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 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 11:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7465b551-77f9-4a1f-8bee-e7a79c50aa77@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471913 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 10:39:28 AM UTC-4, Stakos Netakis wrote: > kenseto wrote: > > >> You can call it whatever makes your ego feel good, the fact remains > >> that no theoretical physics breakthrough has ever occurred without > >> understanding the subject. Change your hobby, this is a total waste of > >> your time. > > > > The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of > > nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of > > gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. > > It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > Were is it. I just can't wait to read it. Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 02:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <361f2db7-9413-49a7-a5c6-da700dd4266d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471909 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 7:26:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > > > > > > >>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > > > > > > >>>> those. > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and > > > > > > >>> construction industries. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> This does not make you qualified to do physics. > > > > > > >> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not > > > > > > >> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to > > > > > > do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a > > > > > > lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make > > > > > > you a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. > > > > > > You are not a qualified physicist. > > > > > > > > > > For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. > > > > > > > > Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. > > > > > > Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. > > > > Sorry, but just saying "I've solved the problem" is not solving the problem. > > > > > >Progress is always > > > > accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. > > > > Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. > > > > > > That’s inside the box thinking. > > > > You can call it whatever makes your ego feel good, the fact remains that no > > theoretical physics breakthrough has ever occurred without understanding the > > subject. Change your hobby, this is a total waste of your time. > > The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-16 10:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnlakq$1ccf$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472051 |
JanPB wrote: >> The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces >> of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of >> gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. >> It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. Yours, definitely. Coming here with no theory, bashing down the others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-17 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c60dda93-440c-4723-a047-284219b66066@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472059 |
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 3:18:05 AM UTC-7, Stakos Netakis wrote: > JanPB wrote: > > >> The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces > >> of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of > >> gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. > >> It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > > > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. > > Yours, definitely. Coming here with no theory, bashing down the others. Just pointing out his nonsense. Clearly I cannot teach anyone physics via a forum like this, and all proofs require going into the details. This is simply not feasible in this medium. OTOH anyone interested in following up and learning more details can do so. The key is study and intellectual honesty (including that wrt. oneself). -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaw.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-18 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnrshq$51j$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472206 |
JanPB wrote: >> > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. >> >> Yours, definitely. Coming here with no theory, bashing down the others. > > Just pointing out his nonsense. Clearly I cannot teach anyone physics > via a forum like this, and all proofs require going into the details. > This is simply not feasible in this medium. OTOH anyone interested in > following up and learning more details can do so. The key is study and > intellectual honesty (including that wrt. oneself). Proofs, huh? It reminds me of moon landings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-19 08:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c528cc5b-30a4-4efb-9f62-46d75fd5fca7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472051 |
On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:16:45 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 7:26:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > > > > > > > >>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > > > > > > > >>>> those. > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and > > > > > > > >>> construction industries. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> This does not make you qualified to do physics. > > > > > > > >> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not > > > > > > > >> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to > > > > > > > do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a > > > > > > > lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make > > > > > > > you a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. > > > > > > > You are not a qualified physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. > > > > > > > > > > Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. > > > > > > > > Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. > > > > > > Sorry, but just saying "I've solved the problem" is not solving the problem. > > > > > > > >Progress is always > > > > > accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. > > > > > Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. > > > > > > > > That’s inside the box thinking. > > > > > > You can call it whatever makes your ego feel good, the fact remains that no > > > theoretical physics breakthrough has ever occurred without understanding the > > > subject. Change your hobby, this is a total waste of your time. > > > > The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. Sure it does all of that. Gravity as set forth by Model Mechanics is revolutionary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-19 09:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d193a67c-9b9c-4a6e-9455-0b8da3be14b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472424 |
