Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #552385 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-11 17:08 -0600 |
| Last post | 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800 |
| Articles | 13 on this page of 173 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 17:08 -0600
Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 15:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:59 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:16 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:40 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:01 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:44 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 09:49 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 08:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 12:47 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 12:46 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:35 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 00:34 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 07:27 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 07:30 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:23 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:46 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Dingus Dirtbag McGee" <insavad@example.com> - 2016-02-16 22:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 03:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 03:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 03:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 04:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 05:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 06:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:11 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:19 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:05 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:03 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:05 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-21 13:35 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 12:57 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-02-21 19:40 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 14:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-22 08:52 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 05:58 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 06:41 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 14:37 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-23 16:55 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:29 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:40 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:49 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:16 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:02 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 01:25 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-14 17:43 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 20:17 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:17 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 10:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:58 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:40 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:03 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:50 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 10:04 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 13:01 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:37 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 00:36 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 07:28 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:42 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:52 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:13 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:00 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 01:22 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:53 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 07:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:44 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:16 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:32 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 14:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:50 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:12 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 17:08 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 01:13 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 03:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:04 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:16 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 12:02 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 12:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:14 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 02:43 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 04:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:09 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:58 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:30 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 16:30 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:28 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 07:39 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 19:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-12 04:33 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-11 22:02 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-11 23:02 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:34 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby's hallucinations rule supreme, unreproachable. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:55 -0500
Better art refines prior art. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 12:19 -0800
Re: Better art refines prior art. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:29 -0600
Re: Better art refines prior art. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 14:37 -0600
Re: Better art refines prior art. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:47 -0800
Re: Better art refines prior art. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 12:56 -0800
Re: Better art refines prior art. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 04:50 -0800
Re: Better art refines prior art. "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:42 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby's hallucinations rule supreme, unreproachable. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-12 13:43 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-12 13:33 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 11:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:29 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2016-02-12 08:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-12 11:37 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2016-02-12 11:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 13:06 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2016-02-12 11:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 11:29 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 13:56 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2016-02-12 12:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 15:00 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2016-02-12 13:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 14:02 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Raymond Yohros <bat@birdband.net> - 2016-02-13 18:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:40 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:01 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-21 22:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 19:56 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 23:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 00:31 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2016-02-13 11:56 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 03:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-02-12 10:54 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-12 07:25 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-02-13 11:47 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 04:54 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 08:30 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:31 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 00:27 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 07:21 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:51 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:54 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:19 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-14 07:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 15:50 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-17 06:45 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:12 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-18 06:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:23 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 11:42 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:28 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-20 11:45 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 13:49 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:34 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-18 06:05 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 06:20 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:24 -0500
