Post by Ken Seto Post by Michael Moroney Post by Ken Seto Post by Michael Moroney Post by Ken Seto Post by Michael Moroney Post by Ken Seto Post by Michael Moroney Post by Ken Seto Post by Michael Moroney Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
What IS a prediction is this:
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
integrate the equations twice to DERIVE the equations:
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in physics.
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables