New Gravity Theory

[kenseto]

The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:

>http://www.mОdelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

Dear Mr. Seto,

New User here. I wish to read your excellent theory of DTG but your
link doesn't work. Please advise.

[Python]

Le 10/04/2017 à 15:07, kenseto a écrit :
> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
>

> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕2015gravity.pdf

The link does not work Mr Seto.

[kenseto]

Moron, you changed the link address. The correct link in my post that started this thread is as follows:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

Gee you are so fucking stupid no wonder your name is Moron-y

[kenseto]

Idiot, you changed the link address. The correct link in my post that started this thread is as follows:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>> New User here. I wish to read your excellent theory of DTG but your
>> link doesn't work. Please advise.

>Moron, you changed the link address. The correct link in my post that start>ed this thread is as follows:
>http://www.modelmechаnics.org/2015gravity.pdf

Dear Mr. Seto,

Please help me as I am a new user. Your link still doesn't work.
Can you please help me?

[JanPB]

It's junk. You are wasting your life away.

--
Jan

[David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller]

It says 2015.... that is not "New"
That is almost 3 years old

I tried the link, it worked fine, but I got a "Deceptive Site Ahead" browser warning.

[kenseto]

It is new because it is not the current accepted GRT for gravity.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Jan #1

[kenseto]

You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.

[Gary Harnagel]

Of course he's qualified. Don't be a stupe.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Of course he is. He knows that syntax schmyntax.

[kenseto]

You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a moving Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds after a journey. HeHeHe....

[Gary Harnagel]

Hmmm, don't seem to recall ever saying that, although it's obviously true.
After all, this was aptly demonstrated by Hafele and keating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_and_gravitational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests

It appears that you are STILL the stupe.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 11 kwietnia 2017 20:35:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:

> > You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a moving
> > Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds after a journey.
>
> Hmmm, don't seem to recall ever saying that, although it's obviously true.

Of course, under the condition, that clocks
won't be unreal, like these from GPS satellite.
Right, poor idiot?

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a
>moving Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds
>after a journey. HeHeHe....

Stupid Ken, don't you know that observation always trumps theory?
In other words, if you say the two clocks don't run at different
rates, yet experimental observation shows that they do run at
different rates, guess who is wrong?

[JanPB]

Really? You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what
you wrote above is not just talk? (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified
to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.)

So here is a simple test question from classical mechanics: consider the following
Lagrangian in 2D variables x and y:

L(x, y, xdot, ydot, t) = f(x, y, t) * sqrt(1 + xdot^2 + ydot^2)

...where f is an arbitrary smooth function. Your task is to write down the corresponding
Hamiltonian.

(NOTE: this Lagrangian is used in optics and specifically in lens design, with the "t" variable
set to the length along the lens optical axis, and with f equal to the refraction index.
When one writes down the corresponding Hamiltonian (this is your assignment for today),
expanding it into a power series yields lens aberrations of various orders, e.g. there
are 5 third-order terms, they are known well enough to have specific names: coma, spherical
aberration, astigmatism, distortion, and field curvature. There are 9 fifth order terms
(they have no specific names really), etc. Modern computer lens optimisation software
typically goes to 11th or 13th order AFAIK. As a bonus exercise, you might consider
proving that the Hamiltonian has only odd orders when so expanded (hence 3rd and
5th order but no 4th). Hint: it's because of the cylindrical symmetry of the lens.)

If you cannot write down this Hamiltionian, you have no business wasting your life away on
stupid fantasies and no business telling me I'm not qualified to call your idiotic bluff.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:35:05 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 1:15:37 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 8:39:39 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity
> > > > > > called DTG:
> > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the
> > > > > > unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
> > >
> > > Of course he's qualified. Don't be a stupe.
> >
> > You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a moving
> > Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds after a journey.
>
> Hmmm, don't seem to recall ever saying that, although it's obviously true.
> After all, this was aptly demonstrated by Hafele and keating:

Hey moron.....you claimed that the two clocks in the Van will show different accumulated clock seconds after a journey.

[kenseto]

Moron he said that the two clocks in the van will show a different accumulated clock seconds after a journey......not comparing to the clock in the Lab......gee you are so fucking stupid.

[Python]

Look carefully, Mr Seto. I didn't change a single letter or digit in
the original link.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 12 kwietnia 2017 05:35:59 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> If you cannot write down this Hamiltionian, you have no business wasting your life away on
> stupid fantasies and no business telling me I'm not qualified to call your idiotic bluff.

And, of course, syntax schmyntax. Right, poor idiot?

[Gary Harnagel]

I misread your abysmally-stupid post. I'm sure I NEVER said THAT. Do you
have Alzheimer's or are you just a lying weasel?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Velocity_and_gravitational_time_dilation_combined-effect_tests
> >
> > It appears that you are STILL the stupe.

And you definitely are. I never wrote anything about a van, let alone two
clocks in one.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > >
> > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > >
> > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jan
> >
> > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
>
> Really?

Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory.

>You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what
> you wrote above is not just talk? (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified
> to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.)

How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory.

[kenseto]

Hey moron, why did you need to provide a new link? Why not just click on to the link I provided?

