Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420007 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-20 08:22 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-05-22 15:40 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 100 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:32 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-21 13:34 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 04:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 08:27 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 08:44 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 09:50 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 18:20 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Seki Ushisa <sis@iscauhw.ea> - 2017-05-22 18:24 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 09:13 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-22 11:51 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 14:49 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 22:50 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 06:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:02 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 05:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:28 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 17:03 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 23:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 14:36 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:45 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 16:34 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 23:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-24 08:43 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-23 10:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 15:01 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:49 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 06:57 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 13:04 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:34 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 14:30 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 05:16 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 09:36 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-24 14:02 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-24 16:29 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-26 08:14 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:19 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-26 23:55 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-27 05:37 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 05:58 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-29 08:40 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-29 16:42 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:33 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 06:35 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 08:37 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-30 14:36 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 10:47 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 06:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Sienkiewicz Emniak <iecunkn@swazine.po> - 2017-05-28 15:19 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-28 16:31 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-28 17:45 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-29 08:33 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 10:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Earnest Rives <ueeenn@wweiwne.ac> - 2017-05-29 21:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-29 15:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 07:17 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-30 08:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> - 2017-05-30 19:02 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 06:24 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-29 14:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 07:18 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 09:36 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-30 12:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 19:41 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Ernest Schwanenflügel <erwm@wanenf.oa> - 2017-05-30 19:54 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-30 22:35 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-05-30 20:04 -0400
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 00:38 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 06:42 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 09:01 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-31 09:18 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 07:53 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 10:39 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-31 08:54 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 17:08 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 15:28 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 16:55 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math sdru.product@gmail.com - 2017-05-31 12:11 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-31 14:52 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> - 2017-05-30 15:41 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-28 19:42 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-05-28 14:36 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-28 23:04 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-25 02:38 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-24 16:46 +0000
Re: Reality versus Math Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-22 13:00 -0500
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-22 21:41 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-05-23 07:30 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-05-23 11:27 -0700
Re: Reality versus Math moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-22 15:40 +0000
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 16:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og4u05$etj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420547 |
On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>>>>>> a solid idea here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >>>>> >>>>> Yes she is. >>>> >>>> Prove it. What's her name? >>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. >>> >>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. >> >> No sir. > > Then you have no clue who copyright works. Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on their jobs website. >> >>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? >> >> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether >> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a >> subject-matter expert to do that. > > Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that > they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >> >> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... > > Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can write a threatening letter > to her......just as you did to me. Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. >>>> >>>> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say >>>> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied >>>> physics. How can you be a physicist? >>>> >>> Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. >> >> And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or >> similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed >> your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on >> your essay is not the same as endorsing it. > > Idiot.....most of them are physicists. I am not going to do the work for you. You can go to the FQXi > web site and find the relevant essay contest that I was involved in. I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. >> >>>> -- >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 08:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63c583a0-f037-49ee-9e59-76639354e335@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420549 |
