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 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 09:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <XM-dnR_at49XTbPEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #421186 |
On 5/31/17 5/31/17 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote:
> Physicists ignored my work for the following reasons:
> 1. Don’t want to rock the boat.
> 2. Embarrassment.
> 3. Money.
> 4. Gutless.
Again you merely demonstrate your personal ignorance, and a complete disconnect
from reality.
While I cannot speak for other physicists, I have ignored your work because:
1) it is nonsensical
2) it is self-inconsistent
3) the author has repeatedly demonstrated incredible stupidity, and
shown he does not understand very basic math or physics
I'm pretty sure that most other physicists have ignored your work for the simple
reason that they have never heard of it. No loss.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 07:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <85d1910a-5c8e-44d4-a3bf-324b343e8bb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421197 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/31/17 5/31/17 8:42 AM, kenseto wrote: > > Physicists ignored my work for the following reasons: > > 1. Don’t want to rock the boat. > > 2. Embarrassment. > > 3. Money. > > 4. Gutless. > > Again you merely demonstrate your personal ignorance, and a complete disconnect > from reality. > > While I cannot speak for other physicists, I have ignored your work because: > 1) it is nonsensical This is a lie. Model Mechanics is a new physical theory that resolves all the problems encounter by current theories. > 2) it is self-inconsistent This is a lie. Model Mechanics is self-consistent. It proposed a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the other forces of nature. > 3) the author has repeatedly demonstrated incredible stupidity, and > shown he does not understand very basic math or physics This is a lie. I understand the very basic of math or physics. That’s why I was able to formulate 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 | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ogmo2j$11hb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421200 |
On 5/31/17 9:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > This is a lie. > I understand the very basic of math or physics. No, Ken, you do not. - You cannot do 4th grade arithmetic nor basic algebra without bountiful mistakes. - You do not even understand the terminology of physics. - You can't work a freshman physics problem to save your life. You are FANTASIZING that you are capable in basic physics and math. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 08:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <df57ebbd-64e1-4675-9497-3335eed9ef4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421204 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 11:39:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 5/31/17 9:53 AM, kenseto wrote: > > This is a lie. > > I understand the very basic of math or physics. > > No, Ken, you do not. > - You cannot do 4th grade arithmetic nor basic algebra without bountiful > mistakes. This isa lie. > - You do not even understand the terminology of physics. This is a lie.....I extended the terminology of physics in my book. > - You can’t work a freshman physics problem to save your life. This is a lie. I work with physics problem everyday. That’s why I was able to formulate IRT. > > You are FANTASIZING that you are capable in basic physics and math. > This is a lie.....the fact that I was able to formulate IRT speaks volume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 17:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ognesa$5dp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421207 |
On 5/31/17 10:54 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 11:39:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/31/17 9:53 AM, kenseto wrote: >>> This is a lie. >>> I understand the very basic of math or physics. >> >> No, Ken, you do not. >> - You cannot do 4th grade arithmetic nor basic algebra without bountiful >> mistakes. > > This isa lie. Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken. http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SquareDiff.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DeltaSeto.html http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/InfNum.html > >> - You do not even understand the terminology of physics. > > This is a lie.....I extended the terminology of physics in my book. You INVENTED meanings for terms when you did not understand what physicists mean by the terms. > >> - You can’t work a freshman physics problem to save your life. > > This is a lie. > I work with physics problem everyday. That’s why I was able to formulate IRT. You do not work freshman physics problems every day, Ken. I could give you one from a freshman physics book right now and you'd be completely unable to work it. > >> >> You are FANTASIZING that you are capable in basic physics and math. >> > > This is a lie.....the fact that I was able to formulate IRT speaks volume. Writing a self-published book is not an accomplishment. The only person you are fooling is yourself. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pnalsing@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 15:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a382c516-4be5-4cfe-b18e-92eee430700c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421207 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 8:54:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 11:39:04 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > I understand the very basic of math or physics. > > > > No, Ken, you do not. Tell us again, Ken, how reducing acceleration is the same as deceleration...