[Python]

kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:04:15 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 11:47:14 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 10/04/2017 à 15:07, kenseto a écrit :
>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
>>>>>
>>>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕2015gravity.pdf
>>>>
>>>> The link does not work Mr Seto.
>>>
>>> Idiot, you changed the link address. The correct link in my post that started this thread is as follows:

>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕2015gravity.pdf

>>
>> Look carefully, Mr Seto. I didn't change a single letter or digit in
>> the original link.
>
> Hey moron, why did you need to provide a new link? Why not just click on to the link I provided?

I quoted your link, Mr Seto.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:31:46 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 10:46:39 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 2:35:05 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 12:12:10 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > >
> > > > You are the stupe......you claimed that two identical clocks in a moving
> > > > Van will show a difference in accumulated clock seconds after a journey.
> > >
> > > Hmmm, don't seem to recall ever saying that, although it's obviously true.
> > > After all, this was aptly demonstrated by Hafele and keating:
> >
> > Hey moron.....you claimed that the two clocks in the Van will show different
> > accumulated clock seconds after a journey.
>
> I misread your abysmally-stupid post. I'm sure I NEVER said THAT. Do you
> have Alzheimer's or are you just a lying weasel?

You said that.....you were arguing with me and the sequence of events were as follows:
1. The clocks in the Van were drove up to the mountain and return.
2. I said: The graphs showed that the different clocks in the Van accumulate clock seconds compared to the Lab clock.
3. But you insisted that the graph showed that the different clocks in the Van accumulated different clock seconds.

[kenseto]

No you didn't.

[Python]

Could you spot the difference(s) then, Mr Seto?

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:04:15 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 11:47:14 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:

>> >> The link does not work Mr Seto.
>> >
>> > Idiot, you changed the link address. The correct link in my post that
>> > started this thread is as follows:

>> > http://www.modelmеchanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

>>
>> Look carefully, Mr Seto. I didn't change a single letter or digit in
>> the original link.

>Hey moron, why did you need to provide a new link? Why not just click on to
> the link I provided?

But it still doesn't work, Stupid Ken.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:

>> > > > http://www.modelmеchanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

>> > > >
>> > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
>> > >
>> > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
>> > >

>> > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
>>
>> Really?

>Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea
>the physics of my theory.

You are right, Stupid Ken. If Jan was more familiar with your theory, much harsher
and ruder words than "junk" would have been used to describe it.

[Michael Moroney]

No, Stupid Ken, he did not say that at all.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > > >
> > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
> >
> > Really?
>
> Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory.

The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are
wasting your time on this. End of story.

> >You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what
> > you wrote above is not just talk?

No, of course not. What made you think so? You think that I just pull this
stuff out of my butt? This is not open to debate, either you can write down
the correct formula or not.

> (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified
> > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.)
>
> How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory.

There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing
theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

I have no time for your game....Bye.

[JanPB]

I see. You cannot answer a simple question designed to see if you CAN know
what you are talking about.

This invalidates everything you say. You can post as many responses here
as you please - it's all junk and nonsense from start to finish. You are
wasting your life away on a mirage. Physics just isn't for you, pick a
different hobby.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 12 kwietnia 2017 19:40:24 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing
> theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 01:03:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> I see. You cannot answer a simple question designed to see if you CAN know
> what you are talking about.

Neither you can.
Do you want a quoting, poor idiot?

[Heki Entouba]

This is incorrect. He seemingly is not poor, but a rich capitalist. He
likely contributes sending X-space (??) rockets into above the atmosphere.
For profit, not fame. Fame only is for pussies.

[JanPB]

1. You'll never gain any respect by calling people "poor idiot". It alerts
the readers you have nothing important to say.

2. What you wrote is irrelevant anyway(*): it doesn't matter what _I_ can do
or cannot do. The point is that someone (happened to be me) posted a question
which any person (like Ken) claiming to do what he did MUST be able to answer.

(*)The standard technique of deflecting attention by suddenly discussing
the _messenger_ instead of the _message_.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 7:03:51 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 10:40:10 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 8:54:01 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > >> kenseto wrote:
> > > >>> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 2:04:15 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > >>>> kenseto wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 11:47:14 AM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > >>>>>> Le 10/04/2017 à 15:07, kenseto a écrit :
> > > >>>>>>> The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕2015gravity.pdf
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The link does not work Mr Seto.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Idiot, you changed the link address. The correct link in my post that started this thread is as follows:
> > > >>>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕2015gravity.pdf
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Look carefully, Mr Seto. I didn't change a single letter or digit in
> > > >>>> the original link.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hey moron, why did you need to provide a new link? Why not just click on to the link I provided?
> > > >>
> > > >> I quoted your link, Mr Seto.
> > > >
> > > > No you didn't.
> > >
> > > Could you spot the difference(s) then, Mr Seto?
> >
> > I have no time for your game....Bye.
>
> I see. You cannot answer a simple question designed to see if you CAN know
> what you are talking about.

Hey moron.....why should I waste my time to decipher the changes he made to my link? I provide a link that works and if he doesn't want to use it, that's his problem.

>
> This invalidates everything you say. You can post as many responses here
> as you please - it's all junk and nonsense from start to finish. You are
> wasting your life away on a mirage. Physics just isn't for you, pick a
> different hobby.

This is an idiotic statement. You are a lying sack of shit.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
> > >
> > > Really?
> >
> > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory.
>
> The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are
> wasting your time on this. End of story.

What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it?