On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >>>>>>>> a solid idea here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> LOL. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes she is. > >>>> > >>>> Prove it. What's her name? > >>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > >>> > >>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. > >> > >> No sir. > > > > Then you have no clue who copyright works. > > Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and > skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on > their jobs website. Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is original if she doesn’t know current physics. > > >> > >>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? > >> > >> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether > >> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a > >> subject-matter expert to do that. > > > > Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that > > they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >> > >> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... > > > > Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can write a threatening letter > > to her......just as you did to me. > > Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. Liar. > >>>>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. > >>>> > >>>> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say > >>>> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied > >>>> physics. How can you be a physicist? > >>>> > >>> Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. > >> > >> And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or > >> similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed > >> your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on > >> your essay is not the same as endorsing it. > > > > Idiot.....most of them are physicists. I am not going to do the work for you. You can go to the FQXi > > web site and find the relevant essay contest that I was involved in. > > I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have > profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. Liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 10:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og9h2r$vs7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420638 |
On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOL. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes she is. >>>>>> >>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? >>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. >>>>> >>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. >>>> >>>> No sir. >>> >>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. >> >> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and >> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on >> their jobs website. > > Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is original if she doesn’t know current physics. Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. > >> >>>> >>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? >>>> >>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether >>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a >>>> subject-matter expert to do that. >>> >>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that >>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>> >>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... >>> >>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can write a threatening letter >>> to her......just as you did to me. >> >> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. > > Liar. No Ken, it's true. I've never, not once, written any letter to you. > >>>>>>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say >>>>>> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied >>>>>> physics. How can you be a physicist? >>>>>> >>>>> Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. >>>> >>>> And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or >>>> similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed >>>> your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on >>>> your essay is not the same as endorsing it. >>> >>> Idiot.....most of them are physicists. I am not going to do the work for you. You can go to the FQXi >>> web site and find the relevant essay contest that I was involved in. >> >> I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have >> profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. > > Liar. Name four commentators to your essay that list being a physicist in their bio. Go ahead. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 23:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c94a3d06-86ff-409c-b175-e8ff6daa95b8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420639 |
W dniu piątek, 26 maja 2017 17:19:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. At least, your moronic physics obviously doesn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 05:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <90e878e6-2c02-471a-8262-e4a41af8131b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420719 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 12:55:19 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu piątek, 26 maja 2017 17:19:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > > > > Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. > > At least, your moronic physics obviously doesn't. At the very least, your Moronic Ludicrous Witless Obsessive brain doesn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 05:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60b9040e-9f65-4ba1-8179-de5aa7ff722c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420639 |
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> LOL. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes she is. