The Physics of Absolute Motion
kenseto
of physics based on the concept of absolute motion. Absolute motion is that
motion of an object in a stationary, structured and elastic light-conducting
medium called the E-Matrix. Also absolute motion is that motion of an object
with respect to the light waves in the E-Matrix. The resulting group of
theories is called Model Mechanics. The main features of Model Mechanics are
as follows:
· It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
· It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
· It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
· It provides a format to unify all the forces of nature.
· It can be validated experimentally.
· It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
· It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity
(DTG).
· It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity
as subsets and it is compatible with Quantum Mechanics.
· It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
· It explains the charge of a particle.
· It explains the weird results of all quantum experiments.
· It explains the structures of atoms.
Selected papers on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005home.pdf
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
Given the fact that the concept of absolute motion (or rest) makes
no sense, I suspect that your "The Physics of Absolute Motion" will
not have one sale.
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:sHdrf.645144$x96.466067@attbi_s72...
Hey wormy ...wrong on both counts.
Traveler
wrote:
> Given the fact that the concept of absolute motion (or rest) makes
> no sense, I suspect that your "The Physics of Absolute Motion" will
> not have one sale.
You are an idiot, Wormley. And an inveterate (genetically predisposed)
ass kisser to boot. ahahaha... Stop kissing ass. The noxious fumes are
impairing your ability to think straight. ahahaha...
Simple Proof That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
there are only two bodies or a billion.
Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
Excerpted from More Nasty Little Truths About Physics:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm
Phsycs is so much phucking phun. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Cosas/Reliability.htm
Sam Wormley
Hey Ken, thanks for registering at crank dot net
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+site%3Awww.crank.net
Sepp
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Traveler wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:20:56 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Given the fact that the concept of absolute motion (or rest) makes
> > no sense, I suspect that your "The Physics of Absolute Motion" will
> > not have one sale.
>
> You are an idiot, Wormley. And an inveterate (genetically predisposed)
> ass kisser to boot. ahahaha... Stop kissing ass. The noxious fumes are
> impairing your ability to think straight. ahahaha...
>
> Simple Proof That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
> If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
> in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
> suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
> body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
> the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
> ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
> there are only two bodies or a billion.
Who can make a position measurement relative to something invisible
(absolute)? We use what we have available to use.
>
> Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
> as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
> by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
> of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
What's silly about comparing something to itself when it is in a set
with a relation defined on it? There is nothing inherent in it that is
relativistic, either.
This is simple, mundane stuff in Euclidean geometry. By this fact one
can show that congruence of lengths, for example, is an equivalence
relation by showing that congruence is reflexive, symmetric, and
transitive. Are you going to tell us that the length of a rod is not
equal to its length. BTW, it's also how one shows that equality is an
equivalence relation on the real numbers.
Sam Wormley
> please name a scientist never been a crank
>
Are you implying that Seto is a scientist?
Perspicacious
> ... a new theory of physics based on the concept of
> absolute motion.
You don't have a theory of absolute motion unless you
can tell us, with equations, how events transform from
an absolute frame of reference to a moving frame.
Eugene Shubert has the clearest set of axioms for
understanding absolute motion:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
It's helpful of course to understand ordinary SR:
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1100
Traveler
>
>Traveler wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:20:56 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Given the fact that the concept of absolute motion (or rest) makes
>> > no sense, I suspect that your "The Physics of Absolute Motion" will
>> > not have one sale.
>>
>> You are an idiot, Wormley. And an inveterate (genetically predisposed)
>> ass kisser to boot. ahahaha... Stop kissing ass. The noxious fumes are
>> impairing your ability to think straight. ahahaha...
>>
>> Simple Proof That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
>> If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
>> in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
>> suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
>> body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
>> the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
>> ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
>> there are only two bodies or a billion.
>
>Who can make a position measurement relative to something invisible
>(absolute)? We use what we have available to use.
Reality does not have a fucking to do with what you can measure.
Particles could not give a rat's ass about FORs. We need to understand
nature from nature's POV. Not ours.
>> Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
>> as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
>> by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
>> of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
>
>What's silly about comparing something to itself when it is in a set
>with a relation defined on it? There is nothing inherent in it that is
>relativistic, either.
