(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message
...
..... The Smart Model.

That's ok. I understand it. I guess it will take another 100 years for
you
people to understand it too. That's ok with me. I can wait.
You know I think it might take longer than 100 years for you people to
learn. Ok, take 10000 years. Ok. Well at least by then you ( or your
generations from now) will realize what is reality happening in physics.
And I don't care, if I'm not here on this planet in 10000 years. I still
want Nobel Prize in Physics Award given to me and place it in my grave. So
all
can observe, how stupid most of you people have been all these years.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

OK. I admit it. I finally caved. I spend too much of my time reading
the sci.physics NG. I cruise past so many of these car wrecks in doing
so. Tonight I was bored enough to stop and see how bad a wreck it was.
Inform the ER that this one will be DOA. Sad. Sad. Sad. Wrong. Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Why did I do this to myself? Why did I read the
whole "Smart Model" manuscript? Perhaps I could also quit smoking if I
could answer that question. A friend of mine likes to say "once you
start picking at a scab you really can't stop" when we discuss matters
like this. From page one this manuscript is such worthless garbage
that it is genuinely astonishing. So much so that one cannot help but
deny such sophisticated foolishness could possibly exsist. I read the
whole thing. Perhaps my subconscious believed a punchline was below
the surface here somewhere. Yet no such joy was found. In fact I
beleive that I am now dumber for having read it. Truly. I am now so
stupid that I cannot even express myself in a coherent manner. I have
suffered psychological, mental, and intellectual damage from reading
that steaming pile of crap! REALLY! I am only trying to post a reply
here in an attempt to exersice some cathartic therapy and recover. So
there's your evidence. I'm now so dumb that I thought this was a good
idea.

If there is anyone who could possibly refer me to a good therapist my
ears are open. After that I think I'd like to sue for damages. Someone
save me please.



Once you realize you are stupid, then true enlightenment can begin. You have
been exposed to physics as it really is, The Smart Model. All this time they
taught you the incorrect atomic model using Quantum Mechanics and The Standard
Model. So I can understand why you are so confused.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"MSMaxwell" wrote in message
. com...
(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message
...
..... The Smart Model.

That's ok. I understand it. I guess it will take another 100 years
for you
people to understand it too. That's ok with me. I can wait.
You know I think it might take longer than 100 years for you people
to
learn. Ok, take 10000 years. Ok. Well at least by then you ( or your
generations from now) will realize what is reality happening in physics.
And I don't care, if I'm not here on this planet in 10000 years. I
still
want Nobel Prize in Physics Award given to me and place it in my grave.
So all
can observe, how stupid most of you people have been all these years.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

OK. I admit it. I finally caved. I spend too much of my time reading
the sci.physics NG. I cruise past so many of these car wrecks in doing
so. Tonight I was bored enough to stop and see how bad a wreck it was.
Inform the ER that this one will be DOA. Sad. Sad. Sad. Wrong. Wrong.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Why did I do this to myself? Why did I read the
whole "Smart Model" manuscript? Perhaps I could also quit smoking if I
could answer that question. A friend of mine likes to say "once you
start picking at a scab you really can't stop" when we discuss matters
like this. From page one this manuscript is such worthless garbage
that it is genuinely astonishing. So much so that one cannot help but
deny such sophisticated foolishness could possibly exsist. I read the
whole thing. Perhaps my subconscious believed a punchline was below
the surface here somewhere. Yet no such joy was found. In fact I
beleive that I am now dumber for having read it. Truly. I am now so
stupid that I cannot even express myself in a coherent manner. I have
suffered psychological, mental, and intellectual damage from reading
that steaming pile of crap! REALLY! I am only trying to post a reply
here in an attempt to exersice some cathartic therapy and recover. So
there's your evidence. I'm now so dumb that I thought this was a good
idea.

If there is anyone who could possibly refer me to a good therapist my
ears are open. After that I think I'd like to sue for damages. Someone
save me please.


I am amazed anyone reads past the first few lines
without realizing the mental condition of the writer...

Here's a quote from him in another group...