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? > >>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > >>>>> > >>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. > >>>> > >>>> No sir. > >>> > >>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. > >> > >> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and > >> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on > >> their jobs website. > > > > Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is original if she doesn’t know current physics. > > Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. > I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone > looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. No....I don’t want you to write her a threatening letter. > > > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? > >>>> > >>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether > >>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a > >>>> subject-matter expert to do that. > >>> > >>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that > >>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>> > >>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... > >>> > >>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can write a threatening letter > >>> to her......just as you did to me. > >> > >> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. > > > > Liar. > > No Ken, it's true. I’ve never, not once, written any letter to you. You did. > > > > >>>>>>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say > >>>>>> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied > >>>>>> physics. How can you be a physicist? > >>>>>> > >>>>> Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his own. In his essay his bio is included. > >>>> > >>>> And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or > >>>> similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed > >>>> your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on > >>>> your essay is not the same as endorsing it. > >>> > >>> Idiot.....most of them are physicists. I am not going to do the work for you. You can go to the FQXi > >>> web site and find the relevant essay contest that I was involved in. > >> > >> I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have > >> profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. > > > > Liar. > > Name four commentators to your essay that list being a physicist in > their bio. Go ahead. > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogf295$vki$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420841 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes she is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? >>>>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> No sir. >>>>> >>>>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. >>>> >>>> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and >>>> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on >>>> their jobs website. >>> >>> Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is >>> original if she doesn’t know current physics. >> >> Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. > > For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright > reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? > >> I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone >> looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. > > No....I don’t want you to write her a threatening letter. What would anybody threaten her with. >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether >>>>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a >>>>>> subject-matter expert to do that. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that >>>>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>> >>>>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... >>>>> >>>>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can >>>>> write a threatening letter >>>>> to her......just as you did to me. >>>> >>>> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. >>> >>> Liar. >> >> No Ken, it's true. I’ve never, not once, written any letter to you. > > You did. Libel Ken. Prove it. Scan the letter and post a link. You're the liar > >> >>> >>>>>>>>> In the FQXi group many physicists endorsed my theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What makes you think they are physicists? Because they said so? You say >>>>>>>> you're a physicist too, but you know that's a lie. You've not studied >>>>>>>> physics. How can you be a physicist? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any poster commenting on my essays also submitted an essay of his >>>>>>> own. In his essay his bio is included. >>>>>> >>>>>> And they are not physicists. They are "independent investigators" or >>>>>> similar. Let's take some of the names of the people who have endorsed >>>>>> your essays. Go ahead, list a few. Please note that simply commenting on >>>>>> your essay is not the same as endorsing it. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot.....most of them are physicists. I am not going to do the work >>>>> for you. You can go to the FQXi >>>>> web site and find the relevant essay contest that I was involved in. >>>> >>>> I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have >>>> profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. >>> >>> Liar. >> >> Name four commentators to your essay that list being a physicist in >> their bio. Go ahead. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1435a94-9e09-49ae-93eb-cbd4d27f64ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420868 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >>>>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> LOL. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes she is. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? > >>>>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> No sir. > >>>>> > >>>>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and > >>>> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on > >>>> their jobs website. > >>> > >>> Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is > >>> original if she doesn’t know current physics. > >> > >> Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. > > > > For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright > > reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. > > Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? I don’t have to prove anything to you......everytime I asked you a question on SR you told me to go and read a book. So I suggest that you go and finding out by writing to the copy right Office. > > > > >> I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone > >> looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. > > > > No....I don’t want you to write her a threatening letter. > > What would anybody threaten her with. I don’t know.....you got the answer to your question. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether > >>>>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a > >>>>>> subject-matter expert to do that. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that > >>>>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... > >>>>> > >>>>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can > >>>>> write a threatening letter > >>>>> to her......just as you did to me. > >>>> > >>>> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. > >>> > >>> Liar. > >> > >> No Ken, it's true. I’ve never, not once, written any letter to you. > > > > You did. > > Libel Ken. Prove it. Scan the letter and post a link. > You're the liar Your name is PD and you wrote a threatening letter to my Daughter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oghj1k$12d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420935 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >>>> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >> >>> Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is >> >>> original if she doesn't know current physics. >> >> >> >> Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. >> > >> > For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright >> > reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. >> >> Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? >I don't have to prove anything to you......everytime I asked you a >question on SR you told me to go and read a book. So I suggest that you go >and finding out by writing to the copy right Office. Doesn't matter what her degree is, you can't copyright a theory, only your own representation of it. Her job was simply to verify that you didn't steal your crap from Yeheil Porat or anyone else. (Not that there is anyone else dumb enough to claim your crapola) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States Idea.expression dichotomy[edit] Copyright law protects the "expression" of an idea, but copyright does not protect the "idea" itself. This distinction is called the idea-expression dichotomy.