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:20 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-19 00:58 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-21 06:04 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-22 02:59 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-22 07:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:39 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-23 05:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-02-22 17:14 +0000
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 19:43 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics xxein1@att.net - 2016-02-21 23:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-22 07:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-22 09:41 -0600
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-02-23 05:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational waves and skeptics xxein1@att.net - 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-19 00:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <na5pbc$gvl$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #554211 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 2/14/16 9:26 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> I enjoy reading about how your theory is so adaptable. For example: >> >> >> 1. The is no time dilation... ITR encompasses SP, therefor there >> is time dilation. >No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation. But you just said that SR is a subset of IRT. That means that IRT agrees with everything SR says, but IRT has more (additional) to say than SR. So if SR is a subset of IRT, then IRT must accept SR's time dilation. Otherwise SR cannot be a subset of IRT because IRT disagrees with SR about something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 06:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7b4fba10-040c-4a73-acdf-a3453ed964e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #554467 |
On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:58:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > >> On 2/14/16 9:26 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> > >> I enjoy reading about how your theory is so adaptable. For example: > >> > >> > >> 1. The is no time dilation... ITR encompasses SP, therefor there > >> is time dilation. > > >No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation. > > But you just said that SR is a subset of IRT. That means that IRT agrees > with everything SR says, but IRT has more (additional) to say than SR. > So if SR is a subset of IRT, then IRT must accept SR's time dilation. > Otherwise SR cannot be a subset of IRT because IRT disagrees with SR > about something. Idiot....time dilation in my theory is due to mechanical clock slowing which ,in turn, is due to the clock second is not a universal interval of time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 02:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nadti2$c70$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #555237 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:58:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation. >> >> But you just said that SR is a subset of IRT. That means that IRT agrees >> with everything SR says, but IRT has more (additional) to say than SR. >> So if SR is a subset of IRT, then IRT must accept SR's time dilation. >> Otherwise SR cannot be a subset of IRT because IRT disagrees with SR >> about something. >Idiot....time dilation in my theory is due to mechanical clock slowing >which ,in turn, is due to the clock second is not a universal interval of >time. Ahh, so SR isn't a subset of IRT after all, since they disagree on this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 07:14 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a32d5155-37bc-4daa-8d30-8a3dfbc0145b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555382 |
On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:59:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 7:58:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >> >No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation. > >> > >> But you just said that SR is a subset of IRT. That means that IRT agrees > >> with everything SR says, but IRT has more (additional) to say than SR. > >> So if SR is a subset of IRT, then IRT must accept SR's time dilation. > >> Otherwise SR cannot be a subset of IRT because IRT disagrees with SR > >> about something. > > >Idiot....time dilation in my theory is due to mechanical clock slowing > >which ,in turn, is due to the clock second is not a universal interval of > >time. > > Ahh, so SR isn't a subset of IRT after all, since they disagree on this. Idiot.....SR is a subset of IRT. SR call clock sowing as time dilation, that's ALL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:39 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <au6dnUYu4pAstlbLnZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555489 |
On 2/22/16 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > Idiot.....SR is a subset of IRT. SR call clock sowing as time dilation, that's ALL. Seto, you are implying that the difference between IRT and Special Relativity is just semantics. Then you must agree that cosmic muons see the distance from the point of their creation, high in the earth's atmosphere, to the earth's surface is foreshortened by a factor of 1/√(1-(v/c)^2), where v is the muon's velocity with respect to the ground. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 05:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1ca29833-6b9c-4cd8-bbd9-0564fbbdeb68@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555498 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:39:34 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/22/16 9:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Idiot.....SR is a subset of IRT. SR call clock sowing as time dilation, that's ALL. > > > Seto, you are implying that the difference between IRT and Special > Relativity is just semantics. > > Then you must agree that cosmic muons see the distance from the point > of their creation, high in the earth's atmosphere, to the earth's > surface is foreshortened by a factor of 1/√(1-(v/c)^2), where v is > the muon's velocity with respect to the ground. > That's not due to time dilation. That's due to the muon life time is increased to gamma*2.2 us. Therefore the distance the muon will travel before decaying is gamma*0.99c*2.2us--meters
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 17:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <naffkq$ur$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #555489 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, February 21, 2016 at 9:59:33 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Ahh, so SR isn't a subset of IRT after all, since they disagree on this. >Idiot.....SR is a subset of IRT. SR call clock sowing as time dilation, >that's ALL. Pick one or the other. You can't have both. a) SR is a subset of IRT because IRT agrees with SR (but has more to offer on topics where SR is silent) b) IRT disagrees with SR on at least one topic so is not a superset of SR. A or B, Ken. You can't have both. A or B.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-18 19:43 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <avadnY0Q66qw7lvLnZ2dnUU7-RWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #554211 |
On 2/18/16 8:05 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 11:34:25 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: >> On 2/14/16 9:26 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> >>> 1. Since the Higgs boson is responsible to impart mass to all particles, that means that the universe should be full of it. Question: Why do we need the accelerator to observe its decay products? >> >>> 2.Gravitational waves: These are waves or distortions in the E-Matrix. No E-Matrix, No gravitational waves, no spacetime fabric, no curved spacetime.....etc. >>> >> >> I enjoy reading about how your theory is so adaptable. For example: >> >> >> 1. The is no time dilation... ITR encompasses SP, therefor there >> is time dilation. > > No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation. > >> >> 2. There is no Higgs Boson... Model Mechanics predicted the Higgs. > > No idiot.....Model Mechanics says that the Higgs boson is just an unstable particle among the infinite number of unstable particles. It got nothing to do with imparting mass to massless particles. >> >> 3. There are no gravity waves... These are waves or distortions in >> the E-Matrix. > > No idiot.....gravity waves exist....they are the waves or distortions in the E-matrix. > Seto, your writing always contradicts itself word-wise. We never see mathematical derivations... well, that's because they don't exist. I keep asking you to reveal what your calculations show for the precession of perihelion for Mercury's orbit. Or even calculate the time dilation of a earth satellite clock as a function of altitude, and you cannot do it. Your "theory" is totally worthless. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-21 23:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <50e51286-7576-429f-81c7-5aab14f366ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #552385 |
On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:08:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites]
>
> A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent
> on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would
> never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according
> to them).