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 16:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogmsip$cop$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #421200 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: >> 3) the author has repeatedly demonstrated incredible stupidity, and >> shown he does not understand very basic math or physics >This is a lie. >I understand the very basic of math or physics. Stupid Ken, you don't even know how to calculate the value (-6)/(-2)! You don't even know what the left and right sides of a graph are for!! That right there is basic math that you don't understand. How can you expect to do the serious math required for physics when you can't even deal with fourth grade mathematics!!! You are delusional, Ken. > That's why I was able to formulate Model Mechanics. And your inability to do math at the 4th grade level is just one reason why Model Mechanics is such a complete, absolute, total disaster of a failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sdru.product@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5eeca7dc-8172-4688-b723-cd0f32048d0a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #421219 |
On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 6:55:55 AM UTC-10, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 10:18:56 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > > >> 3) the author has repeatedly demonstrated incredible stupidity, and > >> shown he does not understand very basic math or physics > > >This is a lie. > >I understand the very basic of math or physics. > > Stupid Ken, you don't even know how to calculate the value (-6)/(-2)! > You don't even know what the left and right sides of a graph are for!! > That right there is basic math that you don't understand. > > How can you expect to do the serious math required for physics when you > can't even deal with fourth grade mathematics!!! > > You are delusional, Ken. > > > That's why I was able to formulate Model Mechanics. > > And your inability to do math at the 4th grade level is just one reason > why Model Mechanics is such a complete, absolute, total disaster of a > failure. Does it being a total disaster of a failure make it a success?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 14:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogmlbq$d0d$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #421186 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> >> Then again, you are distorting reality. Anyone can self-publish a book. >> >> Self-publishing a book in a particular area does NOT qualify you as a >> >> professional or an expert in that area. >> > How would you know? You are not a physicist so you don't have the >> > qualification to evaluate my work. >> Neither are you, Ken. >I published three books on physics and cosmology.....what have you done? Nothing. Publishing three vanity books doesn't make you a physicist, Stupid Ken. All it proves is that you have more money than brains, and you found a "publisher" who was willing to "help" you with that issue. The real question is how is the world better off because of what you have done. >Physicists ignored my work for the following reasons: 1. Model Mechanics and IRT are complete, total, absolute failures. 2. Model Mechanics is a total Embarrassment. 3. Nobody wants to go to that dark, dusty corner of the copyright office warehouse where k00kbooks go to die. 4. Physicists are interested in math more advanced than third grade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@TheWorld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 15:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogk3qq$9d1$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #421049 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 3:39:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> When you tell a string of lies in a short period of time, you know what >> that does to your reputation, right Ken? >I have no problem.....my reputation is intact. You sure got that correct, Ken. You have a reputation here of being a raving kook who doesn't know the first thing about SR, can't handle third grade mathematics yet you somehow believe you are a physicist who can replace SR (which you don't understand and refuse to learn) just because you wasted a ton of money self-publishing a book nobody will buy, a book that was sufficiently unique to obtain a copyright from a reviewer who doesn't know physics. This "reputation" is intact, all right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogf983$55p$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420843 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >I am a Chemical Engineer But not a physicist. >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. And it failed at that. >_ It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters. And it failed at that as well. >_ It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes. And failed here, too. >_ It provides a mechanism to unify all the forces of nature. Which it failed to do so. >_ It can be validated experimentally. And the validatation refutes it. >_ It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT). Which is another failure. >_ It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity > (DTG) Which is yet another failure. >_ It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity > as subsets. Since it conflicts with them, it fails at including them as subsets, as well. >_ It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics. Which it fails at. >_ It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force. Which is another failure of it. >_ It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle. And fails here, as well. >_ It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments. Another failure. >_ It explains the structures of atoms. And yet another failure. Congratulations, Ken! There is something that Model Mechanics doesn't fail at. It doesn't fail at failing!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc3f405a-0b79-4c38-9f57-b279c7fd1a67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420876 |