"I know you think I'm crazy. But the other night I realized
I was sleeping and dreaming, so I willed my soul
( or spirit) out of my body, and traveled into outer
space. Usually when I know I am dreaming, I can
levitate and fly out of my body. So I gave myself a
big boost of energy to see how far I could go into outer
space. I saw the planet get smaller below me, and then
all of a sudden I ended up in another world, or in some
one else's house ( somewhere???).
To my amazement, a nice young lady I saw was there and
said she was expecting me. " ( Smart1234)

That should explain a lot....

Paul....


I guess you haven't heard of Astral Projection. Many have experienced this.
Do a WWW search on Astral Projection and see for yourself.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

Just a shallow assesment of ...

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"Acknowledgements - ... I would also like to thank those that allow me
to borrow the figures and other equations that help support the
manuscript. ..."

Because a disturbing portion of the manuscript is composed of figures
and equations borrowed from papers written by others. (OR let's say a
disturbing absence of original content like a COMPLETE derivation and
detailed discussion of exactly what this theory is.)

"Introduction - ... This manuscript shows a new way of observing the
atom and it's structure ... "

Flase statement. The manuscript states that if one of the authors
assumptions is true, then perhaps a statement about atomic structure
could be made. Of course the assumption is merely that. (Again, the
absence of original content like a COMPLETE derivation and detailed
discussion of exactly what this theory is. ) Of course insignificant
detail is provided, to enlighten even the most gifted, as to precisely
what (if any) observations could be made.

(Ummm .... shouldn't the abstract, title, etc preceed the intro?)

"The New Alternative View Of The Structure Of The Atom ... By
Smart1234 (AKA Internet Name) ...
.... ABSTRACT ...
Usually the standard quantum solar system model of the atom is used to
explain what occurs at the atomic level. It is my opinion, that this
model is incorrect because there really is no logical explanation as
to how, or why a negatively charged particle like the electron will
remain in orbit with other electron, without either repelling each
other, or colliding with the positively charged nucleus of the atom.
.... "

Well ****! For that matter why doesn't the solar system itself
collapse into the sun due to gravitational forces alone? This gem of
an excerpt speaks for itself though.

BODY is a whopping 7 pages. 4 of those pages consist of really big
pics and a big bad periodic table scan. Most of the content appears to
be based upon the work of Wu and Lee from Columbia Univ. Good luck
finding the references though. Oh .. I don't know ... maybe I'm just
not trying hard enough ... BUT! Check this. Here's the first three.
Apparently critical refs.

"References
1. Figure (2) borrowed from, Physical Review Letters, by T. D. Lee and
C.S. Wu, from the Department of Physics, Columbia Universtiy, Volume
12 Number 20, Page 428
2. Equation labeled 3.68 including charge form factor equation, was
borrowed from T.D. Lee and C. S. Wu, Physical Review Letters, Volume
12, Number 20, Page 429
3. Equation labeled (8) was borrowed from, J.Berstein and T.D. Lee,
Physical Review Letters, Volume 11, Number 11, Page 513 "

Let me lend a hand looking these up ...

http://prola.aps.org/browse?journal=...23;by =volume

Something is not right here. I'm sure these refs must exsist because
the manuscript contains direct clips from them. Just can't seem to
find these papers though. I did find some T.D. Lee papers. Their
context has nothing to do with that of the manuscript though.

So there's some specific criticism. You asked for it. You got it. You
want a serious audience ... here you go. I have attempted to be a
serious audience for you, more than once. Your presentation blatantly
sucks, and is utterly flawed. I'm not even trying here. Any serious
presentation of ideas should be as flawlessly executed as the
presenter is capable of. For instance, dismissing the "solar system"
model of the atom by invoking your opinion, or what little reasoning
you provided, is seriously misguided and utterly without insight or
understanding. In fact, all it does show is that you do not understand
contemporary thought on the matter, and are attempting to formulate
your theory as a consequence of your lack of understanding. You truly
just do not get it. I am sure that you are not lacking in intellect,
but you apparently are not allowing reality to be the arbiter of truth
here. Take a step back.

"MSMaxwell" wrote in message
om...
Just a shallow assesment of ...

http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"Acknowledgements - ... I would also like to thank those that allow me
to borrow the figures and other equations that help support the
manuscript. ..."

Because a disturbing portion of the manuscript is composed of figures
and equations borrowed from papers written by others. (OR let's say a
disturbing absence of original content like a COMPLETE derivation and
detailed discussion of exactly what this theory is.)