>
>This is simple, mundane stuff in Euclidean geometry. By this fact one
>can show that congruence of lengths, for example, is an equivalence
>relation by showing that congruence is reflexive, symmetric, and
>transitive. Are you going to tell us that the length of a rod is not
>equal to its length. BTW, it's also how one shows that equality is an
>equivalence relation on the real numbers.
You're a fucking ass kisser and, like Samantha Wormley, Dick van de
merde and the others, you're stupid as fuck. ahahaha... I suggest you
go to the nearest meat market and buy yourself a backbone. And while
you're at it, get yourself a couple of neurons to replace the two you
got between your ears. They have atrophied from lack of use.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Physics is so much phucking phun. ahahaha...
Sam Wormley
Crackpot Shubert is contradicted by SR! Check his posting record at
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3AInnocent
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=group%3Asci.physics+author%3APerspicacious
Traveler
wrote:
>Sepp wrote:
>> please name a scientist never been a crank
>>
>
> Are you implying that Seto is a scientist?
ahahaha... No. He's implying that you're an ass kisser, which is much
worse than being a crank or a scientist. ahahaha...
Come to think of it. I got an idea to create a new web list, sort of
like an ass kissers hall of fame. ahahaha... You will be way at the
bottom, Samantha. You're just a lowly stinking worm, after all.
ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Traveler wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2005 09:03:32 -0800, surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Traveler wrote:
> >> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:20:56 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Given the fact that the concept of absolute motion (or rest) makes
> >> > no sense, I suspect that your "The Physics of Absolute Motion" will
> >> > not have one sale.
> >>
> >> You are an idiot, Wormley. And an inveterate (genetically predisposed)
> >> ass kisser to boot. ahahaha... Stop kissing ass. The noxious fumes are
> >> impairing your ability to think straight. ahahaha...
> >>
> >> Simple Proof That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
> >> If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
> >> in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
> >> suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
> >> body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
> >> the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
> >> ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
> >> there are only two bodies or a billion.
> >
> >Who can make a position measurement relative to something invisible
> >(absolute)? We use what we have available to use.
>
> Reality does not have a fucking to do with what you can measure.
In physics, it's pointless to talk about position unless it can be
measured. I'm not interested in reality as such. But physics is
interested in theories that make predictions of the behavior of the
observable realm. To test those theories one makes measurements. So,
measurements are in physics.
> Particles could not give a rat's ass about FORs.
I agree!
> We need to understand nature from nature's POV. Not ours.
Okay. So 1) what is Nature's point of view, and 2) how can we use that
point of view to invent testable theories?
>
> >> Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
> >> as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
> >> by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
> >> of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
> >
> >What's silly about comparing something to itself when it is in a set
> >with a relation defined on it? There is nothing inherent in it that is
> >relativistic, either.
> >
> >This is simple, mundane stuff in Euclidean geometry. By this fact one
> >can show that congruence of lengths, for example, is an equivalence
> >relation by showing that congruence is reflexive, symmetric, and
> >transitive. Are you going to tell us that the length of a rod is not
> >equal to its length. BTW, it's also how one shows that equality is an
> >equivalence relation on the real numbers.
>
> You're a fucking ass kisser and, like Samantha Wormley,
I had a feeling you didn't even know about an equivalence relation.
Cause if you had, you wouldn't have been showing off your ignorance by
making a big deal over nothing at all (i.e., the reflexive property).
Let R be a binary relation defined on a set S with at least three
elements in it. Let x,y,z be any three elements of S. Then R is said to
be an equivalence relation on S if the following three conditions hold
for all x,y,z in S:
1) xRx (reflexive property)
2) xRy -> yRx (symmetric property)
3) xRy and yRz -> xRz. (transitive property)
Example: Equality on the reals is an equivalence relation. Proof: For
all x in the reals, x = x. For all x,y in the reals, x = y -> y = x.
And for all x,y,z in the reals, x = y and y = z -> x = z.
Traveler
Whose physics? Not mine. I'm not a fucking ass kisser.
> I'm not interested in reality as such.