W dniu niedziela, 28 maja 2017 21:43:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moroney napisał: > Congratulations, Ken! There is something that Model Mechanics doesn't > fail at. It doesn't fail at failing! A poor idiot is trying to be funny. Being funny also requires some intellect, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-28 23:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogfl19$gdo$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420878 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >W dniu niedziela, 28 maja 2017 21:43:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Michael Moron>ey napisał: >> Congratulations, Ken! There is something that Model Mechanics doesn't >> fail at. It doesn't fail at failing! >A poor idiot is trying to be funny. >Being funny also requires some intellect, Which us why you'll never be funny, poor idiot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-25 02:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <og5g2l$dfs$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420547 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 10:36:45 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 5/24/17 7:16 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> 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. It is you who has no clue how copyright works, Stupid Ken. Read this, from 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. § 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] Just replace "political theory" with "physics theory", Stupid Ken, and see what you get. Or better yet, replace it with "failed physics theory". In other words, if someone was stupid enough, that stupid person could write his own book on IRT/Model Mechanics and get that book copyrighted by the very same lady. Just as long as that stupid person's book was original and not copied from your stupid book. Do you think Einstein got a copyright on Special Relativity or General Relativity? No. But his actual papers were copyrighted until the copyright expired.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-24 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <og4dd6$7n7$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420485 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >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: >> >>> 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. Otherwise >how do they know if the work they are reviewing is copyrightable? Stupid Ken, her job is to determine if your k00kbook is original and creative, not to determine whether its physics are correct or not. There is no reason for her to know any physics or to try to determine whether the physics are correct or not. >> > 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. Of course any comment that reads "The Model Mechanics being discussed is a complete, total, absolute disaster of a failure!" is still a comment... (and, of course, accurate)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 13:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <YtWdnVZvMsumur7EnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #420246 |
On 5/22/17 5/22/17 - 11:13 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:43:21 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 5/22/17 5/22/17 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>> Time dilation is a permanent effect.
>>
>> No, it is NOT. "Time dilation" is a DIFFERENTIAL effect which varies with
>> relative velocity, just like “length contraction".
>
> Clocks in relative motions will accumulate different number of clock seconds between meetings and that effect is permanent as shown on each clock. Whereas a meter stick will maintain the same length between meetings.....this means that the predicted length contraction effect is not permanent.
As I keep saying, you are comparing apples and oranges. The correct analogy to
the different TOTAL clock readings in a twin scenario is the different TOTAL
odometer readings for traveling over one side and two sides of a triangle.
Neither "time dilation" nor "length contraction" is permanent:
* Measure the tick rate of a moving clock, and it will be slow;
bring it to rest and that slowness is NOT permanent, the clock
will then be measured to tick at its usual rate.
* Measure the length of a moving rod and it will be short;
bring it to rest and that shortness is NOT permanent, the
rod will then measure its usual length.
[All the usual caveats and conditions apply.]
That is: tick rate and length are DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENTS and apply only to a
single instant of measurement -- they depend ONLY on the relative velocity AT
THAT INSTANT. Total elapsed proper time and total trip length are INTEGRAL
MEASUREMENTS, and they depend on THE ENTIRE TRIP.