>
> > >You don't mind then if I ask you a question then, do you? Just to make sure that what
> > > you wrote above is not just talk?
>
> No, of course not. What made you think so? You think that I just pull this
> stuff out of my butt? This is not open to debate, either you can write down
> the correct formula or not.

I have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. My equation for gravity is correct.

>
> > (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified
> > > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.)
> >
> > How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory.
>
> There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing
> theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories.

Why do you claim that I don't know existing theories?

[kenseto]

That's because you are a moron.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:

> Why do you claim that I don't know existing theories?

Ken, you don't even understand that reducing the acceleration of a moving body is NOT the same thing as decelerating that moving body... which clearly indicates the you do NOT understand existing theories, even the very simple ones...

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:

>> The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are
>> wasting your time on this. End of story.

>What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory
>of gravity what is wrong with it?

Stupid Ken, you can't even calculate the value of (-6)/(-2)! You certainly
can't do any math more advanced than that!

>> > (It's easy to simply SAY things like "You are not qualified
>> > > to evaluate my theory", anyone can SAY anything.)
>> >
>> > How about your comment "It's junk"? You made that comment without understanding the physics of my theory and that's why I said you are not qualified to evaluate my theory.
>>
>> There is nothing to "understand" in a theory claiming to replace existing
>> theories by an author who doesn't know the existing theories.

>Why do you claim that I don't know existing theories?

Stupid Ken, it is quite obvious that you don't know SR, given all the stupid
stuff you think it says. I keep telling you to learn SR before you think
you can replace it. That's why IRT is a complete, total failure.

[JanPB]

You also seem to have reading comprehension problems. I never said anything
about any links.

> > This invalidates everything you say. You can post as many responses here
> > as you please - it's all junk and nonsense from start to finish. You are
> > wasting your life away on a mirage. Physics just isn't for you, pick a
> > different hobby.
>
> This is an idiotic statement. You are a lying sack of shit.

Why is asking you to prove your credentials an "idiotic statement"? Would
you allow, for example, a random person perform an open heart surgery on you?

No?

So how come you insist you can seriously engage in physics research while
not knowing the basics of physics?

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 21:19:48 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 5:04:37 AM UTC-7, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
> > W dniu czwartek, 13 kwietnia 2017 01:03:51 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> >
> > > I see. You cannot answer a simple question designed to see if you CAN know
> > > what you are talking about.
> >
> > Neither you can.
> > Do you want a quoting, poor idiot?
>
> 1. You'll never gain any respect by calling people "poor idiot". It alerts
> the readers you have nothing important to say.

And, of course, syntax schmyntax. Right, poor idiot?
>

> 2. What you wrote is irrelevant anyway(*): it doesn't matter what _I_ can do
> or cannot do. The point is that someone (happened to be me) posted a question
> which any person (like Ken) claiming to do what he did MUST be able to answer.

That's exectly what I'm talking about.
You pretend to be a great mathematician, but
you can't answer correctly a simple question of metric
spaces.
Pathetic.

[Wendi Maddox]

JanPB wrote:

>> This is an idiotic statement. You are a lying sack of shit.
>
> Why is asking you to prove your credentials an "idiotic statement"?
> Would you allow, for example, a random person perform an open heart
> surgery on you?

Totally unrelated. As expected from a poor idiot.

[kenseto]

You are a fucking moron mathematician devoid any knowledge of the real physical world.
I was talking to Python.....he asked me to find the difference between the link he wrote (that doesn't work) and the link I provided that works and I refuse to waste any time on it.
Gee you are so fucking stupid and that's why I said that you are not qualified to evaluate my physical theory of gravity.

[JanPB]

Again, you are desperately trying to change the subject. Which is: if _Ken_
(that's K, e, n, and NOT J, a, n - got it?) cannot calculate that Hamiltonian,
he cannot contribute anything of value to the subject he writes on.

Whether I "pretend" (as you wishfully put it) to be this or that is
not relevant to this discussion. Start a new thread if you want to talk
about new topic.

--
Jan

[JanPB]

I didn't change any of your links. You are confusing me with someone else.
I suggest you check your attributions before hurling any more "morons".

> I provide a link that works and if he doesn't want to use it, that's his problem.

You are talking to someone else.

> >
> > This invalidates everything you say. You can post as many responses here
> > as you please - it's all junk and nonsense from start to finish. You are
> > wasting your life away on a mirage. Physics just isn't for you, pick a
> > different hobby.
>
> This is an idiotic statement. You are a lying sack of shit.

How is simply ASKING for someone who pontificates about X to provide
credentials for doing X "idiotic"? Would you allow a random person to
perform a surgery on you without checking his credentials first?

Why is it so difficult for you to understand such a basic thing?

--
Jan

[JanPB]

How is it unrelated? Ken started the thread in the first place, I'm simply
asking him to prove his credentials.

What's so exotic about that?

--
Jan

[JanPB]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
> > > >
> > > > Really?
> > >
> > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory.
> >
> > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are
> > wasting your time on this. End of story.
>
> What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it?

You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have
no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE
ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry.

Your only chance is _experimental_ physics. It's possible (although by now
extremely unlikely due to the very high cost and sophistication of the
equipment) you could stumble upon something interesting without knowing
everything there is to know on the subject (like Faraday).

Leave the theory to others.