I know. Ass kissers have no interest in understanding reality. They
just want to kiss ass.
> But physics is
>interested in theories that make predictions of the behavior of the
>observable realm. To test those theories one makes measurements. So,
>measurements are in physics.
Look, asshole. My fucking dog has a theory that makes perfect
predictions. She can predict that, whenever I start opening the can of
dog food with the can opnener, there will be food in her place soon
afterwards. So far, all experiments have proven her theory correct.
Big fucking deal!
>> Particles could not give a rat's ass about FORs.
>
>I agree!
>
>> We need to understand nature from nature's POV. Not ours.
>
>Okay. So 1) what is Nature's point of view, and 2) how can we use that
>point of view to invent testable theories?
Nature's POV is the particle's POV. We need to put ourselves in the
particle's place. We need to ask, why do I move? Why must I move? Why
do I fall? IOW, we need to ask why-type questions. We need to BE the
fucking particle to explain its behavior. I'm fucking tired and bored
to death of answers to how-type questions. I already know that things
fall, goddamnit! I need a theory that explains why. If you can't come
up with such a theory or if you refuse or are not interested, you
might as well be sucking the hind tit of a fucking mule. ahahaha...
Why? Because your theory is not fit to wipe your ass with.
>> >> Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
>> >> as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
>> >> by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
>> >> of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
>> >
>> >What's silly about comparing something to itself when it is in a set
>> >with a relation defined on it? There is nothing inherent in it that is
>> >relativistic, either.
>> >
>> >This is simple, mundane stuff in Euclidean geometry. By this fact one
>> >can show that congruence of lengths, for example, is an equivalence
>> >relation by showing that congruence is reflexive, symmetric, and
>> >transitive. Are you going to tell us that the length of a rod is not
>> >equal to its length. BTW, it's also how one shows that equality is an
>> >equivalence relation on the real numbers.
>>
>> You're a fucking ass kisser and, like Samantha Wormley,
>
>I had a feeling you didn't even know about an equivalence relation.
>Cause if you had, you wouldn't have been showing off your ignorance by
>making a big deal over nothing at all (i.e., the reflexive property).
I was right. You ARE stupid as fuck. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
kenseto
"Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135450431.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> kenseto wrote:
> > ... a new theory of physics based on the concept of
> > absolute motion.
>
> You don't have a theory of absolute motion unless you
> can tell us, with equations, how events transform from
> an absolute frame of reference to a moving frame.
Hey idiot why don't you read IRT before you shoot you fucking mouth off????
Ken Seto
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Traveler wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2005 11:49:19 -0800, surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
...
> >> >> Simple Proof That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
> >> >> If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
> >> >> in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
> >> >> suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
> >> >> body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
> >> >> the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
> >> >> ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
> >> >> there are only two bodies or a billion.
> >> >
> >> >Who can make a position measurement relative to something invisible
> >> >(absolute)? We use what we have available to use.
> >>
> >> Reality does not have a fucking to do with what you can measure.
> >
> >In physics, it's pointless to talk about position unless it can be
> >measured.
>
> Whose physics? Not mine. I'm not a fucking ass kisser.
Apparently you are.
>
> > I'm not interested in reality as such.
>
> I know. Ass kissers have no interest in understanding reality. They
> just want to kiss ass.
>
> > But physics is
> >interested in theories that make predictions of the behavior of the
> >observable realm. To test those theories one makes measurements. So,
> >measurements are in physics.
>
> Look, asshole. My fucking dog has a theory that makes perfect
> predictions. She can predict that, whenever I start opening the can of
> dog food with the can opnener, there will be food in her place soon
> afterwards. So far, all experiments have proven her theory correct.
> Big fucking deal!
Apparently you think you have a theory of mind -- dog mind, anyway, so
that you can presume to speak for a dog's thoughts. It's your theory of
dog mind that explains to you what you observe. What you don't get is
that the answer to a why question is a theory.
>
> >> Particles could not give a rat's ass about FORs.
> >
> >I agree!
> >
> >> We need to understand nature from nature's POV. Not ours.
> >
> >Okay. So 1) what is Nature's point of view, and 2) how can we use that
> >point of view to invent testable theories?