>
> A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent
> on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational
> waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with
> (according to them).
>
> Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established,
> and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence:
> - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by
> the theory
> - that binary pairs of black holes exist
> - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the
> theory
>
> So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they
> respond?
>
> Some possibilities:
> "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but
> what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do
> anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?"
>
> "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory
> doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion
> other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore
> I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity
> are right -- never."
>
> "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely
> that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the
> reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory
> and general relativity are correct."
>
> "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the
> experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there
> was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish
> to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should
> ignore all of them."
>
> "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field
> theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better
> about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if
> the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of
> them."
>
> Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you?
> --
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
xxein: These caught my attention and are just snippets - related or not:
*****
> You STILL have no mechanism.
> Or model.
**
Physicists do. I think you just have a disagreement with physicist over
what "model" means. Model to you means something where you can see the
inner workings moving, cogs and cams and paths of motion of all the
pieces. That's not what a model means to a physicist. A model means a
theory that allows you to calculate predictions of measurable quantities
that can be compared to experiment.
*****
Nope, gravity waves can still be had without gravitons. Kip Thorne has
always believed in gravitons. My preferred theory is that spacetime is
discrete and these are waves within the particulate spacetime.
Yousuf Khan
*****
Planck's constant was an artifice created to get blackbody calculations
to match observation. It was Einstein who actually proposed that
traveling light was comprised of quanta. And to cement that model in, he
took a look at an observation that had nothing to do with waves and in
fact could not be successfully accounted for with waves: the
photoelectric effect. Other observations with the same qualities
followed, like Compton scattering.
So here with gravity, we have an observation that is wholly consistent
with waves and can be accounted for by waves. To show the quantum nature
of gravity, one would have to look for some kind of analog to the
photoelectric effect or Compton effect -- some observation that CANNOT
be accounted for with a wave model.
*****
The Higgs was the last major prediction of the Standard Model that
hadn't been found. And gravitational waves was the last major prediction
of general relativity that hadn't been found. So finding both of these
in one year was a pretty significant advance in fundamental physics.
*****
No idiot.....gravitational waves and light waves exist in the E-Matrix. The E-matrix is a continuous structure. Motions of massive object will cause waves in the E-Matrix.
*****
Ken, does Model Mechanics tell you which of the unstable particles
- should have spin 0, spin 1/2, spin 1, spin 3/2, spin 2?
- should decay into certain end states?
- should have fast decay rates and slow decay rates?
- should have negative, positive, or neutral charge?
The Standard Model does.
*****
Sam Wormley
Feb 18
On 2/18/16 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote:
> ...motion of mass is responsible for gravitational waves
Not motion, but *acceleration* of mass creates waves in the
fabric of spacetime.
The term "Motion" typically refers to rectilinear motion, where
velocity v = dr/dt.
The term "Acceleration" is defined as a = dv/dt
Accelerating mass is responsible for gravitational waves.
*****
>No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation.
But you just said that SR is a subset of IRT. That means that IRT agrees
with everything SR says, but IRT has more (additional) to say than SR.
So if SR is a subset of IRT, then IRT must accept SR's time dilation.
Otherwise SR cannot be a subset of IRT because IRT disagrees with SR
about something.
*****
Yes I said that before.....the E-Matrix has a continuous structure and any two distance massive objects interacting with each other will cause distortions (gravitational waves) in the E-matrix.
*****
I my theory motion of interacting massive objects will cause gravitational waves.
*****
Idiot....time dilation in my theory is due to mechanical clock slowing which ,in turn, is due to the clock second is not a universal interval of time.
*****
It actually also means that both of our major theories of physics, The
Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity are now fully
completely proven, and we have no theories after this that have been
proven yet. So in a sense, we're at that point in time which physicists
of the 19th century thought we were at but were wrong back then: that we
have discovered everything that we have theorized to exist and there is
nothing left for us to discover. Of course, it's not true, we have a lot
more left to discover, except we don't even know where to begin to look
for them yet.