--
Jan

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu sobota, 15 kwietnia 2017 00:18:03 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really?
> > > >
> > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory.
> > >
> > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are
> > > wasting your time on this. End of story.
> >
> > What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it?
>
> You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have
> no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE
> ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry.

Besides, you're the queen of England.

[kenseto]

Moron.... you followed a thread that Python and I were talking about the links to my theory. Gee you are a fucking stupid mathematician.

[kenseto]

On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:18:03 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:09:28 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 1:40:24 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:45:49 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 11:35:59 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 7:39:39 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 4:40:50 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 6:07:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > > > > The paper in the following link describes a new theory of gravity called DTG:
> > > > > > > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DTG is compatible with all the other forces of nature and thus the unification of all the forces of nature becomes feasible.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It's junk. You are wasting your life away.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Jan
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are not qualifies to evaluate my theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really?
> > > >
> > > > Yes really. Your comment: "It's junk" shows to me that your have no idea the physics of my theory.
> > >
> > > The point remains: if you cannot do simple classical mechanics, you are
> > > wasting your time on this. End of story.
> >
> > What simple classical mechanics that I cannot do? I have a new theory of gravity what is wrong with it?
>
> You cannot calculate a Hamiltonian from a Lagrangian. This means you have
> no understanding of the basics. Hence, your theory is junk. IT CANNOT BE
> ANY OTHER WAY. Sorry.

No...that's an idiotic mathematician's point of view. Look at the following failure of the math approach:
Every time you failed mathematician came up with an equation or an unexplained observation you invented a new non-existing math object to explain them. For example:

1. Field/virtual particle--failed mathematician have no idea what a field is. Weinberg said that fields are stress in space. That means that space must be some sort of medium. Why? Because ampty space cannot have stress. Also, If space is not empty then it violate Einstein's SRT.

2. Dark energy--The failed mathematicians have no idea what is dark energy and have no idea how it is manifested.

3. Curvature in spacetime---The failed mathematician cannot explain how empty space without a medium can have curvature.

4. Length contraction---failed mathematicians made the ridiculous assertions that length contraction is real but at the same time claim that length contraction is only a geometric projection.

5. Mutual time dilation---failed mathematicians claim that A predicts clock B accumulates clock seconds at a slower rate and that B predicts that clock A accumulate clock seconds at a slower rate and when they are re-united they will show different number of accumulated clock seconds.

6. Much more.....

MODEL MECHANICS APPROACH:
Real physicists such as myself explain all the processes of nature using a new approach. I posited that there is only one physical model of our universe that can explain all the processes of nature. This physical model is called Model Mechanics( for a description of Model Mechanics please read the paper in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf). Model Mechanics explains all the above failed processes of current physics as follows:

1. Field/Virutual particles in Model Mechanics are stresses or strains (or distortions) in the E-Strings that composed the E-Matrix. These stresses and strains in the E-Strings are caused by the absolute motions of the interacting matter particles in the E-Matrix. Matter particles are ,in term, confined to follow the goemetries exist in the E-Strings and these give the effect of the observed interactions between interacting particles.

2. Dark energy: The geometries of the E-Strings is divergent and interacting particles are confined to these divergent geometries give the effect of the observed dark energy.

3.Curvature i spacetime: An object such as the earth will cause the E-Strings to wrap (due to rotation of the earth) around it and cause the observed the observed curvature in the E-Matrix (space).

4. Length Contraction: The material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. The light path length of a moving meter stick is predicted to be foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is baed on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.

5. Mutual time dilation: There is no time dilation in Model Mechanics. The only time exists is absolute time and the passage of absolute time is insensitive to motion. However, a clock second does not represent the same amount of absolute time in different frames (different states of absolute motion) and this give the apparent of time dilation in moving clocks. The GPS confirms the existence of absolute time. A GPS second is redefined to have 4.4647 are periods of Cs 133 radiation than the ground clock second. This is designed to make the passage of a redefined GPS second corresponds to the passage of a standard ground clock second in terms of absolute time.

> Your only chance is _experimental_ physics. It's possible (although by now
> extremely unlikely due to the very high cost and sophistication of the
> equipment) you could stumble upon something interesting without knowing
> everything there is to know on the subject (like Faraday).

> --
> Jan

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 15-apr-2017 om 21:34 schreef kenseto:

> On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 6:18:03 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:

[snip, keeping Seto's masterpiece]

Jan, simply for having a discussion with Seto in the first place...
YOU LOSE!

Dirk Vdm

[JanPB]

No, it's not any specific person's point of view, it's a universal pattern. Again I'm asking: would
you allow a surgery to be done on you by a post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_?

No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in that sense?

> Look at the following failure of the math approach:

You've got some bug against mathematics. Exactly the same bug in reverse is prevalent
on sci.math: most crackpots there make a point of treating physics and physicists as inferior.

> Every time you failed mathematician came up with an equation or an unexplained observation you invented a new non-existing math object to explain them. For example:

Sorry, irrelevant. If you want to rant on a new subject like this, create a new thread. Here
we have the problem which you never addressed (besides ranting): if you don't know the
BASICS of physics, you have ZERO chance of contributing anything fundamental and
significant (which is what you claim).

You can only hope to note little high-school level trivialities, that I'll grant you (assuming
you can do easy algebra at least).