>
> Nature's POV is the particle's POV. We need to put ourselves in the
> particle's place. We need to ask, why do I move? Why must I move?
Motion is a frame-dependent concept. In the particle's rest frame it
does not move. So, it seems that your particle does give a rat's ass
about FoR issues.
> Why
> do I fall? IOW, we need to ask why-type questions. We need to BE the
> fucking particle to explain its behavior. I'm fucking tired and bored
> to death of answers to how-type questions.
Every theory explains why. Maybe you just don't like their answers.
> I already know that things
> fall, goddamnit! I need a theory that explains why.
What's wrong with the theories already out there that explain why
"things fall"?
I also asked you, "how can we use that point of view to invent testable
theories?" You didn't reply to that question. Is your "physics" all
kiss-ass philosophy or does it actually make predictions testable by
measurements?
The Ghost In The Machine
<swor...@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:20:56 GMT
<sHdrf.645144$x96.466067@attbi_s72>:
Actually, the concept in general makes perfect sense.
It's been widely disproven, of course (MMX in particular
is a very good indication that an absolute coordinate
system is hokum), but it does allow at least for testable
predictions, assuming sufficient knowledge of one's
own absolute motion with respect to the presumed rigid
luminiferous aether -- and even if one doesn't know one's
absolute motion, one can still make some predictions by
allowing the experiment to run for a sufficiently long
period (e.g., 6 months will introduce a variation of
about 2 * 10^-4 c in any such theory I can think of,
because of the Earth's revolution about the Sun, and
a 12-hour duration will introduce a variation of about
3.10 * 10^-6 c on the equator, and 2.09 * 10^-6 c at
latitude 45 degrees).
So "absolute aether" was a workable, if wrong, hypothesis.
Ditto for "relative aether", albeit for different reasons
(such as Sagnac).
I wish I could say the same for "Model Mechanics".
The best prediction I've seen there is that T_ab > 0, but
that doesn't tell me whether T_ab is a few femtoseconds,
a few seconds, or a few centuries. Given the experiment
as described, it's probably a lot closer to 0 than a few
centuries, of course -- assuming the many issues of precision
are sufficiently well dealt with.
(AFAICT, standard SR predicts T_ab = 0 in Kenseto's experiment.)
As for weird QM results -- I'll agree that they are weird. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
kenseto
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:n4q083-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> Ditto for "relative aether", albeit for different reasons
> (such as Sagnac).
>
> I wish I could say the same for "Model Mechanics".
> The best prediction I've seen there is that T_ab > 0, but
> that doesn't tell me whether T_ab is a few femtoseconds,
> a few seconds, or a few centuries. Given the experiment
> as described, it's probably a lot closer to 0 than a few
> centuries, of course -- assuming the many issues of precision
> are sufficiently well dealt with.
You are absolutely an iodiot....How many time I explained to you that you
can't predict Tab unless you know the state of absolute motion????
>
> (AFAICT, standard SR predicts T_ab = 0 in Kenseto's experiment.)
Standard SRT is incomplete that's why it predicts Tab=0. Doing the
experiment will refute the SRT prediction......idiot.
Ken Seto
Traveler
>I also asked you, "how can we use that point of view to invent testable
>theories?" You didn't reply to that question.
Fuck you. You don't deserve an answer. May Santa bring you lots of
asses to kiss. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Mike
Traveler wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 15:20:56 GMT, Sam Wormley <swor...@mchsi.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Given the fact that the concept of absolute motion (or rest) makes
> > no sense, I suspect that your "The Physics of Absolute Motion" will
> > not have one sale.
>
> You are an idiot, Wormley. And an inveterate (genetically predisposed)
> ass kisser to boot. ahahaha... Stop kissing ass. The noxious fumes are
> impairing your ability to think straight. ahahaha...
You are both idiots.
>
> Simple Proof That Exclusive Relativity Is Bogus
> If all positions are relative, then we have a self-referential system
> in which every position is ultimately relative to itself. For example,
> suppose we have a two-body universe. Body A's position is relative to
> body B's position and vice versa. Since both positions are relative to
> the other and there are no other bodies, each body's position is
> ultimately relative to itself. Of course, it does not matter whether
> there are only two bodies or a billion.
