Unification of Physics
kenseto
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c628e4c$0$39542$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
Thanks for sharing that same old stupid joke:
| (ja)*(ąjb) = Dot product of the directional vectors ja and jb.
| The product of these vectors can be positive or negative.
| A positive product for these vectors represents an attractive
| force and a negative product represents a repulsive force.
| The vector j is a vector in the y-axis direction. The x-axis
| is the line joining the two masses A and B
|
| Note: Assuming the Big Bang model is correct then the dot
| product of the vectors for all local regions of the universe is +1.
| This means that gravity in the local regions is attractive.
| The dot product for far reached region--beyond the radius of
| the observable universe is -1. Therefore, gravity for all those
| far reached regions is repulsive.
You told me to go die in a corner when I asked a few technical
questions about your j-vector and its supposed direction.
Dirk Vdm
Eric Prebys
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c628e4c$0$39542$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> >
>
> Thanks for sharing that same old stupid joke:
>
> | (ja)*(ąjb) = Dot product of the directional vectors ja and jb.
> | The product of these vectors can be positive or negative.
> | A positive product for these vectors represents an attractive
> | force and a negative product represents a repulsive force.
> | The vector j is a vector in the y-axis direction. The x-axis
> | is the line joining the two masses A and B
> |
> | Note: Assuming the Big Bang model is correct then the dot
> | product of the vectors for all local regions of the universe is +1.
> | This means that gravity in the local regions is attractive.
> | The dot product for far reached region--beyond the radius of
> | the observable universe is -1. Therefore, gravity for all those
> | far reached regions is repulsive.
>
You didn't mention that the equation also includes a factor which
is essentially defined as "the ratio between his prediction
and the actual value".
> You told me to go die in a corner when I asked a few technical
> questions about your j-vector and its supposed direction.
>
> Dirk Vdm
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Etherman
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
Congradulations! You managed to unify a Doppler Theory of relativity
(which predicts no Doppler effect) with a theory of gravity (which
doesn't reduce to Newton's theory gravity in any limit) and a theory
of electromagnetism (which disagrees with all observations of
electromagnetism). You've outdone yourself. Really.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TĘ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Dirk Van de moortel
"Etherman" <ether...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ICD88.9395$Gv3.1...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
>
> "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> news:3c628e4c$0$39542$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
> Congradulations! You managed to unify a Doppler Theory of relativity
> (which predicts no Doppler effect) with a theory of gravity (which
> doesn't reduce to Newton's theory gravity in any limit) and a theory
> of electromagnetism (which disagrees with all observations of
> electromagnetism). You've outdone yourself. Really.
But the paper has references: 3 of them. All by Seto.
AND it has been peer-reviewed. Don't forget that ;-)
Like the other stuff in the same directory:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers
For instance, look at the language and the 'Abstract' of:
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Electrontheor.doc
Fun!
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
"Eric Prebys" <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote in message
news:3C62FAED...@fnal.gov...
>
>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > "kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3c628e4c$0$39542$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
> > > A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is at this site:
> > > http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
> > >
> >
> > Thanks for sharing that same old stupid joke:
> >
> > | (ja)*(ąjb) = Dot product of the directional vectors ja and jb.
> > | The product of these vectors can be positive or negative.
> > | A positive product for these vectors represents an attractive
> > | force and a negative product represents a repulsive force.
> > | The vector j is a vector in the y-axis direction. The x-axis
> > | is the line joining the two masses A and B
> > |
> > | Note: Assuming the Big Bang model is correct then the dot
> > | product of the vectors for all local regions of the universe is +1.
> > | This means that gravity in the local regions is attractive.
> > | The dot product for far reached region--beyond the radius of
> > | the observable universe is -1. Therefore, gravity for all those
> > | far reached regions is repulsive.
> >
>
> You didn't mention that the equation also includes a factor which
> is essentially defined as "the ratio between his prediction
> and the actual value".
The Doppler factor included in the Newtonian equation is designed to correct
the deficiency of the Newtonian equation.
>
>
> > You told me to go die in a corner when I asked a few technical
> > questions about your j-vector and its supposed direction.