--
Jan

[JanPB]

I'm interested in mental disorders :-)

--
Jan

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 16-apr-2017 om 00:14 schreef JanPB:

> On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 2:07:14 PM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> Jan, simply for having a discussion with Seto in the first place...
>> YOU LOSE!
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> I'm interested in mental disorders :-)

I'm confident he is too ;-)

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view. You failed to realize that math without physical constraints allow all sorts of abstract and non-existing math objects such as: many extra spatial dimensions, virtual particles, dark energy and dark matter, gravitons, curvature in non-existing spacetime, length contraction and time dilation.....etc. These non-existing math objects give rise to a universe that's impossible to unify and that's why we failed to come up with a viable theory of everything.

Model Mechanics is based on one physical description of our universe as follows:
1. There are three dimensions of space.

2. Space is occupied by a medium called the E-Matrix and the E-Matrix is composed of compactified E-Strings. The geometries of these E-Strings obey the Inverse Square Law.

3. The only time exists is absolute time and the rate of passage of absolute time is not motion dependent. There is no clock time unit (including a clock second) that represents the same amount of absolute time in different frame.

4. Material length of a meter stick is a universal constant. However, the light path length of a moving meter stick is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer's meter stick is its material length.

5. All the forces of nature are the result of the absolute motions of the interacting objects in the E-Matrix.

6. The S-Particles are the only mass bearing fundamental particles exist. The different orbiting motions of the S-Particles around the E-Strings give rise to the different observed (elected) particles such as the electrons and quarks.

The above brief description of Model Mechanics will enable us to explain all the processes of nature and thus gives us a viable candidate for the theory of everything.

[Emma Harmony]

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 16-apr-2017 om 00:14 schreef JanPB:
>> On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 2:07:14 PM UTC-7, Dirk Van de moortel

>>> Jan, simply for having a discussion with Seto in the first place...
>>> YOU LOSE! Dirk Vdm
>>
>> I'm interested in mental disorders
>

> I'm confident he is too ;-) Dirk Vdm

So true indeed, Dr. Dirk. They both are fruit cakes. The later is
pretending having interest in. The revelation of the day, thank you so
very much. I read, the later case, is also pretending landing on the Mars
and Moon. Whereas you have to prove he did not, when feeling challenged.

[JanPB]

It's no a "point of view", it's a QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to be done on you by a

post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_?

No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in that sense?

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/12/2017 9:40 AM, Python wrote:
> Could you spot the difference(s) then, Mr Seto?

Mr. Seto does not fully understand the error he has made. He is
unfamiliar with link rot, and he doesn't know how to post a link so that
it does not suffer from link rot.

He blames others for sabotage, but it's his own technical ignorance that
allowed the link rot to seep in.

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

[Dirk Van de moortel]

Op 16-apr-2017 om 14:42 schreef kenseto:

> It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view.

Ypu mean failed Mathematician's points of view, as in

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSquareRoot.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html

Dirk Vdm

[kenseto]

On Sunday, April 16, 2017 at 11:07:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/12/2017 9:40 AM, Python wrote:
> > Could you spot the difference(s) then, Mr Seto?
>
> Mr. Seto does not fully understand the error he has made. He is
> unfamiliar with link rot, and he doesn't know how to post a link so that
> it does not suffer from link rot.

It is true that I don't understand link rot. But the link I posted works just fine. I don't understand why Python had to write a new link that doesn't work and asked me to waste time to find the differences.

>
> He blames others for sabotage, but it's his own technical ignorance that
> allowed the link rot to seep in.

I didn't blame any body....I merely pointed out that the link I posted works just fine.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

And another QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to be done on you
by an idiot screaming "common sense is a set of prejudices"?

[kenseto]

That's a poor analogy......The surgeon refuses to adopt new improved method of doing surgery.
Math without physical constraints will lead to non-existing mathematical objects.
I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that is capable explaining all the processes of nature. Also Model Mechanics provides physical explanation for all the successful math developed. That means that the combination of Model Mechanics and existing math can lead to a theory of everything.

I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>> > It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view.

>> It's no a "point of view", it's a QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to
>>be done on you by a
>> post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_?

>> No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in
>> that sense?

>That's a poor analogy......The surgeon refuses to adopt new improved method
> of doing surgery.
>Math without physical constraints will lead to non-existing mathematical objects.

You really didn't understand the question at all, did you.

>I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that

has failed completely and utterly.

>I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link:

>http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work?

[kenseto]

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 12:03:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:
>
> >> > It is a failed Mathematician's (you) point of view.
>
> >> It's no a "point of view", it's a QUESTION: would you allow a surgery to
> >>be done on you by a
> >> post office clerk? Or even post office _manager_?
>
> >> No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in
> >> that sense?
>
> >That's a poor analogy......The surgeon refuses to adopt new improved method
> > of doing surgery.
> >Math without physical constraints will lead to non-existing mathematical objects.
>
> You really didn't understand the question at all, did you.
>
> >I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that
>
> has failed completely and utterly.

> that you change your name

> >I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link:
> >http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
> How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work?

The link I provided works just fine.....Maybe the internet towns that your name is Moron-y and that's why it refuse to let you read it or perhaps it knows you changed the link and it provide itself a defense mechanism.....namely not let that Moron-y to view the correct link. In any case I suggest that you change your name to avoid further trouble from the net.