Idiot, relational space(time) is empirically well-founded. The problem
with it is NOT what you think. It is when you attempt to have a
complete dynamical description of relational spacetime that you
inevertably endup with the need of an absolute reference.
But this is above your cranked head.
>
> Exclusive relativity amounts to saying things like, "you are as tall
> as you are" or "this sound is as loud as itself" or "pick yourself up
> by your own bootstraps." Of course this is silly but this is the sort
> of silliness we have to believe in if we accept exclusive relativity.
>
You are the idiot you are. Learn the value of tautologies stupid. You
and wormhead are competing for the royal crown of stupidity.
Mike
Traveler
[crap]
>Mike
ahahaha... Mikey got cranked up real bad. Pack it up your ass, Mikey.
ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...
Mike
It seems your dog is smarter than you. But look idiot, no predictions
are involved here. Only pattern recognition. The dog cannot predict
action outside of the realm of known patterns. Try opening the can with
a axe. The dog will run away scared even though the can is
opened....hahahahahahahaha
You are such an idiot. I pronounce you the biggest idiot ever in
sci.physics.
Mike
Perspicacious
Why should anyone pay to see your gross incompetence in
high school level mathematics?
You have already revealed yourself to be mathematically
illiterate on other threads. That can be seen for free.
Traveler
>You are such an idiot. I pronounce you the biggest idiot ever in
>sci.physics.
ahahaha... Mikey is cranked, alright. ahahaha...
MM
>On 24 Dec 2005 18:34:30 -0800, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>>You are such an idiot. I pronounce you the biggest idiot ever in
>>sci.physics.
>
>ahahaha... Mikey is cranked, alright. ahahaha...
>Louis Savain
>
>Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
Stop requiring 800 x 600
http://www.telewest.co.uk/teleport/teleport_microsite_v02.html
The Ghost In The Machine
<mi...@moomoo.com>
wrote
on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:34:35 -0500
<2j4sq1pearhrd3oug...@4ax.com>:
Indeed. He should require 1600 x 1200, except for those devices
which are known to be mobile phones, in which case he'll probably
have to redirect to a completely different Webpage... :-)
It gets complicated, nowadays.
As far as his theory goes...I'm curious as to precisely how many
phase-shifts his particle probabilistic jumping theory will
require for the MMX, given the distance from the central
half-mirror to the side mirrors, the velocity of light,
and the motion of the device through the particle lattice, if
such be of any importance to his theory.
(There is also the issue of precisely what the lattice is.
Is it cubic? bicubic? Face-centric? Any one of a number
of other forms familiar to those knowing crystallography?
What are the inter-node distances in this lattice? Is the
lattice affected by the positions of the atoms therein somehow?)
surrealis...@hotmail.com
Traveler wrote:
> On 24 Dec 2005 13:45:17 -0800, surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >I also asked you, "how can we use that point of view to invent testable
> >theories?" You didn't reply to that question.
>
> Fuck you. You don't deserve an answer. May Santa bring you lots of
> asses to kiss. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
I personally do not deserve an answer, but the question deserves an
answer.
Traveler
True but I don't feel like it right now. Maybe, I'll get back to the
subject sometime in 2006, if I'm so inclined. ahahaha...
Al Zenner
news:m19tq11s9fm6afsa8...@4ax.com:
> On 24 Dec 2005 21:29:47 -0800, surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>Traveler wrote:
>>> On 24 Dec 2005 13:45:17 -0800, surrealis...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >I also asked you, "how can we use that point of view to invent
>>> >testable theories?" You didn't reply to that question.
>>> Fuck you. You don't deserve an answer. May Santa bring you lots of
>>> asses to kiss. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
>>I personally do not deserve an answer, but the question deserves an
>>answer.
> True but I don't feel like it right now. Maybe, I'll get back to the
> subject sometime in 2006, if I'm so inclined. ahahaha...
You are unable to answer, there's no matter of personal choice involved.
How come you've cranked yourself so tight?