Yousuf Khan
*****
LHC. The Higgs boson was the name given to the hole in the standard model. It was predicted to be spin 0 and massless of a specific energy level. It was hoped and surmised to be the connection (Higgs field perhaps) for the existence of mass and was speculated to have something to do with the illusive cause of gravity also. It did not match the predicted energy level but, what the hell, it was close enough for the sigma cigar because there was no indication of anything else that close to the prediction.
LIGO. Both installations picked up the same event - Hanover Wa. more definitively than Livingston La. It was a nearly simultaneous signal that matched the predicted periodicity of two infalling massive objects - so massive that only BHs could fit because any nearby event would have likely been detected. There was no prior evidence of their existence. That they were gravitational waves was only assumed because of the model prediction. The evidence seemed to match and no other conclusion was seriously even pondered.
---
It seems the facts only tenuously lead to their conclusions. They wanted it all badly and what luck at the proximate temporal discoveries. I see hammers desperately in need of nails.
Seto, in his own mind's eye way, sees a matrix - an E-matrix - which I can only assume is a prevalent energy. I could see it as an energy that pervades an otherwise empty space. Perhaps one manifestation of a dark energy that tries to find equilibrium in an unbounded space. If push came to shove, it would be the free energy imperfectly released from the BB. Equilibrium seeking from a dense state to a continually expanding, unbounded state. Never quite achieving a true equilibrium. The BB (the only one we think of) is not thought of as a typical explosion - but why not? A centrally initiated explosion could blow through outer regions before igniting (?) any large measure of the outer material and could force away some quasi-energetic converted stuff with it. This escape event would be slow to travel compared to the eventual thorough state of conversion and release expansion. I picture it as a heavily bounded explosion of a bound state into an unbounded state - free to expand. A slow and less dense expansion of energy to be overtaken by the rapid high density expansion of energy that follows to die off down to a whimper and then nothing left to force any further expansion. An attempt at equilibrium would cause a backwash back to the initial point and dilute the rapid expansion somewhat. Details up the yin yang but...
Seto has the right idea of time too. To tell you why would eventually lead to forcing me into telling you what gravity is and I'm not ready to do that yet or here. It is quite logical and would not break any physical laws. It would only break physical laws as you think you know them to be. Again - knowing what gravity IS will alter what you think about the constancy of the speed of light and assuredly a few other 'laws' too.
It is no trouble at all for me to think of particulate matter as dense, bound energy lumps that can reveal their wave-like properties. Mass becomes the collective energy momentum of the lump that we know of as inertia. 'We' just don't usually think that way.
In this way of thinking, the Higgs particle or field may just be an energy catalyst for the lumping (bonding) of different energies (mass). Gravitational 'waves' may just be field disturbances that we imagine as wave-like in the classical manner. Closer than not.
Understanding our world should help us from destroying it. That's the least science should do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 07:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <77ced355-448a-4df4-ae7e-8e8fe756e3cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555419 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:35:05 AM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote: > On Thursday, February 11, 2016 at 6:08:20 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > [To Pentcho, John Sefton, Ben Jacoby and other like-minded luddites] > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LHC was a monstrous waste of time because Higgs bosons would > > never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with (according > > to them). > > > > A number of people on this newsgroup have claimed that the money spent > > on the LIGO lab was a monstrous waste of time because gravitational > > waves would never be found because the idea was stillborn to begin with > > (according to them). > > > > Now, of course, the discovery of the Higgs boson is well-established, > > and we now have a clear announcement that confirms observational evidence: > > - that black holes not only exist, but that they merge as predicted by > > the theory > > - that binary pairs of black holes exist > > - that gravitational waves exist, in exactly the manner predicted by the > > theory > > > > So really, I want to see how skeptics splutter about this. How will they > > respond? > > > > Some possibilities: > > "OK, so the Higgs boson and gravitational waves do exist after all, but > > what good are they? Why did we spend all that money if they don't do > > anything to improve the lives of ordinary people?" > > > > "Just because the observations confirm the predictions of the theory > > doesn't prove that those theories are right. There could be a zillion > > other, more ordinary explanations of those observations, and therefore > > I'll never be convinced that quantum field theory and general relativity > > are right -- never." > > > > "All the data are faked. It has to be the