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>> >I came up with one physical description of our universe called Model Mechanics that
>> has failed completely and utterly.
>> that you change your name
>> >I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link:
>> >http://www.modеlmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

>> How can he read your Chapter 2 if your link doesn't even work?

>The link I provided works just fine.....Maybe the internet towns that your
>name is Moron-y and that's why it refuse to let you read it or perhaps it
>knows you changed the link and it provide itself a defense mechanism.....namely
>not let that Moron-y to view the correct link. In any case I suggest that
>you change your name to avoid further trouble from the net.

Stupid Ken, you're really babbling nonsense now.

p.s. fix your link.

[kenseto]

Hey moron.....The link I provided works just fine. It doesn't work if you redirect it to the following non-existing link:
www.xn--modlmechanics-y3k.org/2016ibook.pdf

Gee you are so fucking stupid.....no wonder your name is Moron-y.

[JanPB]

You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.

--
Jan

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/18/2017 2:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
> You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
> person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
> I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.

Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.

This is all true, of course, except for the word "unfair", which should
be replaced with "deliberate".

He feels the same way about a physics education. Why should a physics
education, says Ken, be required to practice physics? It's a barrier
designed to keep an ordinary person from .....

[Michael Moroney]

kenseto <set...@att.net> writes:

>www.xn--modlmechanics-y3k.org/2016ibook.pdf

Wow, Ken, not only is your link still broken, it is really obviously
broken this time. You're slipping...

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

person asking the question. The question I asked you is very simple.

[benj]

Odd is right. A license to practice physics should be required. After
all professional physicists have done just fine killing millions with
their profession. And we certainly don't want any amateurs killing people.

[kenseto]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 4/18/2017 2:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
> > person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
> > I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.
>
> Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
> keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.

Idiot.....I don't believe that at all. You are trying to put words into my mouth.

> This is all true, of course, except for the word "unfair", which should
> be replaced with "deliberate".
>
> He feels the same way about a physics education. Why should a physics
> education, says Ken, be required to practice physics? It's a barrier
> designed to keep an ordinary person from .....

Again idiot.....I don't feel that same way for physics education.
However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve current physics problems. In my case, I came up with the physical description of the universe called Model Mechanics. I wrote a book on Model Mechanics and it is available for viewing in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[Ward Jenkins]

JanPB wrote:

>> No? So what makes you think that physics knowledge is any different in
>> that sense?
>
> You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the person
> asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
> I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.

How about not re-quoting endlessly five kilometers of nonsense.

[Ward Jenkins]

kenseto wrote:

>> Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
>> keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.
>
> Idiot.....I don't believe that at all. You are trying to put words into
> my mouth.

So true so very much. Thinking that doctors are there to help, is
unbelievable stupid. Somehow similar to thinking, that History is history,
where that in fact is Geography in time and space. Educate them, Dr.
Kenseto, they need it stridently, with a loud and harsh or grating sound.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The ’nym-shifting troll trolled as "Ward Jenkins":

YMMD :)

But still: *PLONK*

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Loma Bibee]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>> You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
>>> person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
>>> I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.
>>
>> How about not re-quoting endlessly five kilometers of nonsense.
>

> YMMD But still: *PLONK* -- PointedEars

How sweet, pointy. Popping in here, just to say that.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 17.04.2017 15.34, skrev kenseto:
>
> I invite you to read Chapter 2 of my book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

From where I quote:
<<
The Horizon Problem
-------------------
One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang
Model is the observed horizon problem. The age of our universe
is determined to be 14 billion years old in all directions and yet
we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe
to be 28 billion years apart. In fact if all the regions are included
the observed horizon of the universe is estimated to be 46 billion
years. This means that these opposite regions of our universe
cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang and this is
known as the horizon problem.
>>

No comment!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:26:58 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > On 4/18/2017 2:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
> > > person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
> > > I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.
> >
> > Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
> > keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.
>
> Idiot.....I don't believe that at all. You are trying to put words into my mouth.
>
> > This is all true, of course, except for the word "unfair", which should
> > be replaced with "deliberate".
> >
> > He feels the same way about a physics education. Why should a physics
> > education, says Ken, be required to practice physics? It's a barrier
> > designed to keep an ordinary person from .....
>
> Again idiot.....I don't feel that same way for physics education.
> However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve current physics problems.

Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
so you have to provide something to back it up. If you cannot
answer a simple question about the basics, chances of your theory
being correct are ZERO.

> In my case, I came up with the physical description of the universe called Model Mechanics. I wrote a book on Model Mechanics and it is available for viewing in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Sure. Have fun. Just don't expect this to be of any consequence.
It's a total waste of your time.

--
Jan

[Loma Bibee]

JanPB wrote:

>> However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve
>> current physics problems.
>
> Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim, so you
> have to provide something to back it up. I

Look who's talking.

[Loma Bibee]

Fully consistent, as the length contraction, well beknown, only takes
place in the orthogonal direction.

[Odd Bodkin]

On 4/19/2017 2:30 PM, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:26:58 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2017 2:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
>>>> You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
>>>> person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
>>>> I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.
>>>
>>> Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
>>> keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.
>>
>> Idiot.....I don't believe that at all. You are trying to put words into my mouth.
>>
>>> This is all true, of course, except for the word "unfair", which should
>>> be replaced with "deliberate".
>>>
>>> He feels the same way about a physics education. Why should a physics
>>> education, says Ken, be required to practice physics? It's a barrier
>>> designed to keep an ordinary person from .....
>>
>> Again idiot.....I don't feel that same way for physics education.
>> However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve current physics problems.

