What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?

Do you consider that her ideas of 'particum' and 'partici' as the
fundamental energy/matter interface hold any weight?


--
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti (Om Peace Peace Peace)

"Keshav Kallianpur" wrote in message
...


What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?

Do you consider that her ideas of 'particum' and 'partici' as the
fundamental energy/matter interface hold any weight?

Typical crank abduction rubbish - at least if it is the Anna Hayes I know
of.

Thanks
Bill



--
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti (Om Peace Peace Peace)

"Keshav Kallianpur" wrote in message
...


What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?


I think they are of no relevance to sci.military.naval

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Keshav Kallianpur" wrote in message
...


What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?


I think they are of no relevance to sci.military.naval

I'm surprised he didn't post it to sci.skeptic.

tim gueguen 101867

Keshav Kallianpur:


What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?

Do you consider that her ideas of 'particum' and 'partici' as the
fundamental energy/matter interface hold any weight?


You can answer this yourself. Does her theory make any new quantitative
prediction about some phenomenon? If no, the answer is obvious. If yes,
then does her theory agree with real experiments as determined by
doing actual calculations that give numerical answers? If no, then again,
the answer is obvious.

(Keshav Kallianpur) wrote in message ...
What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?

Do you consider that her ideas of 'particum' and 'partici' as the
fundamental energy/matter interface hold any weight?

Very little, since we've still trying to teach
astrologers the structure of telescopes, arrays,
computers, robotic action, gravity and thermal lenses,
and particle production. But they seem to prefer to believe
virtual particles are some evidence of universal
structure, other than First and E St in Washingtoon D.C.

energy not only doesn't have an interface,
but by a simple derivation from Noerther's Theorem's,
it can't have an interface to anything other
than time. Since the particles do not EXIST,
in anything other than wave-packets. They
do exist in accelerators, they do not exist in TVs,
they do not exist in Internet. They do not
exist in Lasers. They exist only in wave-packets.
And wave-packets interact only with atoms.
Which is where Einstein came up with Principle
of Relativy that matter is in actuality
INVARIANT to the presense of atoms.

Which means that an opinion about energy
means that the universe is NOT expanding.
Which means that universe is perfectly flat
wherever energy observations are made,
that don't also include observations
about anti-particles. And in a region
that is perfectly flat, the equation
E=MC^2 is not even true.

"Bilge" schrieb
Keshav Kallianpur:
What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?

You can answer this yourself. Does her theory make any new quantitative
prediction about some phenomenon? If no, the answer is obvious.

Do you apply this to string theory too?

Ilja

Ilja Schmelzer:

"Bilge" schrieb
Keshav Kallianpur:
What is your opinion on the theories propounded by Anna Hayes with
regard to the structure of the universe?

You can answer this yourself. Does her theory make any new quantitative
prediction about some phenomenon? If no, the answer is obvious.

Do you apply this to string theory too?

Sure. String theory does make a number of predictions, supersymmetry
being one of them. If you're looking for an advocate, post a question
to lubos motl in the strings newsgroup. I'm sure he can provide lots
of predictions. Personally, I don't consider myself knowledgeable
enough on string theory to have an opinion about it beyond not having
any doubts that it's a bonifide theory, right or wrong. I have a two
volume set om the subject, so I have no problem determining that string
theory is a theory, but I'm not about to argue a case for it. If you
want to rag on string theory, go find lubos motl and you'll get a
better argument.