case. It's MUCH more likely > > that the whole shebang is a conspiracy of faked results to protect the > > reputations of everyone involved, than it is that quantum field theory > > and general relativity are correct." > > > > "The results should be ignored and should mean nothing, because the > > experiments shouldn't have been done in the first place, because there > > was no believable theoretical motivation to do them. You are all foolish > > to have ever looked for those experimental results, and you should > > ignore all of them." > > > > "OK, I was wrong. The data do in fact exhibit support for quantum field > > theory and general relativity. But this doesn't make me feel any better > > about the theories, because they still seem nonsensical to me. And if > > the theories were really right, then I should be able to make sense of > > them." > > > > Which of these, oh skeptics of modern physics, is you? > > -- > > Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > xxein: These caught my attention and are just snippets - related or not: > > ***** > > You STILL have no mechanism. > > Or model. > ** > Physicists do. I think you just have a disagreement with physicist over > what "model" means. Model to you means something where you can see the > inner workings moving, cogs and cams and paths of motion of all the > pieces. That's not what a model means to a physicist. A model means a > theory that allows you to calculate predictions of measurable quantities > that can be compared to experiment. > ***** > Nope, gravity waves can still be had without gravitons. Kip Thorne has > always believed in gravitons. My preferred theory is that spacetime is > discrete and these are waves within the particulate spacetime. > > Yousuf Khan > ***** > Planck's constant was an artifice created to get blackbody calculations > to match observation. It was Einstein who actually proposed that > traveling light was comprised of quanta. And to cement that model in, he > took a look at an observation that had nothing to do with waves and in > fact could not be successfully accounted for with waves: the > photoelectric effect. Other observations with the same qualities > followed, like Compton scattering. > > So here with gravity, we have an observation that is wholly consistent > with waves and can be accounted for by waves. To show the quantum nature > of gravity, one would have to look for some kind of analog to the > photoelectric effect or Compton effect -- some observation that CANNOT > be accounted for with a wave model. > ***** > The Higgs was the last major prediction of the Standard Model that > hadn't been found. And gravitational waves was the last major prediction > of general relativity that hadn't been found. So finding both of these > in one year was a pretty significant advance in fundamental physics. > ***** > No idiot.....gravitational waves and light waves exist in the E-Matrix. The E-matrix is a continuous structure. Motions of massive object will cause waves in the E-Matrix. > ***** > Ken, does Model Mechanics tell you which of the unstable particles > - should have spin 0, spin 1/2, spin 1, spin 3/2, spin 2? > - should decay into certain end states? > - should have fast decay rates and slow decay rates? > - should have negative, positive, or neutral charge? > > The Standard Model does. > ***** > Sam Wormley > Feb 18 > On 2/18/16 8:38 AM, kenseto wrote: > > ...motion of mass is responsible for gravitational waves > > Not motion, but *acceleration* of mass creates waves in the > fabric of spacetime. > > The term "Motion" typically refers to rectilinear motion, where > velocity v = dr/dt. > > The term "Acceleration" is defined as a = dv/dt > > Accelerating mass is responsible for gravitational waves. > ***** > >No idiot....IRT says that there is no absolute time dilation. > > But you just said that SR is a subset of IRT. That means that IRT agrees > with everything SR says, but IRT has more (additional) to say than SR. > So if SR is a subset of IRT, then IRT must accept SR's time dilation. > Otherwise SR cannot be a subset of IRT because IRT disagrees with SR > about something. > ***** > Yes I said that before.....the E-Matrix has a continuous structure and any two distance massive objects interacting with each other will cause distortions (gravitational waves) in the E-matrix. > ***** > I my theory motion of interacting massive objects will cause gravitational waves. > ***** > Idiot....time dilation in my theory is due to mechanical clock slowing which ,in turn, is due to the clock second is not a universal interval of time. > ***** > It actually also means that both of our major theories of physics, The > Standard Model of Particle Physics and General Relativity are now fully > completely proven, and we have no theories after this that have been > proven yet. So in a sense, we're at that point in time which physicists > of the 19th century thought we were at but were wrong back then: that we > have discovered everything that we have theorized to exist and there is > nothing left for us to discover. Of course, it's not true, we have a lot > more left to discover, except we don't even know where to begin to look > for them yet. > > Yousuf Khan > ***** > > LHC. The Higgs boson was the name given to the hole in the standard model. It was predicted to be spin 0 and massless of a specific energy level. It was hoped and surmised to be the connection (Higgs field perhaps) for the existence of mass and was speculated to have something to do with the illusive cause of gravity also. It did not match the predicted energy level but, what the hell, it was close