Traveler
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics.relativity, MM
><mi...@moomoo.com>
> wrote
>on Sat, 24 Dec 2005 22:34:35 -0500
><2j4sq1pearhrd3oug...@4ax.com>:
>> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 Traveler <trav...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 24 Dec 2005 18:34:30 -0800, "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote:
>>>>You are such an idiot. I pronounce you the biggest idiot ever in
>>>>sci.physics.
>>>
>>>ahahaha... Mikey is cranked, alright. ahahaha...
>>>Louis Savain
>>>
>>>Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
>>
>> Stop requiring 800 x 600
>>
>> http://www.telewest.co.uk/teleport/teleport_microsite_v02.html
>>
>
>Indeed. He should require 1600 x 1200, except for those devices
>which are known to be mobile phones, in which case he'll probably
>have to redirect to a completely different Webpage... :-)
Hum. I've never had a complaint until now. And I'm not sure how one
goes about requiring 1600 x 1200 and why it matters.
>It gets complicated, nowadays.
Most web surfers have desktops and laptops. That's the primary target
audience.
>As far as his theory goes...I'm curious as to precisely how many
>phase-shifts his particle probabilistic jumping theory will
>require for the MMX, given the distance from the central
>half-mirror to the side mirrors, the velocity of light,
>and the motion of the device through the particle lattice, if
>such be of any importance to his theory.
You're a real nerd aren't you, Ghost? A touch of autism, maybe? I have
no problem with the MMX results. I have a problem with the various
interpretations.
>(There is also the issue of precisely what the lattice is.
The lattice itself is abstract. It does not exist. It's the particles
that are real. Position (a set of 4 coordinate properties) is discrete
and is an intrinsic property of every particle. The lattice is made of
photons.
>Is it cubic? bicubic? Face-centric? Any one of a number
>of other forms familiar to those knowing crystallography?
It's a simple cubic lattice, except that it's 4-D instead of 3-D and
there is a huge number of photons at every discrete point of the
lattice. The photons range from the lowest possible energy level
(Planck energy) to a very high maximum level. At this time, I have no
idea what this maximum level is. Suffice it to say that it must be at
least as energetic as the most massive particle in the observable
universe.
In addition, there are also four types of photons at every point. One
is responsible for electric interactions and the other three mediate
magnetic interactions. The photons are initialy at rest until they
interact with some particle. At that point, they are caused tomove in
the lattice at c. Also, all observable particles have equal 4th
coordinates and are moving at c in the fourth dimension, a dimension
being a degree of freedom. There is a reason for this but that's
another story for another time and place.
>What are the inter-node distances in this lattice?
It's a very small distance, possibly the Planck length, although I
doubt it. I haven't derived the exact metric value yet. The important
thing to grasp here is that length/distance is abstract, i.e., it does
not exist physically. Only the positional properties exist physically.
Also, it's all discrete there is no in-between positions.
> Is the
>lattice affected by the positions of the atoms therein somehow?)
No. The lattice is an abtract and highly regular collection of
particles arranged as a 4-D structure, i.e., every particle has four
coordinate properties. Like everything else, it is a finite structure.
It does not go forver. It is not like the spacetime of GR (a lousy
idea, IMO) which can be curved. In the physical universe, there exist
only particles, their properties and their interactions. Everything
else is either abstract or crap.
In order to understand my hypothesis, onemust first understand that it
postulates that no particle can move unless it interacts with another.
It's a huge cellular automata. Two particles may interact if they have
equal position.
PS. Happy new year to all, even the ass kissers. ahahahaha....
Louis Savain
Why Software Is Bad and What We Can Do to Fix It:
Traveler
Whatever. ahahaha...
ken...@erinet.com
Perspicacious
> Fucking idiot.
You expect people to pay money for drivel and
demonstrate the extent of your ignorance in your
advertising. You obviously haven't made a dime.
The Ghost In The Machine
<iperspi...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 24 Dec 2005 10:53:51 -0800
<1135450431.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> kenseto wrote:
>> ... a new theory of physics based on the concept of
>> absolute motion.
>
> You don't have a theory of absolute motion unless you
> can tell us, with equations, how events transform from
> an absolute frame of reference to a moving frame.