I'll repeat that NO ONE that is lacking an education in physics has EVER
come up with a viable physics theory. In Ken's case, this includes BASIC
physics, which he cannot do.

Ken is free to self-publish anything he wants. He can do it for vanity,
he can do it for religious reasons, he can do it because he just needs
to fill the time with something to do.

However, this does not mean that what he self-publishes is desired by
other people or is deemed to be valuable to other people. People with an
education in physics will look at this and recognize IMMEDIATELY that it
is produced by someone with no physics education and put it back down.

>
> Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
> so you have to provide something to back it up. If you cannot
> answer a simple question about the basics, chances of your theory
> being correct are ZERO.
>
>> In my case, I came up with the physical description of the universe called Model Mechanics.
>> I wrote a book on Model Mechanics and it is available for viewing in the following link:
>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>
> Sure. Have fun. Just don't expect this to be of any consequence.
> It's a total waste of your time.
>
> --
> Jan
>

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:26:58 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > On 4/18/2017 2:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
> > > > person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
> > > > I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.
> > >
> > > Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
> > > keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.
> >
> > Idiot.....I don't believe that at all. You are trying to put words into my mouth.
> >
> > > This is all true, of course, except for the word "unfair", which should
> > > be replaced with "deliberate".
> > >
> > > He feels the same way about a physics education. Why should a physics
> > > education, says Ken, be required to practice physics? It's a barrier
> > > designed to keep an ordinary person from .....
> >
> > Again idiot.....I don't feel that same way for physics education.
> > However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve current physics problems.
>
> Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
> so you have to provide something to back it up. If you cannot
> answer a simple question about the basics, chances of your theory
> being correct are ZERO.

What is your simple question? Is it that your claim that a mathematician is comparable to a Surgeons? I don't think so. A surgeon need to have a license and a mathematician does not to have a license....he just run wild and imagine all sorts of non-existing math objects to develop his theory.
In my case, I also don't need to have a license. But I my model of the universe is based on the existing observable three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time. No abstract math objects exists in my modeling thus it is s superior theory compared to current theory based on all sorts of non-existing math objects.

[JanPB]

An ad hominem attack. Besides, the ball is in Ken's court.
My (or any other) humble person doesn't enter into it.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

Paul why did you leave out the part how Model Mechanics explains the Horizon Problem?

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 1:00:13 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:30:38 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:26:58 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 3:42:15 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > > On 4/18/2017 2:37 PM, JanPB wrote:
> > > > > You are as usual attempting to divert attention by attacking the
> > > > > person asking the question. The question I asked Ken is very simple.
> > > > > I recommend you simply don't post if you have nothing to say.
> > > >
> > > > Ken believes that a medical license is an unfair barrier designed to
> > > > keep an ordinary person from performing surgery.
> > >
> > > Idiot.....I don't believe that at all. You are trying to put words into my mouth.
> > >
> > > > This is all true, of course, except for the word "unfair", which should
> > > > be replaced with "deliberate".
> > > >
> > > > He feels the same way about a physics education. Why should a physics
> > > > education, says Ken, be required to practice physics? It's a barrier
> > > > designed to keep an ordinary person from .....
> > >
> > > Again idiot.....I don't feel that same way for physics education.
> > > However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve current physics problems.
> >
> > Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
> > so you have to provide something to back it up. If you cannot
> > answer a simple question about the basics, chances of your theory
> > being correct are ZERO.
>
> What is your simple question? Is it that your claim that a mathematician is comparable to a Surgeons?

No. It was this one: consider the following
Lagrangian in 2D variables x and y:

L(x, y, xdot, ydot, t) = f(x, y, t) * sqrt(1 + xdot^2 + ydot^2)

...where f is an arbitrary smooth function. Your task is to write down the corresponding Hamiltonian.

(NOTE: this Lagrangian is used in optics and specifically in lens
design, with the "t" variable set to the length along the lens
optical axis, and with f equal to the refraction index.)

You have zero chance of getting anything as significant
as you claim if you cannot do this problem.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

I answered your question about doing physics compare to a surgeon doing surgery many time!!!!! A surgeon needs a license to do surgery. Doig physics does not require a license. Does mathematician need a license to invents all sorts of non-existing math object? The answer is no and that's why we got all sort of weir math objects that do not exist naturally.

[JanPB]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 1:26:00 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 4:16:37 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:34:27 PM UTC-7, Loma Bibee wrote:
> > > JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > >> However any body is free to come up with physics ideas that solve
> > > >> current physics problems.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim, so you
> > > > have to provide something to back it up. I
> > >
> > > Look who's talking.
> >
> > An ad hominem attack. Besides, the ball is in Ken's court.
> > My (or any other) humble person doesn't enter into it.
>
> I answered your question about doing physics compare to a surgeon doing surgery many time!!!!! A surgeon needs a license to do surgery. Doig physics does not require a license.

We are not discussing the legal aspect of it but your chances
of being correct and not wasting your time on silly fantasies.
Those chances are ZERO.

