911

On 7/31/17 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
>>>>
>>>> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
>>>
>>
>> I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your
>> complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast
>> “mathematician” as a dirty word.
> 
> Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics. 

Sorry, Ken, but you're full of shit.

I know what you WANT science to be. You WANT science to be about 
tangible things with intuitive, mechanical explanations that can be 
visualized and explained in plain language and there is no need for 
mathematics to be invoked.

This is because you're an ordinary pedestrian man, and you WANT science 
to be accessible to ordinary people without scientific training. And so 
you want to reduce science down to things that ordinary people would be 
able to do, and mathematics isn't one of those things you're comfortable 
with.

You do no service to science by reducing it down to your lowest common 
denominator. You do no service to ordinary people by claiming that 
science is completely understandable even without an education in 
science. All you're doing is cheapening everyone, trying to bring 
everything down to YOUR level.

> They use unbounded rules that allow them to invent non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions to explain the processes of nature. That’s why I advocated that they get of their high horse and come down to earth by using real physical system to develop their mathematics.
> 
>>
>> But of course, you're a retired chemical engineer, and everyone knows
>> what retired chemical engineers are like.....
> 
> We use real physical systems to develop our theory.

I don't think you'd know a real physical system if one kissed you on the 
forehead.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426943

W dniu środa, 2 sierpnia 2017 17:37:56 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 7/31/17 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your
> >> complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast
> >> “mathematician” as a dirty word.
> > 
> > Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics. 
> 
> Sorry, Ken, but you're full of shit.
> 
> I know what you WANT science to be. You WANT science to be about 
> tangible things with intuitive, mechanical explanations that can be 
> visualized and explained in plain language and there is no need for 
> mathematics to be invoked.
> 
> This is because you're an ordinary pedestrian man, and you WANT science 
> to be accessible to ordinary people without scientific training. And so 
> you want to reduce science down to things that ordinary people would be 
> able to do, and mathematics isn't one of those things you're comfortable 
> with.
> 
> You do no service to science by reducing it down to your lowest common 
> denominator. You do no service to ordinary people by claiming that 
> science is completely understandable even without an education in 
> science. All you're doing is cheapening everyone, trying to bring 
> everything down to YOUR level.

Sorry, Odd, but you're full of shit.
 
I know what you WANT science to be. You WANT science to be about 
tangible things with naive, mechanical explanations that can be 
formalized and explained in plain mathematicsand there is no need for 
real language to be invoked.
 
This is because you're a naive, primitive fool and you WANT science 
to be accessible tofools like you without . And so you want to reduce 
science down to things that mathematicians  would be  able to do, and
common language is too complicated for you and for them.

You do no service to science by reducing it down to your lowest common 
denominator. You do no service to ordinary people by claiming that 
science is completely understandable even without thinking you're
unable to perform.   All you're doing is cheapening everyone, trying 
to bring  everything down to YOUR level.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426958

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/31/17 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your
> >> complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast
> >> “mathematician” as a dirty word.
> > 
> > Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics. 
> 
> Sorry, Ken, but you're full of shit.
> 
> I know what you WANT science to be. You WANT science to be about 
> tangible things with intuitive, mechanical explanations that can be 
> visualized and explained in plain language and there is no need for 
> mathematics to be invoked.

Moron, I didn’t say that. I said that math needs physical constraints. The Pyramid Technique defined the physical constraints and the result is remarkable. It produces a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the nuclear forces. It produces a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the paradoxes of SRT. It produced a new origin of the universe. I think that the PT is a superior way of doing physics and cosmology.

> 
> This is because you're an ordinary pedestrian man, and you WANT science 
> to be accessible to ordinary people without scientific training. And so 
> you want to reduce science down to things that ordinary people would be 
> able to do, and mathematics isn't one of those things you're comfortable 
> with.
> 
> You do no service to science by reducing it down to your lowest common 
> denominator. You do no service to ordinary people by claiming that 
> science is completely understandable even without an education in 
> science. All you're doing is cheapening everyone, trying to bring 
> everything down to YOUR level.
> 
> > They use unbounded rules that allow them to invent non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions to explain the processes of nature. That’s why I advocated that they get of their high horse and come down to earth by using real physical system to develop their mathematics.
> > 
> >>
> >> But of course, you're a retired chemical engineer, and everyone knows
> >> what retired chemical engineers are like.....
> > 
> > We use real physical systems to develop our theory.
> 
> I don't think you'd know a real physical system if one kissed you on the 
> forehead.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427046

On 8/2/17 3:22 PM, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 11:37:56 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/31/17 1:46 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your
>>>> complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast
>>>> “mathematician” as a dirty word.
>>>
>>> Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics.
>>
>> Sorry, Ken, but you're full of shit.
>>
>> I know what you WANT science to be. You WANT science to be about
>> tangible things with intuitive, mechanical explanations that can be
>> visualized and explained in plain language and there is no need for
>> mathematics to be invoked.
> 
> Moron, I didn’t say that. I said that math needs physical constraints. 