"Introduction - ... This manuscript shows a new way of observing the
atom and it's structure ... "

Flase statement. The manuscript states that if one of the authors
assumptions is true, then perhaps a statement about atomic structure
could be made. Of course the assumption is merely that. (Again, the
absence of original content like a COMPLETE derivation and detailed
discussion of exactly what this theory is. ) Of course insignificant
detail is provided, to enlighten even the most gifted, as to precisely
what (if any) observations could be made.

(Ummm .... shouldn't the abstract, title, etc preceed the intro?)

"The New Alternative View Of The Structure Of The Atom ... By
Smart1234 (AKA Internet Name) ...
... ABSTRACT ...
Usually the standard quantum solar system model of the atom is used to
explain what occurs at the atomic level. It is my opinion, that this
model is incorrect because there really is no logical explanation as
to how, or why a negatively charged particle like the electron will
remain in orbit with other electron, without either repelling each
other, or colliding with the positively charged nucleus of the atom.
... "

Well ****! For that matter why doesn't the solar system itself
collapse into the sun due to gravitational forces alone? This gem of
an excerpt speaks for itself though.

BODY is a whopping 7 pages. 4 of those pages consist of really big
pics and a big bad periodic table scan. Most of the content appears to
be based upon the work of Wu and Lee from Columbia Univ. Good luck
finding the references though. Oh .. I don't know ... maybe I'm just
not trying hard enough ... BUT! Check this. Here's the first three.
Apparently critical refs.

"References
1. Figure (2) borrowed from, Physical Review Letters, by T. D. Lee and
C.S. Wu, from the Department of Physics, Columbia Universtiy, Volume
12 Number 20, Page 428
2. Equation labeled 3.68 including charge form factor equation, was
borrowed from T.D. Lee and C. S. Wu, Physical Review Letters, Volume
12, Number 20, Page 429
3. Equation labeled (8) was borrowed from, J.Berstein and T.D. Lee,
Physical Review Letters, Volume 11, Number 11, Page 513 "

Let me lend a hand looking these up ...


http://prola.aps.org/browse?journal=...23;by =volume

Something is not right here. I'm sure these refs must exsist because
the manuscript contains direct clips from them. Just can't seem to
find these papers though. I did find some T.D. Lee papers. Their
context has nothing to do with that of the manuscript though.

So there's some specific criticism. You asked for it. You got it. You
want a serious audience ... here you go. I have attempted to be a
serious audience for you, more than once. Your presentation blatantly
sucks, and is utterly flawed. I'm not even trying here. Any serious
presentation of ideas should be as flawlessly executed as the
presenter is capable of. For instance, dismissing the "solar system"
model of the atom by invoking your opinion, or what little reasoning
you provided, is seriously misguided and utterly without insight or
understanding. In fact, all it does show is that you do not understand
contemporary thought on the matter, and are attempting to formulate
your theory as a consequence of your lack of understanding. You truly
just do not get it.

I am sure that you are not lacking in intellect,

Say What!!! you actually read that and say this...
I would say re-read it but that may cause brain damage....


but you apparently are not allowing reality to be the arbiter of truth
here. Take a step back.

Just a shallow assesment of ...

Very shallow, I agree. Because the manuscript is only like a few page
introduction of the basic structure of the entire universe of a totally new
atomic model. Can one explain everything as complex as The Smart Model with
just and abstract, an intro, a few references cited.... ? The Smart Model isn't
just the manuscript like you seem to think. Why not read and understand the
WHOLE online book that goes with the manuscript? And then think about it.... .



http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"Acknowledgements - ... I would also like to thank those that allow me
to borrow the figures and other equations that help support the
manuscript. ..."

Because a disturbing portion of the manuscript is composed of figures
and equations borrowed from papers written by others. (OR let's say a

So??? I try to show their is supporting findings in others peoples
experimental works that shows that The Smart Model is correct. I even show in
the manuscript, that I _disagree_ with some of the things _they interpret_ with
their experimental data.


disturbing absence of original content like a COMPLETE derivation and

I guess if you read only the abstract, or only the manuscript, you don't get
the total derivation. The total derivation is the entire online book. It covers
alot of areas in physics, and chemistry etc... . It also shows that I have made
many new discoveries that no one has given me credit for in physics.


detailed discussion of exactly what this theory is.)