--
Jan

[kenseto]

idiot.....it's my time to waste. It's better than you mathematicians wasting your time inventing non-existing math objects.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

You lose ;-p

If misconceptions are to be clarified in a scientific forum like this, and
pseudo-scientific literature such as this to be debunked, those who know
better (or think they know better) should either comment convincingly on
the misconception and the work, or be silent so as to let the misconception
drift into obscurity along with their author and their work.

Let me try to comment on the quoted section briefly.

> > The Horizon Problem
> > -------------------
> > One of the most pressing problems of the Standard Big Bang
> > Model is the observed horizon problem.

There is no such problem except in the mind of the author of this book.
See also the bottom of this rebuttal.

> > The age of our universe is determined to be 14 billion years old in
> > all directions

Not even wrong. Age does not have a direction.

The age of our universe (the *time* since its beginning) has been calculated
to be *about* 14 billion years. The last estimate (Planck Collaboration
2015) was *about* 13.8 billion years (short scale, respectively).

> > […] we observe the horizon for the opposite regions of our universe

> > to be 28 billion years apart.

We do not. Years is not a unit of distance, but of time. And a horizon
cannot be “apart”; that is gibberish.

The sentence would have made sense if it had been “We observe the opposite
regions of our universe to be (about) 28 billion *light*-years apart”.
1 light-year is the distance that light travels in vacuum in 1 standard
year.

The farthest objects that we can observe *have been* about 13.8 billion
years away from us when they emitted the light that we receive from them
(because nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum, so this is the
maximum *comoving* distance for observation). This means that they *had
been* *apart* about 27.8 billion light-years or about 28 billion
light-years *at maximum* at the time of first emission.

We *calculate* the farthest observable regions to be about 46 billion
*light*-years, *proper distance*, away from us in all directions. This is
the radius of the “observable universe”.

If we assume that our universe has not a geometry that is “overlapping” in
some way (for lack of a better word), this would make the farthest regions
in opposite directions to be about 92 billion light-years, proper distance,
apart. This is the diameter of the “observable universe”. (The entire
universe is provably larger, and could be much larger.)

> > In fact if all the regions are included the observed horizon of the
> > universe is estimated to be 46 billion years.

Not even wrong.

> > This means that these opposite regions of our universe
> > cannot be in contact with each other at the Big Bang

According to calculations, the Big Bang happened at the beginning of our
universe, so about 13.8 billion years ago. Several observations that our
universe is expanding now, and calculations how it would have evolved if it
had been expanding ever since, whose results are supported by other
observations, leads us to assume that our universe has been expanding since
the Big Bang.

So certainly the regions of our universe that are now about 28 billion
light-years comoving distance, or 96 billion light-years proper distance,
apart, could have and would have been in contact with each other at the time
of the Big Bang. (Whether they had the same structure then as they have now
is another issue.)

> > and this is known as the horizon problem.

Only to crackpots, who have not shadow of a trace of a clue what they are
talking about, but want to *sound* scientific.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe> pp.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The farthest objects that we can observe *have been* about 13.8 billion
> years away from us when they emitted the light that we receive from them
> (because nothing travels faster than light in a vacuum, so this is the

> maximum *comoving* distance for observation). […]

To avoid the creation of further misconceptions with this, it might need to
be emphasized that “us” is to be understood as “the approximate position in
our universe where we are now” because we as observers did not yet exist
13.8 billion years ago. Neither did the Milky Way galaxy, the Sol star
system, and the planet of Terra that we are finding ourselves in and on
(observed); it is only “approximate” because the planet orbits about the
system’s barycenter in one standard year (observed), and the system orbits
about the center of the Milky Way in about 225 million to 250 million
standard years (calculated from observation).

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 19 kwietnia 2017 21:30:38 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:

> Yes, but context is everything: you make an EXTRAORDINARY claim,
> so you have to provide something to back it up.

No, you don't have. Instead, you can just scream "common
sense is a set of prejudices!!!", and surprisingly many
idiots will soon follow you.

[Python]

kenseto wrote:

> http://www.modelmechanics.org∕2016ibook.pdf

The link is not working.

[Paul B. Andersen]

OK.

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
From where I quote:
<<

Model Mechanics explains the horizon problem naturally without
resorting to the ad hoc Inflation hypothesis. The earth is in
a state of absolute motion in the E-Matrix. This motion curves
the E-Strings surrounding the earth. What we perceive as normal
and straight E-Strings are actually severely curved E-Strings.
In other words, when we look up in the sky we are actually
receiving light from these curved E-Strings. This means that
no matter what direction we look we are looking into the same
curved E-Strings and thus the same region of the universe.
>>

Still no comment!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Odd Bodkin]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 3:26:00 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:

> I answered your question about doing physics compare to a surgeon doing surgery many time!!!!! A surgeon needs a license to do surgery. Doig physics does not require a license. Does mathematician need a license to invents all sorts of non-existing math object? The answer is no and that's why we got all sort of weir math objects that do not exist naturally.

Ken, doing physics requires a physics education, which you do not have.
You are claiming to do something you are not equipped to do. This is both foolish and ineffective, as any pretense is.

[kenseto]

You don't have a physics education.....so why are you qualified to criticize me for writing a book on physics?
The reviewer at the copy right office disagreed with your assertion. She think that I have original ideas on physics. That means that your uneducated opinion doesn't count.