[8] The distinction between "idea" and "expression" is fundamental to copyright law. From the Copyright Act of 1976 (17 U.S.C. M-' 102): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work. For example, a paper describing a political theory is copyrightable. The paper is the expression of the author's ideas about the political theory. But the theory itself is just an idea, and is not copyrightable. Another author is free to describe the same theory in their own words without infringing on the original author's copyright.[9] >> >>>>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Odd (Aka PD) I don't want to give her name to you so that you can >> >>>>> write a threatening letter >> >>>>> to her......just as you did to me. >> >>>> >> >>>> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. >> >>> >> >>> Liar. >> >> >> >> No Ken, it's true. I've never, not once, written any letter to you. >> > >> > You did. >> >> Libel Ken. Prove it. Scan the letter and post a link. >> You're the liar >Your name is PD and you wrote a threatening letter to my Daughter. Stupid Ken, you changed your story. First it was Odd writing a threatening letter to you. Now you changed your story to PD writing a threatening letter to your daughter. Why do physics kooks always think every non-kook is PD? So Ken, now your job is two-fold, if you want to prove Odd wrote a threatening letter. 1) Post a link to this alleged letter from PD to your daughter. 2) Prove Odd is PD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 14:33 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oght36$1fse$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420935 |
On 5/29/17 10:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes she is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? >>>>>>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No sir. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and >>>>>> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on >>>>>> their jobs website. >>>>> >>>>> Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is >>>>> original if she doesn’t know current physics. >>>> >>>> Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. >>> >>> For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright >>> reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. >> >> Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? > > I don’t have to prove anything to you......everytime I asked you a question on > SR you told me to go and read a book. So I suggest that you go and finding out by writing to the copy right Office. I've already done that. The job requirements for copyright reviewer are posted online. I suggested you look at it. You decided not to, instead choosing to MAKE UP what you think the requirements of the job are. > >> >>> >>>> I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone >>>> looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. >>> >>> No....I don’t want you to write her a threatening letter. >> >> What would anybody threaten her with. > > I don’t know.....you got the answer to your question. So it's baseless babble. There's nothing to threaten her with, therefore no reason to avoid writing her to ask. You're just throwing smoke, trying to avoid facing the truth. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether >>>>>>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a >>>>>>>> subject-matter expert to do that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that >>>>>>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can >>>>>>> write a threatening letter >>>>>>> to her......just as you did to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. >>>>> >>>>> Liar. >>>> >>>> No Ken, it's true. I’ve never, not once, written any letter to you. >>> >>> You did. >> >> Libel Ken. Prove it. Scan the letter and post a link. >> You're the liar > > Your name is PD and you wrote a threatening letter to my Daughter. First of all, my name is not PD, and if PD wrote a letter to your daughter, that is not the same as ME writing a letter to YOU, is it? You're a fucking liar, Ken, caught in another lie. Be careful of what crimes you accuse people of, if you don't have evidence to back it up. You can get taken to court for that. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 06:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f2f150c3-aaac-48c3-acc3-e6b7022251f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420962 |
On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:34:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/29/17 10:40 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Yes she is. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? > >>>>>>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> No sir. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and > >>>>>> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on > >>>>>> their jobs website. > >>>>> > >>>>> Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is > >>>>> original if she doesn’t know current physics. > >>>> > >>>> Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. > >>> > >>> For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright > >>> reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. > >> > >> Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? > > > > I don’t have to prove anything to you......everytime I asked you a question on > > SR you told me to go and read a book. So I suggest that you go and finding out by writing to the copy right Office. > > I've already done that. The job requirements for copyright reviewer are > posted online. I suggested you look at it. You decided not to, instead > choosing to MAKE UP what you think the requirements of the job are. I didn’t make up anything.....I said that she had to know physics to conclude that my book on physics and cosmology is original. > > > > >> > >>> > >>>> I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone > >>>> looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. > >>> > >>> No....I don’t want you to write her a threatening letter. > >> > >> What would anybody threaten her with. > > > > I don’t know.....you got the answer to your question. > > So it's baseless babble. There's nothing to threaten her with, therefore > no reason to avoid writing her to ask. You're just throwing smoke, > trying to avoid facing the truth. > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether > >>>>>>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a > >>>>>>>> subject-matter expert to do that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that > >>>>>>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can > >>>>>>> write a threatening letter > >>>>>>> to her......just as you did to me. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. > >>>>> > >>>>> Liar. > >>>> > >>>> No Ken, it's true. I’ve never, not once, written any letter to you. > >>> > >>> You did. > >> > >> Libel Ken. Prove it. Scan the letter and post a link. > >> You're the liar > > > > Your name is PD and you wrote a threatening letter to my Daughter. > > First of all, my name is not PD, and if PD wrote a letter to your > daughter, that is not the same as ME writing a letter to YOU, is it? > You’re a fucking liar, Ken, caught in another lie. Yes your name is Paul Draper (PD). > > Be careful of what crimes you accuse people of, if you don't have > evidence to back it up. You can get taken to court for that. I welcome the court case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 08:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ogjsj8$e5r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421040 |
