Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #471248 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-10 06:57 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-13 10:48 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 68 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-10 06:57 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-10 07:41 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 17:14 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 14:51 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-10 15:24 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 22:53 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-11 09:33 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 17:05 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-12 05:09 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 13:08 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-12 07:54 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 15:31 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-12 13:40 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 01:16 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 07:26 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 11:36 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 12:27 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 12:47 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-15 07:26 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-15 14:39 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-15 11:14 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-16 02:16 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-16 10:18 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 11:11 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> - 2018-09-18 22:00 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-19 08:45 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-09-19 09:23 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 12:19 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> - 2018-09-20 15:26 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-21 06:13 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 07:34 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 21:45 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-15 07:35 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 15:04 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-15 08:24 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-12 21:26 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-14 19:02 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 07:41 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 07:39 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 11:38 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 12:29 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 21:45 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-15 07:33 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 15:04 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-15 11:30 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-15 19:08 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-19 08:42 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 17:12 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-21 06:33 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-21 15:00 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 17:30 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-11 19:07 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 19:21 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-11 09:31 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-11 13:08 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-11 20:15 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-11 16:41 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-12 16:30 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 17:25 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-10 10:33 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 19:23 +0000
Re: The false premises of current theories mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 13:07 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-09-12 16:21 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-13 07:30 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 18:06 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 04:39 +0200
Re: The false premises of current theories consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-12 21:16 -0700
Re: The false premises of current theories Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-13 10:48 +0200
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b798016-3b2d-4474-a9d1-0cd788818099@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471694 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:38:29 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > >>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > >>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of > > > >>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false > > > >>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified theory for all the forces > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: > > > >>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will > > > >>>>> project a field throughout space > > > >>>> > > > >>>> That is incorrect. > > > >>> > > > >>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > > > >> > > > >> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. > > > >> Therefore you are unqualified. > > > > > > > > Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. > > > > > > Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your > > > own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. > > > > There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). > > It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about > many things, like "I am the queen of England". Yes it unifies all the forces (including gravity).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnelqd$11if$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471694 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of >>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false >>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified >>>>>>>> theory for all the forces >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: >>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will >>>>>>>> project a field throughout space >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >>>>> >>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. >>>> >>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. >>> >>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your >>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. >> >> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) >> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). > > It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about > many things, like "I am the queen of England". > > -- > Jan > I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to judge his work. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 07:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6681974f-ed3e-4f45-9bbc-28bc393f3c0b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471707 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of > >>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false > >>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified > >>>>>>>> theory for all the forces > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: > >>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will > >>>>>>>> project a field throughout space > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > >>>>> > >>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. > >>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. > >>>> > >>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. > >>> > >>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your > >>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. > >> > >> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) > >> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). > > > > It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about > > many things, like "I am the queen of England". > > > > -- > > Jan > > > > I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or > untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. > > So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even > simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real > calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I > will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory > that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to > the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me > more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to > judge his work. I encourage you to do it. Look forward to your result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnj72j$77d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471910 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of >>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false >>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified >>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: >>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will >>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. >>>>> >>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your >>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. >>>> >>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) >>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). >>> >>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about >>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". >>> >>> -- >>> Jan >>> >> >> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or >> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. > > You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too > Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on > physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in physics. > >> >> So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even >> simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real >> calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I >> will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory >> that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to >> the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me >> more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to >> judge his work. > > I encourage you to do it. Look forward to your result. > Lol. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 11:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <161b6ebe-e7c3-410c-97c4-4831b9cb9f70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471915 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of > >>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false > >>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified > >>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: > >>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will > >>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. > >>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your > >>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. > >>>> > >>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) > >>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). > >>> > >>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about > >>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jan > >>> > >> > >> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or > >> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. > > > > You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. > > It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a > trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too It is not. Specialized training means training inside the box.....that’s why the trained physicists failed to come up with a viable unified theory for all the forces for the last 100 years. I, on the other hand, think outside the box....I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics and I was able to come to come up with Model Mechanics in a short time. > > > Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on > > physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. > > People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in > physics. Wrong Faraday was not a physicist and he produced some valuable ideas. > > > > >> > >> So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even > >> simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real > >> calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I > >> will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory > >> that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to > >> the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me > >> more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to > >> judge his work. > > > > I encourage you to do it. Look forward to your result. > > > > Lol. > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 19:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnjlbb$111n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471939 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of >>>>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false >>>>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified >>>>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: >>>>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will >>>>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >>>>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your >>>>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) >>>>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature >>>>>> (including gravity). >>>>> >>>>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about >>>>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>> >>>> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or >>>> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. >>> >>> You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. >> >> It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a >> trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too > > It is not. Yes it is. You cannot be an engineer without a certification, and you can’t get certification without specialized training. > Specialized training means training inside the box. Training inside the box is essential for thinking outside the box constructively. > ....that’s why the trained physicists failed to come up with a viable > unified theory for all the forces for the last 100 years. I, on the other > hand, think outside the box....I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing > physics and I was able to come to come up with Model Mechanics in a short time. > >> >>> Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on >>> physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. >> >> People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in >> physics. > > Wrong Faraday was not a physicist and he produced some valuable ideas. Faraday was THOROUGHLY trained in physics. He studied under Humphry Davy, and he read everything he could get his hands on, and he attended scientific lectures several times a week. You are deluded if you think people have made an impact in physics without physics training. >> >>> >>>> >>>> So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even >>>> simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real >>>> calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I >>>> will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory >>>> that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to >>>> the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me >>>> more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to >>>> judge his work. >>> >>> I encourage you to do it. Look forward to your result. >>> >> >> Lol. >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-09-19 08:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ddc1dc60-015b-4a60-8d32-ffd54edac96f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471960 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of > >>>>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false > >>>>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified > >>>>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: > >>>>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will > >>>>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. > >>>>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your > >>>>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) > >>>>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature > >>>>>> (including gravity). > >>>>> > >>>>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about > >>>>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jan > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or > >>>> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. > >>> > >>> You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. > >> > >> It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a > >> trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too > > > > It is not. > > Yes it is. You cannot be an engineer without a certification, and you > can’t get certification without specialized training. The problem is: the train manual for physics is outdated and obsolete. New paradigms are needed and Model Mechanics provides such. > > > Specialized training means training inside the box. > > Training inside the box is essential for thinking outside the box > constructively. No, thinking outside the box means discarding old ideas as: force messengers, curvature in spacetime, time dilation and length contraction etc. > > > ....that’s why the trained physicists failed to come up with a viable > > unified theory for all the forces for the last 100 years. I, on the other > > hand, think outside the box....I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing > > physics and I was able to come to come up with Model Mechanics in a short time. > > > >> > >>> Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on > >>> physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. > >> > >> People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in > >> physics. > > > > Wrong Faraday was not a physicist and he produced some valuable ideas. > > Faraday was THOROUGHLY trained in physics. No he was not, Maxwell gave mathematical description of his work. >He studied under Humphry Davy, > and he read everything he could get his hands on, and he attended > scientific lectures several times a week. > > You are deluded if you think people have made an impact in physics without > physics training. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even > >>>> simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real > >>>> calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I > >>>> will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory > >>>> that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to > >>>> the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me > >>>> more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to > >>>> judge his work. > >>> > >>> I encourage you to do it. Look forward to your result. > >>> > >> > >> Lol. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-19 17:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnu018$1iqv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472422 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false >>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your >>>>>>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) >>>>>>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature >>>>>>>> (including gravity). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about >>>>>>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or >>>>>> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. >>>> >>>> It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a >>>> trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too >>> >>> It is not. >> >> Yes it is. You cannot be an engineer without a certification, and you >> can’t get certification without specialized training. > > The problem is: the train manual for physics is outdated and obsolete. > New paradigms are needed and Model Mechanics provides such. Sorry Ken but you’ve never read the training manual so you don’t know if it’s obsolete or not. Saying that it’s obsolete as an excuse for not reading it just makes you look like a loon. > >> >>> Specialized training means training inside the box. >> >> Training inside the box is essential for thinking outside the box >> constructively. > > No, thinking outside the box means discarding old ideas as: force > messengers, curvature in spacetime, time dilation and length contraction etc. Any loon can discard ideas. Discarding ideas like Canada, atoms, vertebrate zoology is not a virtue. One doesn’t become a person of interest just by rejecting ideas. >> >>> ....that’s why the trained physicists failed to come up with a viable >>> unified theory for all the forces for the last 100 years. I, on the other >>> hand, think outside the box....I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing >>> physics and I was able to come to come up with Model Mechanics in a short time. >>> >>>> >>>>> Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on >>>>> physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. >>>> >>>> People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in >>>> physics. >>> >>> Wrong Faraday was not a physicist and he produced some valuable ideas. >> >> Faraday was THOROUGHLY trained in physics. > > No he was not, Maxwell gave mathematical description of his work. You have you history wrong, Ken. > >> He studied under Humphry Davy, >> and he read everything he could get his hands on, and he attended >> scientific lectures several times a week. >> >> You are deluded if you think people have made an impact in physics without >> physics training. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So my game plan would be to write a 2-page theory of everything in even >>>>>> simpler everyday language than Ken’s. I will also include a real >>>>>> calculation with a number for the gravitational constant as the result. I >>>>>> will then publish it on the internet. I will then have published a theory >>>>>> that is superior to Ken’s theory, because it is simpler, more accessible to >>>>>> the lay public, and has at least one calculation in it. This will make me >>>>>> more qualified than Ken as a physicist. Then I will be in a position to >>>>>> judge his work. >>>>> >>>>> I encourage you to do it. Look forward to your result. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Lol. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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 | 2018-09-21 06:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e6eb270a-98f4-439e-8f1b-a1812660ff52@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472443 |
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 1:12:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. > >>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your > >>>>>>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) > >>>>>>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature > >>>>>>>> (including gravity). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about > >>>>>>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Jan > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or > >>>>>> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. > >>>>> > >>>>> You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. > >>>> > >>>> It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a > >>>> trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too > >>> > >>> It is not. > >> > >> Yes it is. You cannot be an engineer without a certification, and you > >> can’t get certification without specialized training. > > > > The problem is: the train manual for physics is outdated and obsolete. > > New paradigms are needed and Model Mechanics provides such. > > Sorry Ken but you’ve never read the training manual so you don’t know if > it’s obsolete or not. Saying that it’s obsolete as an excuse for not > reading it just makes you look like a loon. It is obsolete after a 100 years of failure trying to find a quantum theory of gravity. Model Mechanics provides the mechanism for all the forces. > > > > >> > >>> Specialized training means training inside the box. > >> > >> Training inside the box is essential for thinking outside the box > >> constructively. > > > > No, thinking outside the box means discarding old ideas as: force > > messengers, curvature in spacetime, time dilation and length contraction etc. > > Any loon can discard ideas. Discarding ideas like Canada, atoms, vertebrate > zoology is not a virtue. One doesn’t become a person of interest just by > rejecting ideas. > > >> > >>> ....that’s why the trained physicists failed to come up with a viable > >>> unified theory for all the forces for the last 100 years. I, on the other > >>> hand, think outside the box....I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing > >>> physics and I was able to come to come up with Model Mechanics in a short time. > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on > >>>>> physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. > >>>> > >>>> People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in > >>>> physics. > >>> > >>> Wrong Faraday was not a physicist and he produced some valuable ideas. > >> > >> Faraday was THOROUGHLY trained in physics. > > > > No he was not, Maxwell gave mathematical description of his work. > > You have you history wrong, Ken. You are delusional....Maxwell did provide the math for Faraday’s experimental work. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po3137$1rsv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472588 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 1:12:11 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 3:08:32 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 11:04:54 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:53 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:39:21 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:05:07 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The false premises of the current theories that led generations of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory for all the forces >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A summary of the false premises of current theories: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In quantum mechanics, specifically the QFT, a material object will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> project a field throughout space >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you are unqualified. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Except that I don’t make unsupported statements. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course you do. You always refer to your own theory. Referring to your >>>>>>>>>>> own theory is not a supporting statement of your theory. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There is nothing wrong with referring to my theory (the Model Mechanics) >>>>>>>>>> when it is the only theory that can unify all the forces of nature >>>>>>>>>> (including gravity). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't "unify" anything, it just talks about it. I can also talk about >>>>>>>>> many things, like "I am the queen of England". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that in Ken’s mind, just writing about physics, trained or >>>>>>>> untrained in the subject, qualifies one to be a physicist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You seem to think that being a physicist is a big deal....it is not. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is in physics. Specialized fields require specialized training. Being a >>>>>> trained engineer is a big deal in engineering, too >>>>> >>>>> It is not. >>>> >>>> Yes it is. You cannot be an engineer without a certification, and you >>>> can’t get certification without specialized training. >>> >>> The problem is: the train manual for physics is outdated and obsolete. >>> New paradigms are needed and Model Mechanics provides such. >> >> Sorry Ken but you’ve never read the training manual so you don’t know if >> it’s obsolete or not. Saying that it’s obsolete as an excuse for not >> reading it just makes you look like a loon. > > It is obsolete after a 100 years of failure trying to find a quantum > theory of gravity. Model Mechanics provides the mechanism for all the forces. Quantum gravity has only been sought since the 70s. Your history is way off. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> Specialized training means training inside the box. >>>> >>>> Training inside the box is essential for thinking outside the box >>>> constructively. >>> >>> No, thinking outside the box means discarding old ideas as: force >>> messengers, curvature in spacetime, time dilation and length contraction etc. >> >> Any loon can discard ideas. Discarding ideas like Canada, atoms, vertebrate >> zoology is not a virtue. One doesn’t become a person of interest just by >> rejecting ideas. >> >>>> >>>>> ....that’s why the trained physicists failed to come up with a viable >>>>> unified theory for all the forces for the last 100 years. I, on the other >>>>> hand, think outside the box....I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing >>>>> physics and I was able to come to come up with Model Mechanics in a short time. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Besides physicists don’t have a monopoly to come up with new ideas on >>>>>>> physics. My Model Mechanics is a prime example. >>>>>> >>>>>> People uneducated in physics have never once produced a valuable idea in >>>>>> physics. >>>>> >>>>> Wrong Faraday was not a physicist and he produced some valuable ideas. >>>> >>>> Faraday was THOROUGHLY trained in physics. >>> >>> No he was not, Maxwell gave mathematical description of his work. >> >> You have you history wrong, Ken. > > You are delusional....Maxwell did provide the math for Faraday’s experimental work. >> > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn8u2u$jn1$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471403 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >> Therefore you are unqualified. And it's official, Ken. A REAL physicist says that YOU are unqualified. : I am a physicist, so I am qualified. I declare that what Bodkin said is : correct. Therefore you, idiot ken, are incorrect. And since I am : qualified, what I say must be true. >Except that I don't make unsupported statements. That's all you do is make unsupported statements! You can't even make a single prediction from any of your claims. Not one!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn93qa$1mcs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471412 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:53:31 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > >>> And you are a chemical engineer. You are no more qualified than me. >>> Therefore you are unqualified. > > And it's official, Ken. A REAL physicist says that YOU are unqualified. Incorrect. Relativity is been wrong for now 114 years. However, not a direct fault of Einstein, but Poincare and Voltaire. They are the fathers of altered space and altered time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-10 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af52ea4a-9463-43fa-a755-6a1c83075641@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471337 |
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:24:56 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. I am a physicist, so I am qualified. I declare that what Bodkin said is correct. Therefore you, idiot ken, are incorrect. And since I am qualified, what I say must be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e28c73fb-24b6-4fb1-8da2-13742e2565b5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471359 |
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:22:01 PM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:24:56 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > > I am a physicist, so I am qualified. I declare that what Bodkin said is correct. Therefore you, idiot ken, are incorrect. And since I am qualified, what I say must be true. You have no clue. Suggest that you check with your Dad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 13:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b4acd921-2708-4da9-8809-c7f5de855a3d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471359 |
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 7:22:01 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:24:56 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > > I am a physicist, so I am qualified. No, you are just a pretender.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 20:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn97pc$1svd$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471438 |
Dono, wrote: > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 7:22:01 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: >> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:24:56 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> >> > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. >> >> I am a physicist, so I am qualified. > > No, you are just a pretender. Indeed, and a npa web-hotel provider. https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=David_de_Hilster "artist, filmmaker, and musician and dissident scientist since meeting Argentinian physicist Dr. Ricardo Carezani in 1992 who showed Einstein's Special theory of Relativity wrong in the early 1940s."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-11 16:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <844c53f6-0093-4f75-a098-2e48365e97b7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471440 |
On Tuesday, September 11, 2018 at 1:15:44 PM UTC-7, Wilbur Foley wrote: > Dono, wrote: > > > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 7:22:01 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > >> On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:24:56 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> > On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 10:51:44 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> > >> > You are a woodworker....You are not qualified. > >> > >> I am a physicist, so I am qualified. > > > > No, you are just a pretender. > > Indeed, and a npa web-hotel provider. > > https://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=David_de_Hilster > "artist, filmmaker, and musician and dissident scientist since meeting > Argentinian physicist Dr. Ricardo Carezani in 1992 who showed Einstein's > Special theory of Relativity wrong in the early 1940s." No de Hilster, another crackpot: Stephane Baune http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnbeve$1ehq$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471473 |
Dono, wrote: > No de Hilster, another crackpot: Stephane Baune > > http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Stephane_Baune He has an yacht??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-10 17:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pn69ef$c7j$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471248 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > A summary of the false premises of current theories: <snip mostly inaccurate shortcomings of current theories> >I came to the conclusion that there is one physical model of our universe >that can replace these divergent false premises of GRT and QFT. Why would anyone want to replace something that is not 100% complete with one that's even worse?? > Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: >http://www.modelmеchanics.org/2016ibook.pdf Doesn't work. >The main feature of Model Mechanics are as follows: It is a complete failure. It is an absolute failure. It is a total failure. It is a disaster of a theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-10 10:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a3e1ec41-9acc-4709-b04e-f73d508269fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471248 |
On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 6:57:25 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > The false premises of the current theories that led generations of physicists to a 100 years of wild goose chase. Specifically, these false premises failed to lead physicists to come up with a unified theory for all the forces > Luckily Ken Shito came along to set them straight
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web