I for one would be satisfied with a function describing
the expected results of his experiment given an abstract
velocity v in the absolute aether -- ideally, a vector, but
a scalar along the direction of motion would be fine for now.
(No, expressing the result in terms of two undefined
variables such as Faa/Fab does *not* count.)
[rest snipped]
kenseto
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:l0g383-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In sci.physics.relativity, Perspicacious
> <iperspi...@yahoo.com>
> wrote
> on 24 Dec 2005 10:53:51 -0800
> <1135450431.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> > kenseto wrote:
> >> ... a new theory of physics based on the concept of
> >> absolute motion.
> >
> > You don't have a theory of absolute motion unless you
> > can tell us, with equations, how events transform from
> > an absolute frame of reference to a moving frame.
Hey idiot....no observer is at rest in the absolute frame. The IRT transform
equations assumes that the observer is in a state of absolute motion. That's
why any observer will have two set of transform equation. One set based on
the assumption that the observed frame has a lower state of absolute motion
than the observer and another set based on the assumoption that the observed
frame has a higher state of absolute motion than the observer.
>
> I for one would be satisfied with a function describing
> the expected results of his experiment given an abstract
> velocity v in the absolute aether -- ideally, a vector, but
> a scalar along the direction of motion would be fine for now.
>
> (No, expressing the result in terms of two undefined
> variables such as Faa/Fab does *not* count.)
Sigh....it's equation 15 or 16 in my experiment. All you need to do is solve
for Tab.
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<ken...@erinet.com>
wrote
on Mon, 26 Dec 2005 02:42:55 GMT
<PMIrf.238462$tD4....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
The link I have handy is
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
which at most has a step 9.
kenseto
I don't know what you are talking about. In any case the Tab can be
estimated roughly as follows:
Distance between A and B=x
Delta Tab=x/c=x/Faa*lambda
Ken Seto
NaCl
Sam Wormley wrote:
> Sepp wrote:
> > please name a scientist never been a crank
> >
>
> Are you implying that Seto is a scientist?
was the cleaning lady in a patent office a scientist or become a
scientist?
kenseto
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:8Sfrf.645423$x96.271009@attbi_s72...
> Sepp wrote:
> > please name a scientist never been a crank
> >
>
> Are you implying that Seto is a scientist?
Wormy is a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Sam Wormley
Are you implying that Seto is a cleaning lady?
The Ghost In The Machine
<oYSrf.238482$tD4.1...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
Interesting. This is *after* the clocks are synchronized, though.
Bleah. Now I"ll have to rephrase my question; it turns out there
*is* no Tab therein. But there are Delta-T'1 through Delta-T'10,
and an Equation 15:
V_50 = D_50 / (2 * Delta-T'1).
where D_50 is the critical aperature, V_50 is the absolute velocity,
and Delta-T'1 is the difference in activation times between the
clockpairs.
(I need lots more coffee.)
With constant V_50, one gets the rather interesting result that the
critical diameter is proportional to the activation time difference.
This is neither consistent with SR (which predicts Delta-T'n to be
zero, as the experiment states) nor with the experimental statement
that the critical diameter is the largest such diameter showing
a difference (since the larger the diameter, the *larger* the difference).
>
> Ken Seto
kenseto
There is no clock synchronization involved.
>
> Bleah. Now I"ll have to rephrase my question; it turns out there
> *is* no Tab therein. But there are Delta-T'1 through Delta-T'10,
> and an Equation 15:
Sigh...how can there be Delta-T'1 throuh Delta-T'10 if there is no Tab???
>
> V_50 = D_50 / (2 * Delta-T'1).
>
> where D_50 is the critical aperature, V_50 is the absolute velocity,
> and Delta-T'1 is the difference in activation times between the
> clockpairs.
NO....D_50 is the diameter of the detecting surface where there is no
difference in activation time between clock A1 and B1.
>
> (I need lots more coffee.)
>
> With constant V_50, one gets the rather interesting result that the
> critical diameter is proportional to the activation time difference.