On 5/30/17 8:35 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:34:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/29/17 10:40 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 1:44:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:19:59 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 5:29:44 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/24/17 4:02 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 3:30:46 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 1:34 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 2:04:28 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/23/17 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 8:49:07 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/22/17 5:01 PM, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:51:12 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, you have nothing to offer with a "better explanation" because you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what the original explanation is. You inventing a different >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account that YOU understand is not better. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My explanation is certainly better. The problem is your fanatical attitude. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken, it is only better if someone ELSE says it's better. Nobody has. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody has purchased your book. No physicist has ever said that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a solid idea here. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> New idea will encounter resistance from the establishment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The copyright reviewer is a physicist and she think that I have a solid idea. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, Ken, the copyright reviewer is NOT a physicist. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes she is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it. What's her name? >>>>>>>>>>>> Copyright reviewers are rarely if ever professionals in the field. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are wrong.....reviewers for physics book need to understand physics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No sir. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Then you have no clue who copyright works. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sorry, Ken, but you're living in a dreamworld. The qualifications and >>>>>>>> skillsets of copyright reviewers for the Library of Congress are on >>>>>>>> their jobs website. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Idiot....how would she know that my work on physics and cosmology is >>>>>>> original if she doesn’t know current physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ken, the world does not work the way you think makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> For sure the world does not work the way you think. The copyright >>>>> reviewer must have a background on the work he /she is reviewing. >>>> >>>> Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? >>> >>> I don’t have to prove anything to you......everytime I asked you a question on >>> SR you told me to go and read a book. So I suggest that you go and finding out by writing to the copy right Office. >> >> I've already done that. The job requirements for copyright reviewer are >> posted online. I suggested you look at it. You decided not to, instead >> choosing to MAKE UP what you think the requirements of the job are. > > I didn’t make up anything.....I said that she had to know physics to conclude > that my book on physics and cosmology is original. And that's wrong. It's simple to prove it. Let's ask her. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know why you don't want to cite her name. You don't want anyone >>>>>> looking up her credentials to prove you wrong. >>>>> >>>>> No....I don’t want you to write her a threatening letter. >>>> >>>> What would anybody threaten her with. >>> >>> I don’t know.....you got the answer to your question. >> >> So it's baseless babble. There's nothing to threaten her with, therefore >> no reason to avoid writing her to ask. You're just throwing smoke, >> trying to avoid facing the truth. >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Otherwise how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Because they're not evaluating the physics. They're evaluating whether >>>>>>>>>> it is original and exhibits creativity. A reviewer does not need to be a >>>>>>>>>> subject-matter expert to do that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idiot....They have to evaluate whether the material is new physics and to do that >>>>>>>>> they must evaluate if the material is new physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I notice that you are unable to provide her name..... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Odd (Aka PD) I don’t want to give her name to you so that you can >>>>>>>>> write a threatening letter >>>>>>>>> to her......just as you did to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Delusional Ken, I have never, not once, written any letter to you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Liar. >>>>>> >>>>>> No Ken, it's true. I’ve never, not once, written any letter to you. >>>>> >>>>> You did. >>>> >>>> Libel Ken. Prove it. Scan the letter and post a link. >>>> You're the liar >>> >>> Your name is PD and you wrote a threatening letter to my Daughter. >> >> First of all, my name is not PD, and if PD wrote a letter to your >> daughter, that is not the same as ME writing a letter to YOU, is it? >> You’re a fucking liar, Ken, caught in another lie. > > Yes your name is Paul Draper (PD). >> >> Be careful of what crimes you accuse people of, if you don't have >> evidence to back it up. You can > get taken to court for that. > > I welcome the court case. You'd lose. You may have nothing left to lose. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 14:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogk00k$2cm$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #421040 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:34:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> Prove it. Let's ask her. Afraid of the answer? >> > I don't have to prove anything to you......everytime I asked you a question on >> > SR you told me to go and read a book. So I suggest that you go and finding out >> > by writing to the copy right Office. >> I've already done that. The job requirements for copyright reviewer are >> posted online. I suggested you look at it. You decided not to, instead >> choosing to MAKE UP what you think the requirements of the job are. >I didn't make up anything.....I said that she had to know physics >to conclude that my book on physics and cosmology is original. Stupid Ken, if Odd looked up the copyright reviewer job requirements and found there is no need for a physics degree, but you claim without any support that a physics degree is necessary, who is making things up? And besides, since I already showed you, twice, that you cannot copyright a basic idea, why would there even be a need for a physics degree for that job? Oh, by the way, how much money did you waste trying to copyright a basic idea by copyrighting your book, only to find out the hard way that you cannot copyright a basic idea?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <og9in6$12r5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420638 |