That depends on what constraints you want to impose. In physics, the 
only constraints on ideas are match to experiment. Period, end of story. 
No other physical assumptions can serve as constraints, because they are 
merely guesses made by mankind.

> The Pyramid Technique defined the physical constraints and the result is remarkable. It produces a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the nuclear forces. It produces a new theory of relativity called IRT. IRT eliminated all the paradoxes of SRT. It produced a new origin of the universe. I think that the PT is a superior way of doing physics and cosmology.

Well, of course you think it is superior. You think everything you do is 
superior. Problem is, nobody else thinks so.

> 
>>
>> This is because you're an ordinary pedestrian man, and you WANT science
>> to be accessible to ordinary people without scientific training. And so
>> you want to reduce science down to things that ordinary people would be
>> able to do, and mathematics isn't one of those things you're comfortable
>> with.
>>
>> You do no service to science by reducing it down to your lowest common
>> denominator. You do no service to ordinary people by claiming that
>> science is completely understandable even without an education in
>> science. All you're doing is cheapening everyone, trying to bring
>> everything down to YOUR level.
>>
>>> They use unbounded rules that allow them to invent non-existing mathematical objects such as extra dimensions to explain the processes of nature. That’s why I advocated that they get of their high horse and come down to earth by using real physical system to develop their mathematics.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> But of course, you're a retired chemical engineer, and everyone knows
>>>> what retired chemical engineers are like.....
>>>
>>> We use real physical systems to develop our theory.
>>
>> I don't think you'd know a real physical system if one kissed you on the
>> forehead.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427051

W dniu czwartek, 3 sierpnia 2017 16:59:08 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:

> That depends on what constraints you want to impose. In physics, the 
> only constraints on ideas are match to experiment. Period, end of story. 

And, as experiments are made on real things, not on ideas -
your moronic mumble is pretty random.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426923

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 11:15:02 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/30/17 7:57 AM, kenseto wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> >> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> >>> The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe
>according to Model Mechanics:
>> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
>> >>
>> >> It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.

>> I see that you have followed Ed Lake's example of justifying your
>> complete lack of skill in mathematics by attempting to cast
>> "mathematician" as a dirty word.

>Mathematicians are devoid knowledge of real physics.

No, Stupid Ken, you are devoid of knowledge of real mathematics, as demonstrated
by your inability to calculate the value of (-6)/(-2).  Instead of
acknowledging your total inability to do math, you attack math and physics
instead.  But unfortunately for you, physics requires quite a bit of math.

>> But of course, you're a retired chemical engineer, and everyone knows
>> what retired chemical engineers are like.....

Too many chemical fumes inhaled over the years!

>We use real physical systems to develop our theory.

"We", Stupid Ken? You have a mouse in your pocket?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426959

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> > 
> > It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> > 
> 
> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.

It's very easy to evaluate: trash.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426961

Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 JanPB napsal(a):

> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> > > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our
>> > > universe according to Model Mechanics:
>> > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
>> > 
>> > It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
>> > 
>> > 
>> Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to
>> evaluate my paper.
> 
> It's very easy to evaluate: trash.

to a one which can't read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427033

On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our universe according to Model Mechanics:
> > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015universe.pdf
> > > 
> > > It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.
> > > 
> > 
> > Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to evaluate my paper.
> 
> It’s very easy to evaluate: trash.

ROTFLOL....You have no knowledge of physics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#427068

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 4:38:13 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:57:55 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 5:00:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> > > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 1:47:17 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> > > > The paper in the following link describes the origin of our
>> > > > universe according to Model Mechanics:
>> > > > http://www.modelmechаnics.org/2015universe.pdf

Link is still broken.

>> > > It's 100% gobbledygook. Sorry.

>> > Sorry .....you are a mathematician as such you are not qualified to
>> > evaluate my paper.

You don't need qualifications to "evaluate" whether trash paper is trash 
paper.

>> It’s very easy to evaluate: trash.

>ROTFLOL....You have no knowledge of physics.

She knows infinitely more than you do, Stupid Ken.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web