"Introduction - ... This manuscript shows a new way of observing the
atom and it's structure ... "

Flase statement. The manuscript states that if one of the authors
assumptions is true, then perhaps a statement about atomic structure
could be made. Of course the assumption is merely that. (Again, the
absence of original content like a COMPLETE derivation and detailed
discussion of exactly what this theory is. ) Of course insignificant
detail is provided, to enlighten even the most gifted, as to precisely
what (if any) observations could be made.


The assumption I think you are mentioning is that their experimental
findings show a charge distribution to a neutral particle. Well if we can say
this, then there must be an internal structure to it. The Smart Model assumes
that the experimental findings here was correct. The Smart Model doesn't use
this as a foundation of it's model. The Smart Model HAS no initial reference,
it is an original based on a unique way of viewing Helix Spiral Field
interactions of sub-particles such as anti-matter with matter, using a neutral
particle that has a charge distribution. This distribution shows that field
interaction can take place to various degrees, which allows matter and
anti-matter to interact without annihilation.



(Ummm .... shouldn't the abstract, title, etc preceed the intro?)


Not necessarily. The manuscript is only like an introduction itself to the
online book of "The Smart Model".


"The New Alternative View Of The Structure Of The Atom ... By
Smart1234 (AKA Internet Name) ...
... ABSTRACT ...
Usually the standard quantum solar system model of the atom is used to
explain what occurs at the atomic level. It is my opinion, that this
model is incorrect because there really is no logical explanation as
to how, or why a negatively charged particle like the electron will
remain in orbit with other electron, without either repelling each
other, or colliding with the positively charged nucleus of the atom.
... "

Well ****! For that matter why doesn't the solar system itself
collapse into the sun due to gravitational forces alone? This gem of

In some cases this does occur. But you are looking at two different
situations. The stellar level, vs. The sub-atomic level. Gravity is a major
force in the stellar level interactions, but at the sub-atomic level, gravity
is the weakest force in the atoms.



an excerpt speaks for itself though.

BODY is a whopping 7 pages. 4 of those pages consist of really big
pics and a big bad periodic table scan. Most
The gif file could be improved but it makes it's point, orbital analysis is
shown to be used with The Periodic Table of Elements based on QM. This part is
at least seen. Which is incorrect BTW. It is only a math trick. It is not
reality.


of the content appears to
be based upon the work of Wu and Lee from Columbia Univ. Good luck
finding the references though. Oh .. I don't know ... maybe I'm just
not trying hard enough ... BUT! Check this. Here's the first three.
Apparently critical refs.

"References
1. Figure (2) borrowed from, Physical Review Letters, by T. D. Lee and
C.S. Wu, from the Department of Physics, Columbia Universtiy, Volume
12 Number 20, Page 428
2. Equation labeled 3.68 including charge form factor equation, was
borrowed from T.D. Lee and C. S. Wu, Physical Review Letters, Volume
12, Number 20, Page 429
3. Equation labeled (8) was borrowed from, J.Berstein and T.D. Lee,
Physical Review Letters, Volume 11, Number 11, Page 513 "

Let me lend a hand looking these up ...


http://prola.aps.org/browse?journal=...23;by =volume

Something is not right here. I'm sure these refs must exsist because
the manuscript contains direct clips from them. Just can't seem to
find these papers though. I did find some T.D. Lee papers. Their
context has nothing to do with that of the manuscript though.

I used a book reference by T.D. Lee as the reference. It cited these
references in it.



So there's some specific criticism. You asked for it. You got it. You
want a serious audience ... here you go. I have attempted to be a
serious audience for you, more than once.
And this is your best? Oh well, it usually takes people about 10 years to
catch up with the Smart Model. You have barely covered the abstract.