IOW: "time dilation" is the name given to the effect of motion on the TICK RATE
of a clock at the instant of measurement, not the value it displays. "length
contraction" is the name given to the effect of motion on the LENGTH of a rod at
the instant of measurement, not an odometer reading over a path.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 21:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f3fe66d5-2239-49b2-a899-cfff2e067972@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420269 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 2:00:33 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > On 5/22/17 5/22/17 - 11:13 AM, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:43:21 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote: > >> On 5/22/17 5/22/17 6:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > >>> Time dilation is a permanent effect. > >> > >> No, it is NOT. "Time dilation" is a DIFFERENTIAL effect which varies with > >> relative velocity, just like “length contraction". > > > > Clocks in relative motions will accumulate different number of clock seconds between meetings and that effect is permanent as shown on each clock. Whereas a meter stick will maintain the same length between meetings.....this means that the predicted length contraction effect is not permanent. > > As I keep saying, you are comparing apples and oranges. The correct analogy to > the different TOTAL clock readings in a twin scenario is the different TOTAL > odometer readings for traveling over one side and two sides of a triangle. Odometer readings are not the same as clock readings. Odometer reading is dependent on the miles the car travelled wrt the road. Clock readings is dependent on the speed of arrival of the required energy to affect a transition of the Cs 133 atom. > > Neither “time dilation" nor "length contraction" is permanent: I disagree. > * Measure the tick rate of a moving clock, and it will be slow; > bring it to rest and that slowness is NOT permanent, yes but the accumulated clock seconds during relative motion is permanent. > will then be measured to tick at its usual rate. When the traveling clock rejoins the stay at home clock they will again start accumulating clock seconds at the same rate. But during relative motion they definitely are accumulating clock seconds at different rates. > * Measure the length of a moving rod and it will be short; > bring it to rest and that shortness is NOT permanent, the > rod will then measure its usual length. The physical length of a moving meter stick is not measurable. Its light-path length is predicted to be shortened by a factor of 1/gamma. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of the observer’s meter stick is its material length. > > [All the usual caveats and conditions apply.] > > That is: tick rate and length are DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENTS and apply only to a > single instant of measurement -- they depend ONLY on the relative velocity AT > THAT INSTANT. Total elapsed proper time and total trip length are INTEGRAL > MEASUREMENTS, and they depend on THE ENTIRE TRIP. > > IOW: "time dilation" is the name given to the effect of motion on the TICK RATE > of a clock at the instant of measurement, not the value it displays. "length > contraction" is the name given to the effect of motion on the LENGTH of a rod at > the instant of measurement, not an odometer reading over a path. > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 07:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4a02be4a-5dd6-42e1-8947-2c9841eb7ab8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420246 |
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:13:20 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > Clocks in relative motions will accumulate different number of clock > seconds between meetings and that effect is permanent as shown on > each clock. Whereas a meter stick will maintain the same length > between meetings.....this means that the predicted length > contraction effect is not permanent. Idiot ken, If two clocks are in relative motion, one will "tick slower" than the other. When not in relative motion, they tick the same. If two rulers are in relative motion, one will be "shorter" than the other. When not in relative motion, they are the same length. IOW, the same thing happens to clocks & rulers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-23 11:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54237b58-08ec-4a66-ada4-b9984b5ca915@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420368 |
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 10:30:52 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:13:20 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > Clocks in relative motions will accumulate different number of clock > > seconds between meetings and that effect is permanent as shown on > > each clock. Whereas a meter stick will maintain the same length > > between meetings.....this means that the predicted length > > contraction effect is not permanent. > > Idiot ken, If two clocks are in relative motion, one will "tick slower" than the other. Idiot.....the point is that they will accumulate different number of clock seconds when they meet again. That means that they were accumulating clock seconds at different rates and thus refuting the SR claim that they were accumulating clock second at their normal rates. >When not in relative motion, they tick the same. Right....they accumulate clock seconds at the same rate because they are in the same state of absolute motion. >If two rulers are in relative motion, one will be "shorter" than the other. When not in relative motion, they are the same length. One will be shorter is a prediction and not measurable. Two meter sticks will have the same length whether they are at rest wrt each other or moving wrt each other. Why? Because they show the same length between meetings....IOW no residual effect as does the clocks. > > IOW, the same thing happens to clocks & rulers. No.....clocks show residual effectt whereas meter sticks show no residual effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-22 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofv0oo$6cd$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420208 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> You're looking for some permanent effect. >Time dilation is a permanent effect. >>That's not necessary. Length >> contraction only applies when the object is moving, not after you've >> brought it to a stop. >So length contraction only when the object is moving wrt the observer? And >after it return to the observer it expanded toits original length? I think >you are just making things up. Stupid Ken, the fact that you wrote what you wrote here just proves that you simply have no clue whatsoever how SR works. Why do you refuse to learn SR?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web