> This is neither consistent with SR (which predicts Delta-T'n to be
> zero, as the experiment states) nor with the experimental statement
> that the critical diameter is the largest such diameter showing
> a difference (since the larger the diameter, the *larger* the difference).
Sigh....the larger the diameter the smaller the Delta-T'n. At the critical
diameter and beyond the Delta-Tn = 0.
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<oBWrf.229615$Hs....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>:
Don't give me that. The clocks must be synchronized prior to
movement outward from the center of the experiment. See step 9
in your own paper.
>>
>> Bleah. Now I"ll have to rephrase my question; it turns out there
>> *is* no Tab therein. But there are Delta-T'1 through Delta-T'10,
>> and an Equation 15:
>
> Sigh...how can there be Delta-T'1 throuh Delta-T'10 if there is no Tab???
Well, the reference PDF includes no Tab. My bad.
>>
>> V_50 = D_50 / (2 * Delta-T'1).
>>
>> where D_50 is the critical aperature, V_50 is the absolute velocity,
>> and Delta-T'1 is the difference in activation times between the
>> clockpairs.
>
> NO....D_50 is the diameter of the detecting surface where there is no
> difference in activation time between clock A1 and B1.
>>
>> (I need lots more coffee.)
>>
>> With constant V_50, one gets the rather interesting result that the
>> critical diameter is proportional to the activation time difference.
>> This is neither consistent with SR (which predicts Delta-T'n to be
>> zero, as the experiment states) nor with the experimental statement
>> that the critical diameter is the largest such diameter showing
>> a difference (since the larger the diameter, the *larger* the difference).
>
> Sigh....the larger the diameter the smaller the Delta-T'n. At the critical
> diameter and beyond the Delta-Tn = 0.
Then your equation should be something along the lines of
V_50 = K * D_50 * (Delta-T'1)
where K is some constant. That way, the bigger the aperature, the
smaller the correction required to get the same absolute velocity.
Of course one can use other forms such as
V_50 = K * D_50 * exp(Delta-T'1)
if one prefers.
kenseto
Sigh...clocks A1 and B1 are not running so how do you synchronize nor
running clocks???? Perhaps you mean clocks A2 and B2. These clcoks are
synchronized and are designed to detect OWLS and TWLS.
>
> >>
> >> Bleah. Now I"ll have to rephrase my question; it turns out there
> >> *is* no Tab therein. But there are Delta-T'1 through Delta-T'10,
> >> and an Equation 15:
> >
> > Sigh...how can there be Delta-T'1 throuh Delta-T'10 if there is no
Tab???
>
> Well, the reference PDF includes no Tab. My bad.
Tab is the difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1 for any
trial. Delta-t'1=Tab.
>
> >>
> >> V_50 = D_50 / (2 * Delta-T'1).
> >>
> >> where D_50 is the critical aperature, V_50 is the absolute velocity,
> >> and Delta-T'1 is the difference in activation times between the
> >> clockpairs.
> >
> > NO....D_50 is the diameter of the detecting surface where there is no
> > difference in activation time between clock A1 and B1.
> >>
> >> (I need lots more coffee.)
> >>
> >> With constant V_50, one gets the rather interesting result that the
> >> critical diameter is proportional to the activation time difference.
> >> This is neither consistent with SR (which predicts Delta-T'n to be
> >> zero, as the experiment states) nor with the experimental statement
> >> that the critical diameter is the largest such diameter showing
> >> a difference (since the larger the diameter, the *larger* the
difference).
> >
> > Sigh....the larger the diameter the smaller the Delta-T'n. At the
critical
> > diameter and beyond the Delta-Tn = 0.
>
> Then your equation should be something along the lines of
>
> V_50 = K * D_50 * (Delta-T'1)
>
> where K is some constant. That way, the bigger the aperature, the
> smaller the correction required to get the same absolute velocity.
Sigh....it is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no K involved. D_50 is the distance the detector moved due to
absolute motion in time Delta-T'1. Therefore the absolute motion of the
detector is D_50/(Delta-T'1)
>
> Of course one can use other forms such as
>
> V_50 = K * D_50 * exp(Delta-T'1)
>
> if one prefers.
Idiot.