Your presentation blatantly
sucks, and is utterly flawed. I'm not even
You have hardly read or understood anything about The Smart Model . I also
use MathCAD analysis, and a tremendous more advanced analysis of The Smart
Model. It's like you stopped at first grade, and claimed there is no high
school level or college.


trying here. Any serious
presentation of ideas should be as flawlessly executed as the
presenter is capable of. For instance, dismissing the "solar system"
model of the atom by invoking your opinion, or what little reasoning
you provided, is seriously misguided and utterly without insight or
understanding. In fact, all it does show is that
The Bohr model clearly shows it started the QM theory or Electron Orbital
model. Then others tried to modifiy it in such a way that orbitals were still
used but in another way ( or called something else). But the Bohr Model is
still basically being used no matter what they claim an electron orbital means
now.


you do not understand
contemporary thought on the matter, and are attempting to formulate
your theory as a consequence of your lack of understanding. You truly
just do not get it. I am sure that you are not lacking in intellect,
but you apparently are not allowing reality to be the arbiter of truth
here. Take a step back.



This was the worst analysis of The Smart Model ever made. I have to give you
credit for something.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

I am sure that you are not lacking in intellect,

Say What!!! you actually read that and say this...
I would say re-read it but that may cause brain damage....



Enlightenment in physics isn't brain damaging. The Smart Model simply
replaces The QM Model and the Standard Model with something more correct.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"S. Enterprize Company" wrote in message
...
I am sure that you are not lacking in intellect,

Say What!!! you actually read that and say this...
I would say re-read it but that may cause brain damage....



Enlightenment in physics isn't brain damaging. The Smart Model simply
replaces The QM Model and the Standard Model with something more correct.

See... reading SmFarts writtings causes Brain Damage..

Thanks for suppling my varification....

(S. Enterprize Company) wrote in message ...
Just a shallow assesment of ...

Very shallow, I agree. Because the manuscript is only like a few page
introduction of the basic structure of the entire universe of a totally new
atomic model. Can one explain everything as complex as The Smart Model with
just and abstract, an intro, a few references cited.... ? The Smart Model isn't
just the manuscript like you seem to think. Why not read and understand the
WHOLE online book that goes with the manuscript? And then think about it.... .


Oh, yes. I should have been more thorough than concise in
communicating the extent of your writings. I am aware that there is
more than 'just' the manuscript. But one must begin somewhere. This
manuscript I have refered to is titled 'The Smart Model - The New
Atomic Testament.' It appears as the first article of the WHOLE online
book. (At the top of the page that is.) As you state, it is your intro
to ... etc ... All the more reason that this portion should be a
strength of your presentation. Which, as I have said, it is not. Not
at all.


http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"Acknowledgements - ... I would also like to thank those that allow me
to borrow the figures and other equations that help support the
manuscript. ..."

Because a disturbing portion of the manuscript is composed of figures
and equations borrowed from papers written by others. (OR let's say a

So??? I try to show their is supporting findings in others peoples
experimental works that shows that The Smart Model is correct. I even show in
the manuscript, that I _disagree_ with some of the things _they interpret_ with
their experimental data.


OK. OK. But what you refer to as 'trying to show' is frequently thin
on 'showing' (through direct comparison of mathematical models ad
nauseum for instance) and too fat with biased personal interjections
(or circular references to other 'smart model' 'proofs' which
reference still others, etc. This still smacks of biased
interpretation.). That is how it reads from what you have written.



"The New Alternative View Of The Structure Of The Atom ... By
Smart1234 (AKA Internet Name) ...
... ABSTRACT ...
Usually the standard quantum solar system model of the atom is used to
explain what occurs at the atomic level. It is my opinion, that this
model is incorrect because there really is no logical explanation as
to how, or why a negatively charged particle like the electron will
remain in orbit with other electron, without either repelling each
other, or colliding with the positively charged nucleus of the atom.
... "

Well ****! For that matter why doesn't the solar system itself
collapse into the sun due to gravitational forces alone? This gem of

In some cases this does occur. But you are looking at two different
situations. The stellar level, vs. The sub-atomic level. Gravity is a major
force in the stellar level interactions, but at the sub-atomic level, gravity
is the weakest force in the atoms.


Your comments here exemplify a point of the criticism I offered. I
said I was sure you were not lacking in intellect. The comments here
show that you indeed had much more understanding about the physics of
'orbits' than you offered in that exerpt from the manuscript. The way
you expressed yourself there was too brief, and makes it too easy for
the reader to infer a lack of credibility in your reasoning. It can be
reasonably shown that electrons can have stable orbits about an atomic
nucleus. BUT you are not REALLY sharing HOW you can SHOW this model
could be unreasonable, though perhaps you could. Perhaps you cannot.
It just smacks of so much more bravado than content and INSIGHT as you
have chosen to present it.