enough for the sigma cigar because there was no indication of anything else that close to the prediction. > > LIGO. Both installations picked up the same event - Hanover Wa. more definitively than Livingston La. It was a nearly simultaneous signal that matched the predicted periodicity of two infalling massive objects - so massive that only BHs could fit because any nearby event would have likely been detected. There was no prior evidence of their existence. That they were gravitational waves was only assumed because of the model prediction. The evidence seemed to match and no other conclusion was seriously even pondered. > --- > It seems the facts only tenuously lead to their conclusions. They wanted it all badly and what luck at the proximate temporal discoveries. I see hammers desperately in need of nails. > > Seto, in his own mind's eye way, sees a matrix - an E-matrix - which I can only assume is a prevalent energy. The E-Matrix is not a prevalent energy. It is a structured medium occupying space. A description of the E-Matrix is available inn the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf The E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/essayonDTG.pdf >I could see it as an energy that pervades an otherwise empty space. Perhaps one manifestation of a dark energy that tries to find equilibrium in an unbounded space. If push came to shove, it would be the free energy imperfectly released from the BB. Equilibrium seeking from a dense state to a continually expanding, unbounded state. Never quite achieving a true equilibrium. The BB (the only one we think of) is not thought of as a typical explosion - but why not? A centrally initiated explosion could blow through outer regions before igniting (?) any large measure of the outer material and could force away some quasi-energetic converted stuff with it. This escape event would be slow to travel compared to the eventual thorough state of conversion and release expansion. I picture it as a heavily bounded explosion of a bound state into an unbounded state - free to expand. A slow and less dense expansion of energy to be overtaken by the rapid high density expansion of energy that follows to die off down to a whimper and then nothing left to force any further expansion. An attempt at equilibrium would cause a backwash back to the initial point and dilute the rapid expansion somewhat. Details up the yin yang but... > > Seto has the right idea of time too. To tell you why would eventually lead to forcing me into telling you what gravity is and I'm not ready to do that yet or here. It is quite logical and would not break any physical laws. It would only break physical laws as you think you know them to be. Again - knowing what gravity IS will alter what you think about the constancy of the speed of light and assuredly a few other 'laws' too. > > It is no trouble at all for me to think of particulate matter as dense, bound energy lumps that can reveal their wave-like properties. Mass becomes the collective energy momentum of the lump that we know of as inertia. 'We' just don't usually think that way. > > In this way of thinking, the Higgs particle or field may just be an energy catalyst for the lumping (bonding) of different energies (mass). Gravitational 'waves' may just be field disturbances that we imagine as wave-like in the classical manner. Closer than not. > > Understanding our world should help us from destroying it. That's the least science should do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 09:41 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <au6dnUEu4pClsVbLnZ2dnUU7-QWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #555495 |
On 2/22/16 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > The E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/essayonDTG.pdf Unfortunately the "theory" is not mathematically consistent, contradicting itself. It is wrong, and therefor, must be discarded. -- sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related social issues.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-23 05:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bec94609-0968-4a8f-877e-ee5821e455d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555499 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:41:49 AM UTC-5, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 2/22/16 9:32 AM, kenseto wrote: > > The E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/essayonDTG.pdf > > > Unfortunately the "theory" is not mathematically consistent, > contradicting itself. It is wrong, and therefor, must be discarded. Unfortunately you are an idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1@att.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-02-22 15:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1e929be2-585a-4a9f-89e8-786ebd382b69@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #555495 |
On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 10:32:58 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 2:35:05 AM UTC-5, xxe...@att.net wrote:> > > > Seto, in his own mind's eye way, sees a matrix - an E-matrix - which I can only assume is a prevalent energy. > > The E-Matrix is not a prevalent energy. It is a structured medium occupying space. A description of the E-Matrix is available inn the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011unification.pdf > The E-Matrix gives rise to a new theory of gravity in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/essayonDTG.pdf > xxein: Well excuse me. I guess I didn't see the flowers you hung on it.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web