The vector ja and +/- jb are the direction of absolute motion of A and B in
the y-axis direction. Assuming a modified Big Bang model is coreect--that
the univerase is expanding into pre-existing E-Matrix then jb is positive
within the hemisphere in which A is existing. In other words, jb is positive
if B is within the radius of the observable universe. This means that the
force between A and B is attractive. However, if B is outside the radius of
the observable universe then jb is negative. This means that the force
between A and B is repulsive. That is the reason why astronomers see the far
reach regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c630ee3$0$39530$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Right. And how do you pick your y-axes out of an infinity of
possibilities?
> Assuming a modified Big Bang model is coreect--that
> the univerase is expanding into pre-existing E-Matrix then jb is positive
> within the hemisphere in which A is existing.
Hemisphere?
Huh???
> In other words, jb is positive
> if B is within the radius of the observable universe. This means that the
> force between A and B is attractive. However, if B is outside the radius of
> the observable universe then jb is negative.
Mark: "outside the radius of the *observable* universe."
> This means that the force
> between A and B is repulsive. That is the reason why astronomers see the far
> reach regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion.
Ha, so the astronomers can see "Outside the radius of the
*observable* universe."
Brilliant. I'll take it!
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "Astronomers looking beyond the observable universe"
Dirk Vdm
David Evens
You missed the fact that he also just stated that ja and jb are such
that ja do jb can only be +1 or -1.
kenseto
If B is within the radius of the observable universe then ja*jb is +1 If B
is outside the radius of the observable universe the ja*jb is -1.
>
> > Assuming a modified Big Bang model is coreect--that
> > the univerase is expanding into pre-existing E-Matrix then jb is
positive
> > within the hemisphere in which A is existing.
>
> Hemisphere?
> Huh???
Imagine A is at the north pole of the universe anything at the northern
hemisphere has the same direction of absolute motion as A. In other words,
all jb's at the northern hemisphere of the universe is +1.
>
> > In other words, jb is positive
> > if B is within the radius of the observable universe. This means that
the
> > force between A and B is attractive. However, if B is outside the radius
of
> > the observable universe then jb is negative.
>
> Mark: "outside the radius of the *observable* universe."
Yeah mark "outside the "RADIUS" not the DIAMETER of the observable universe.
>
> > This means that the force
> > between A and B is repulsive. That is the reason why astronomers see the
far
> > reach regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion.
>
> Ha, so the astronomers can see "Outside the radius of the
> *observable* universe."
Now you know why I call you stupid and a RUNT of the SR experts? You can
indeed see "Outside the radius of the observable universe". You can't see
outside the diameter of the observable universe.
Back into the killfile you go.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message news:3c63ebc5$0$39533$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...
Moron. That's not an answer to my question.
> >
> > > Assuming a modified Big Bang model is coreect--that
> > > the univerase is expanding into pre-existing E-Matrix then jb is
> > > positive within the hemisphere in which A is existing.
> >
> > Hemisphere?
> > Huh???
>
> Imagine A is at the north pole of the universe anything at the northern
> hemisphere has the same direction of absolute motion as A. In other words,
> all jb's at the northern hemisphere of the universe is +1.
North pole of the universe?
Northern hemisphere of the universe?
Huh???
> >
> > > In other words, jb is positive
> > > if B is within the radius of the observable universe. This means that
> > > the force between A and B is attractive. However, if B is outside the
> > > radius of the observable universe then jb is negative.
> >
> > Mark: "outside the radius of the *observable* universe."
>
> Yeah mark "outside the "RADIUS" not the DIAMETER of the
> observable universe.
Perhaps we are at the *edge* of the observable universe?
> > > This means that the force
> > > between A and B is repulsive. That is the reason why astronomers
> > > see the far reach regions of the universe is in a state of accelerated
> > > expansion.
> >
> > Ha, so the astronomers can see "Outside the radius of the
> > *observable* universe."
>
> Now you know why I call you stupid and a RUNT of the SR experts?
> You can indeed see "Outside the radius of the observable universe".
> You can't see outside the diameter of the observable universe.
YES! We are effectively at the edge of the observable universe.
I'll take this one too:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Title: "You can't see outside the diameter of the observable universe"
This is getting better all the time ;-)))
> Back into the killfile you go.
I was allegedly in your killfile (twice). Why do you always
allegedly remove and re-insert me?
You're imitating Androcles. That's not original. Shame on you.
>
> Ken Seto
> >
> > Brilliant. I'll take it!
> > http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
> > Title: "Astronomers looking beyond the observable universe"
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
Indeed.