Something is not right here. I'm sure these refs must exsist because
the manuscript contains direct clips from them. Just can't seem to
find these papers though. I did find some T.D. Lee papers. Their
context has nothing to do with that of the manuscript though.

I used a book reference by T.D. Lee as the reference. It cited these
references in it.


Come on. YOU KNOW this is still more than just a little problem. From
what I read in the intro I became an immediately biased skeptic. Your
references are the foundation to maintain credibility, objectivism,
insight, and so much more. I looked for the references for a couple of
reasons. Perhaps I was too skeptically biased to evaluate your content
objectively. The refs could have given me soooo much more insight into
what you admit is a manuscript that is thin on content. AND this
additional supporting evidence must be crucial to further
understanding the ideas you are trying to present. I WANTED to see
them and reread what you presented with that frame of reference in
mind. I'm not putting forth effort in these posts to find fault in you
and stroke my ego. I could give a rats ass about my ego. I was
genuinely interested in new ideas and was utterly frustrated after
investing my time in the read. Your site could've had dead links and
been less frustrating.


So there's some specific criticism. You asked for it. You got it. You
want a serious audience ... here you go. I have attempted to be a
serious audience for you, more than once.
And this is your best?

Doesn't even scratch the surface, but you conveniently muddled that
part.

Your presentation blatantly
sucks, and is utterly flawed. I'm not even
You have hardly read or understood anything about The Smart Model . I also
use MathCAD analysis, and a tremendous more advanced analysis of The Smart
Model. It's like you stopped at first grade, and claimed there is no high
school level or college.


Maybe yes. Maybe no. No matter. It's not my fault. It's yours. Not
that you'd acknowledge that or anything............



This was the worst analysis of The Smart Model ever made. I have to give you
credit for something.


Well you get what you deserve. I haven't said your ideas are ****.
(Though I have expressed my frustration.) For all I know your ideas
may be gems. (may be) I'll never know. The bottom line of what I've
said is that even if your ideas ARE gems you have them buried in too
much dung to make it worth the effort finding them. SO I guess lazy
dip****s like me will just have to suffer through life without your
insight. Oh, how will we survive?

Snip the other comments you made, they are just rambling with no value...

Your presentation blatantly
sucks, and is utterly flawed. I'm not even
You have hardly read or understood anything about The Smart Model . I
also
use MathCAD analysis, and a tremendous more advanced analysis of The Smart
Model. It's like you stopped at first grade, and claimed there is no high
school level or college.


Maybe yes. Maybe no. No matter. It's not my
Maybe yes, is the most correct response.


fault. It's yours. Not
that you'd acknowledge that or anything............



This was the worst analysis of The Smart Model ever made. I have to give
you
credit for something.


Well you get what you deserve. I haven't said your ideas are ****.

Well you have shown you lack the ability to understand at the level needed.
PhD's even have trouble understanding the Smart Model. What is your background?



(Though I have expressed my frustration.) For all I know your ideas
may be gems. (may be) I'll never know. The

The Smart Model can't be measured in terms of money. There isn't enough of
it around to equal it's worth.


bottom line of what I've
said is that even if your ideas ARE gems you have them buried in too
much dung to make it worth the effort finding them. SO I guess lazy
dip****s like me will just have to suffer through
I agree you seem to be very lazy. But at least you make a response at your
level of intelligence. Thank you.


life without your
insight. Oh, how will we survive?



Now this is a good question. The Smart Model needs alot more work to make
it more accurate and more enlightening. It also needs alot of support from
people to obtain the sufficient energy needed to make this universe a better
place to live in. It's like this. What good is a cure to a sickness if no one
wants to use it? The Smart Model works something like this too. Imagine a gauge
like this.

Higher positive levels of supportive energy
--
--
---
---------------------- break even point
---
--
--
-- -- We are here in this world of suffering and death

Positive responses with support ( positive people energy) is needed to bring
The Smart Model to at least the break even level, to help this world.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/