On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: >> I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have >> profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. > Liar. Well, let's look, shall we? Here are people who have commented on your essay. Peter Jackson -- amateur astronomer and architect by profession Ed Unverricht -- programmer Akinbo Ojo -- physician Sujatha Jagannathan -- undergrad BA student, English major Vladimir Rogozhin -- economist and engineer Basudeba Mishra -- independent researcher (no credentials) Joe Fisher -- "decrepit (self-taut) realist" [sic] Hasmukh Tank -- engineer Amrit Srecko Sorli -- independent researcher (no credentials) Al Schneider -- programmer So who is out of touch with reality here? You who say that most of the people who commented on your essay are physicists? -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 06:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <59ee0899-80ed-478c-8ae5-de59fcc1c169@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420642 |
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:47:53 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/26/17 10:14 AM, kenseto wrote: > >> I've already done that. None of the commenters to your paper have > >> profiles that list being a physicist as part of their bio. Not one. > > Liar. > > Well, let's look, shall we? Here are people who have commented on your > essay. > > Peter Jackson -- amateur astronomer and architect by profession > Ed Unverricht -- programmer > Akinbo Ojo -- physician > Sujatha Jagannathan -- undergrad BA student, English major > Vladimir Rogozhin -- economist and engineer > Basudeba Mishra -- independent researcher (no credentials) > Joe Fisher -- "decrepit (self-taut) realist" [sic] > Hasmukh Tank -- engineer > Amrit Srecko Sorli -- independent researcher (no credentials) > Al Schneider -- programmer > > So who is out of touch with reality here? You who say that most of the > people who commented on your essay are physicists? I have several essays in FQXi. So you think that only PHYSICISTS are qualified to come up with new physical ideas? What about Micheal Faraday? He was a chemist. In fact you physicists failed to come up with a valid theory of quantum gravity speaks volume. Physicists keep on pursuing the dead end mathematical approach to do physics lead to non-physical mathematical objects such as 11 or 26 dimensioned theory of everything of space; field/virtual particles; length contraction; time dilation; dark energy; entanglement....etc. I am a Chemical Engineer and I cam up with a physical theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The main feature of Model Mechanics are as follows: _ It offers a realistic origin of the universe. _ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. _ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. _ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. _ It can be validated experimentally. _ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). _ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) _ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets. _ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. _ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force. _ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle. _ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments. _ It explains the structures of atoms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 07:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <95515388-d032-4c4d-9bcf-5586f0401864@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420843 |
kenseto wrote:
> It provides physical models for all the math of
> Quantum Mechanics.
That sounds great. What is your physical model for Fourier transforms of infinite-dimensional complex-valued wave functions?
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sienkiewicz Emniak <iecunkn@swazine.po> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogepqf$gvq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420850 |
shuba wrote: > kenseto wrote: > >> It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. > > That sounds great. What is your physical model for Fourier transforms of > infinite-dimensional complex-valued wave functions? Very good.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 16:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5c06a85-da4b-466f-a615-f5241f3168a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420850 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 10:18:34 AM UTC-4, shuba wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > > It provides physical models for all the math of > > Quantum Mechanics. > > That sounds great. What is your physical model for Fourier transforms of infinite-dimensional complex-valued wave functions? There is no need for the Fourier transforms of infinite-dimensional complex-value wave functions.....this is just a math curiosity. Why? Because, in Model Mechanics, there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension of absolute time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 17:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3ee591e-c026-4c6e-a631-98bd4bc43357@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420889 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 5:31:58 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > There is no need for the Fourier transforms of infinite-dimensional complex- > value wave functions.....this is just a math curiosity. Why? Because, in > Model Mechanics, there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension > of absolute time. This means it doesn't describe the universe we live in: http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-29 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9f0dd29a-f1b3-4861-981f-cf75003cc31b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420895 |
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 8:45:36 PM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 at 5:31:58 PM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > > > There is no need for the Fourier transforms of infinite-dimensional complex- > > value wave functions.....this is just a math curiosity. Why? Because, in > > Model Mechanics, there are only three dimensions of space and one dimension > > of absolute time. > > This means it doesn’t describe the universe we live in: Yes it does according to Model Mechanics. > > http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/time-dilation1.htm His argument is based on the faulty assumption that the speed of light is a universal constant......it is not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web