Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?
From: Mark Fergerson (nunya_at_biz.ness)
Date: 02/17/05
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: kenseto: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Next in thread: kenseto: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Reply: kenseto: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:00:05 -0700
kenseto wrote:
> "Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
> news:izIPd.21589$6u.6591@fed1read02...
>
>> kenseto wrote:
>>
>>> "A.S." <arnoldschrod68@go.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1108246357.454845.92340@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>
>> <brevity snip>
>>
>>>> You stated in your paper that there is only one particle in the
>>>> universe called S-Particle and the way it moves around the
>>>> E-String give rises to all the particles and forces in physics.
>>>> You also mentioned about E-Matrix.
>>
>>> The E-Matrix is a term used to represent all the E-Strings
>>> occupying all of space. IOW the E-Matrix is space.
>>
>> And this "E-matrix" must not move in whole or in part, otherwise
>> there's no background against which to measure Absolute Motion.
>> Right?
> Not right. Absolute motion is that motion of an object (an S-Particle
> or an S-Particle system) wrt the wave packets (photons) in the
> E-Matrix. Each of these wave packets are being transmitted by the
> neighboring E-Strings at a speed c.
Ah, you have Absolute Motion wrt light.
How can anything be transmitted from one E-string to a "neighboring"
one if the E-strings fill _all of space_? What's between the E-strings?
>>>> So in your hypotheses that we are all moving with respect to
>>>> the Aether.
>>
>>> The E-Matrix is the aether. The E-Matrix is stationary and
>>> elastic. It can be deformed with the passage of particles and the
>>> deformation is recovered after the passage of the S-Particle.
>>
>> Then the part of this "E-matrix" in the act of being deformed or
>> recovering from a deformation has motion WRT the part(s) of it not
>> being deformed or recovering from a deformation.
> No....there is no motion between different regions of the E-Matrix.
> Any local deformation becomes global deformation due to the fact that
> the E-Strings are elastic and are repulsive to each other.
What definition of "deform" are you using that does not include motion
of component parts wrt each other?
How can a deformation propagate in a medium whose parts are incapable
of moving wrt each other?
FTM, what do you propose as the propagation velocity of these
deformations?
>> How do you tell if the part of this "E-matrix" you're doing your
>> measurements in isn't already deformed and by how much?
> The S-Particle system is doing the measurements. The measurement
> result is dependent on the deformation of the E-Strings to which the
> S-Particle system is confined.
Then it can also measure the deformation of "neighboring" E-strings
via the photons propagated from them.
>> IOW, if an "S-particle" is orbiting an already-deformed "E-string",
>> its motion must differ from that of one orbiting an undisturbed
>> "E-string".
> An orbiting S-Particle will react to the deformation or waves in the
> E-String(s) to which it is confined by the orbiting motion. This
> reaction of the orbiting S-Particles to the geometry of the E-Stirngs
> is the observed action-at-a-distance.
How does the geometry of the E-strings change without them moving wrt
each other?
>>>> Is the E-Matrix itself moving too
>>
>>> No...the E-Matrix comprised of the E-Strings is not moving. That
>>> means that the E-Strings are not moving. But thye E-Strings can
>>> be deformed (or distorted) by the passage of the S-Particles.
>>
>> Then when "deformed", some part of it has motion WRT the rest of
>> it. How do you tell if the part of space you're doing your
>> measurements in isn't already "deformed"?
> I already explained this earlier.
No, you didn't. How can anything deform when its constituent parts
cannot move wrt each other?
>>>> or is it just the E-String or S-Particle?
>>
>>> Only the S-Particles are moving in the stationary E-Matrix.
>>
>> Except those "E-strings" in the act of being deformed, or
>> rebounding from that deformation.
> No...the E-Matrix is like a giant rubber ball if one region is
> distorted the whole ball is distorted.
Poor analogy. The parts of a rubber ball do indeed move wrt each other.
>>>> And how the hell would S-Particle moving around the E-String in
>>>> a moving E-Matrix (?) create matter?
>>
>>> An S-Particle orbiting around an E-String in the counterclockwise
>>> orbiting motion is negatively charged particle such as the
>>> electron.
>>
>> "Counterclockwise" as seen from which end? Does your system give
>> Absolute Direction as well as Absolute Motion?
> There is no outside observer. Each orbiting S-Particle will react
> with another orbiting S-Particle according to the direction of
> orbiting motion.
Who said anything about outside observers? I take your explanation to
mean another S-particle orbiting the same E-string.
Here's an E-string with an orbiting S-particle:
^
|
------------S------------
The arrow indicates that its orbiting that seen from the left end of
the E-string is counterclockwise. However, seen from the right-hand end,
it's orbiting clockwise.
BTW, if the E-matrix fills all of space, where's there room for the
S-particles to orbit the E-strings?
> If they are orbiting in the same direction then they will attract to
> each other. If they are orbiting in the opposite direction then they
> will repel each other. I assigned the counterclockwise orbiting
> motion to represent a negatively charged particle because an electron
> neutrino shows a left handed cork screw (counterclockwise) like
> motion in space.
Why didn't you just say that? BTW, neutrinos are right-handed when
seen from behind. They don't move at c.
>>> An S-Particle orbiting around an E-String in a clockwise orbiting
>>> motion is a positively charge particle such as the up-quark.
>>
>> "Clockwise" as seen from which end? Does your system give Absolute
>> Direction as well as Absolute Motion?
> See above explanation.
Fine, except seen from the other end of the string it's going
counterclockwise. Is it therefore negatively charged on that side?
Mark L. Fergerson
- Next message: Albert: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: kenseto: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Next in thread: kenseto: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Reply: kenseto: "Re: Is Ken Seto Genius or Madman?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