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 9:45:30 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:16:45 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 7:26:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the > > > forces of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new > > > theory of gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and > > > nuclear forces. It also gives a new theory of relativity that is > > > devoid of paradoxes. > > > > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. > > Sure it does all of that. Gravity as set forth by Model Mechanics is > revolutionary. You spelled "devolutionary" wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-19 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2f4b15c0-101f-4250-942a-d88b9eae8a23@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472424 |
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 8:45:30 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:16:45 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 7:26:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > > > > > > > > >>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > > > > > > > > >>>> those. > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > >>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > >>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and > > > > > > > > >>> construction industries. > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> This does not make you qualified to do physics. > > > > > > > > >> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not > > > > > > > > >> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to > > > > > > > > do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a > > > > > > > > lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make > > > > > > > > you a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. > > > > > > > > You are not a qualified physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. > > > > > > > > Sorry, but just saying "I've solved the problem" is not solving the problem. > > > > > > > > > >Progress is always > > > > > > accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. > > > > > > Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. > > > > > > > > > > That’s inside the box thinking. > > > > > > > > You can call it whatever makes your ego feel good, the fact remains that no > > > > theoretical physics breakthrough has ever occurred without understanding the > > > > subject. Change your hobby, this is a total waste of your time. > > > > > > The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > > > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. > > Sure it does all of that. Gravity as set forth by Model Mechanics is revolutionary. That's just you saying it. Means nothing otherwise. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stakos Netakis <autp@wsalaws.np> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-20 15:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <po0e73$1hv5$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #472451 |
JanPB wrote: >> Sure it does all of that. Gravity as set forth by Model Mechanics is >> revolutionary. > > That's just you saying it. Means nothing otherwise. it's up to you to disprove the moon landing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 06:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d18fa4ff-04e6-45c4-bb7c-c5d171172399@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472451 |
On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 3:19:11 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 8:45:30 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:16:45 AM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 7:26:08 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:47:58 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:27:12 PM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > > > > > > > > > >>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > > > > > > > > > >>>> those. > > > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > >>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and > > > > > > > > > >>> construction industries. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> This does not make you qualified to do physics. > > > > > > > > > >> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not > > > > > > > > > >> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to > > > > > > > > > do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a > > > > > > > > > lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make > > > > > > > > > you a physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. > > > > > > > > > You are not a qualified physicist. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, but just saying "I've solved the problem" is not solving the problem. > > > > > > > > > > > >Progress is always > > > > > > > accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. > > > > > > > Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s inside the box thinking. > > > > > > > > > > You can call it whatever makes your ego feel good, the fact remains that no > > > > > theoretical physics breakthrough has ever occurred without understanding the > > > > > subject. Change your hobby, this is a total waste of your time. > > > > > > > > The fact remains that Model Mechanics is able to unify all the forces of nature (including gravity). In addition, it gives a new theory of gravity that is compatible with the electromagnetic and nuclear forces. It also gives a new theory of relativity that is devoid of paradoxes. > > > > > > No, it does none of that. It's a dreamland ego booster, that's all. > > > > Sure it does all of that. Gravity as set forth by Model Mechanics is revolutionary. > > That's just you saying it. Means nothing otherwise. No it’s not just me saying it. Model Mechanics gives the cause of gravity.....current theories failed to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-21 07:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8427e0c4-175c-42e4-b6af-23144fe73bfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472585 |
On Friday, September 21, 2018 at 9:13:56 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > No it’s not just me saying it. And since you are an idiot, who cant do basic algebra, who cant read, who doenst know history, who has a severe failing memory, then we have no reason to believe you. > Model Mechanics gives the cause of gravity.....current theories failed > to do that. Current theories, do not need, do not use, "the cause", and yet still make the correct predictions. Theory A) No causes & correct prediction Theory B) Includes causes and correct predictions Theory C) Includes causes and makes no predictions. A) is the simples, the 'nicest'; its the one adopted. C) is the worst, and is yours btw.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 21:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnelqe$11if$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471696 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because >>>>>>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided >>>>>>>> those. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and >>>>>>> construction industries. >>>>>> >>>>>> This does not make you qualified to do physics. >>>>>> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not >>>>>> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. >>>>> >>>>> I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. >>>> >>>> You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to >>>> do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. >>>> >>>> Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a >>>> lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make >>>> you a physicist. >>>> >>>> You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. >>>> You are not a qualified physicist. >>> >>> For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside >>> the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the >>> transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed >>> to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. >> >> Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. > > Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. > >> Progress is always >> accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. >> Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. > > That’s inside the box thinking. > Schizophrenia is out of the box thinking. Drooling-on-a-park-bench babbling is thinking out of the box. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <55a76fe2-8768-4127-81a2-c2e4f5e89494@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471708 |
On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: > >> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > >>>>>>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > >>>>>>>> those. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and > >>>>>>> construction industries. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This does not make you qualified to do physics. > >>>>>> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not > >>>>>> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. > >>>>> > >>>>> I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. > >>>> > >>>> You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to > >>>> do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. > >>>> > >>>> Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a > >>>> lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make > >>>> you a physicist. > >>>> > >>>> You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. > >>>> You are not a qualified physicist. > >>> > >>> For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside > >>> the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the > >>> transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed > >>> to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. > >> > >> Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. > > > > Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. > > > >> Progress is always > >> accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. > >> Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. > > > > That’s inside the box thinking. > > > > Schizophrenia is out of the box thinking. > Drooling-on-a-park-bench babbling is thinking out of the box. If schizophrenia is able to come up with a theory such as Model Mechanics then I welcome him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnj72k$77d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471911 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 5:45:54 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 2:36:34 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 7:26:43 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 11:31:36 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because >>>>>>>>>> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided >>>>>>>>>> those. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and >>>>>>>>> construction industries. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This does not make you qualified to do physics. >>>>>>>> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not >>>>>>>> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I didn’t pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are not qualified to develop a physical theory. You have no idea how to >>>>>> do that properly and you don’t know even basic physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pretending to be a doctor doesn’t make you a doctor. Pretending to be a >>>>>> lawyer doesn’t make you a lawyer. Pretending to be a physicist doesn’t make >>>>>> you a physicist. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are a retired chemical engineer with some industrial accomplishments. >>>>>> You are not a qualified physicist. >>>>> >>>>> For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside >>>>> the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the >>>>> transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed >>>>> to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. >>>> >>>> Yes but you are not the one to have solved this problem. >>> >>> Yes I am the one and Model Mechanics is the result. >>> >>>> Progress is always >>>> accomplished by knowing what went on before: you have to study physics first. >>>> Without it all your attempts will miss the mark and are a total waste of time. >>> >>> That’s inside the box thinking. >>> >> >> Schizophrenia is out of the box thinking. >> Drooling-on-a-park-bench babbling is thinking out of the box. > > If schizophrenia is able to come up with a theory such as Model Mechanics > then I welcome him. > Lol -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-15 08:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <db60bb25-1060-4e5f-837d-e5ed3f3649bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471911 |
On Saturday, September 15, 2018 at 7:35:56 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote: > > If schizophrenia is able to come up with a theory such as Model Mechanics then I welcome him. You already have
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-12 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnc099$mae$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #471526 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >> > I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and >> > construction industries. >> This does not make you qualified to do physics. >> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not >> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. >I didn't pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the >universe. No, Model Mechanics is a pretend theory. No predictions that can be verified, nothing. A real theory produces theories that can be checked by experiment. As Odd said, pretending to be a doctor doesn't make you a doctor, even if you own a stethoscope. Pretending to be a physicist by coming up with a pretend theory does not make you a physicist. Model Mechanics has zero mathematical calculations. None! How can you have a theory of physics which can't even do mathematical predictions that can be tested? How can it be a "complete theory of the universe" if we can't even test to see whether it even works or not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-14 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pnh0kj$qnu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #471579 |
Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> > I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and >>> > construction industries. > >>> This does not make you qualified to do physics. >>> You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not >>> pretend to be qualified as a physicist. > >>I didn't pretend--I developed Model Mechanics a complete theory of the >>universe. > > No, Model Mechanics is a pretend theory. No predictions that can be > verified, nothing. A real theory produces theories that can be checked > by experiment. There is no such need. Model Mechanis is just another theory your dont understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d19e8f6f-3bc5-40d3-a15c-9b049f78e63f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471507 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 9:08:50 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > Nothing wrong with that when my theory is superior. > > > >> > >> Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > >> the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > >> those. > >> > >> You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > > > > I got 2 patents and I developed numerous products for the auto and > > construction industries. > > This does not make you qualified to do physics. > You should be satisfied with your industrial accomplishments and not > pretend to be qualified as a physicist. For the last 100 years Physicists are confining their thinkings inside the box, such as force messengers and curvature of spacetime, for the transmission of the various types of forces and that’s why they failed to come up with a unified theory for all the forces. I am a Chemical Engineer I have enough physics training but at the same time I was able to think outside the box. This enabled me to come up with a new theory on the transmission of all the forces. This new theory is called Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics posits that all the different forces of nature are the results of the absolute motions, of the interacting objects A and B, in a stationary but deformable, structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix. I invite you and the followers of this thread to read Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > What have you got?....NOTHING, except wasting your time cruising the > > internet and criticizing any body who has new ideas. > > Oh, I’ve got plenty, bub. Thanks very much. I’m not retired. > > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> and virtual particles in the form of bosons will pop in and out of this > >>>>>>> field. These bosons will act as force messengers to affect an appropriate > >>>>>>> force to the interacting object. The force messengers for all the forces > >>>>>>> can be summarized as follows: > >>>>>>> The strong force messengers are the gluons. The existence of gluon has > >>>>>>> not been found experimentally. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The force messengers for the electroweak force are: W+, W- and Z0. These > >>>>>>> force messengers have been found experimentally. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The force messengers for the electromagnetic force are the photons. The > >>>>>>> virtual photons have been found experimentally. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The force messengers for gravity are the gravitons. Graviton has not been > >>>>>>> found experimentally. In fact, the notion of gravitons for the force of > >>>>>>> gravity has been a total failure mathematically. This means that there is > >>>>>>> no valid theory of quantum gravity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Einstein’s premise of gravity is simply that the interacting objects > >>>>>>> follow the curvature of space-time. There is no physical cause of gravity > >>>>>>> in Einstein’s description. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> In other words, GRT is merely a mathematical description of the paths > >>>>>>> followed by the interacting objects. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That is incorrect. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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. The > >>>>>>> result of an intense search for such physical model for the past twenty > >>>>>>> years is: Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics posits that all the particles, > >>>>>>> all the forces and all the processes of nature are the result of > >>>>>>> different absolute motions of the fundamental S-Particles in a structured > >>>>>>> and elastic ether called the E-Matrix. The detailed description of Model > >>>>>>> Mechanics is available in Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: > >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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 amalgamate 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 | 2018-09-13 07:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4660668a-3b4d-4128-915a-b549c62f79a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471409 |
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). > > Providing calculated predictions WOULD be a supporting statement because > the numbers could be checked against measurement. But you haven’t provided > those. > > You are an unqualified chemical engineer trying to pretend to do physics. > > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> and virtual particles in the form of bosons will pop in and out of this > >>>>> field. These bosons will act as force messengers to affect an appropriate > >>>>> force to the interacting object. The force messengers for all the forces > >>>>> can be summarized as follows: > >>>>> The strong force messengers are the gluons. The existence of gluon has > >>>>> not been found experimentally. > >>>> > >>>> That is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The force messengers for the electroweak force are: W+, W- and Z0. These > >>>>> force messengers have been found experimentally. > >>>>> > >>>>> The force messengers for the electromagnetic force are the photons. The > >>>>> virtual photons have been found experimentally. > >>>>> > >>>>> The force messengers for gravity are the gravitons. Graviton has not been > >>>>> found experimentally. In fact, the notion of gravitons for the force of > >>>>> gravity has been a total failure mathematically. This means that there is > >>>>> no valid theory of quantum gravity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Einstein’s premise of gravity is simply that the interacting objects > >>>>> follow the curvature of space-time. There is no physical cause of gravity > >>>>> in Einstein’s description. > >>>> > >>>> That is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>>> In other words, GRT is merely a mathematical description of the paths > >>>>> followed by the interacting objects. > >>>> > >>>> That is incorrect. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 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. The > >>>>> result of an intense search for such physical model for the past twenty > >>>>> years is: Model Mechanics. Model Mechanics posits that all the particles, > >>>>> all the forces and all the processes of nature are the result of > >>>>> different absolute motions of the fundamental S-Particles in a structured > >>>>> and elastic ether called the E-Matrix. The detailed description of Model > >>>>> Mechanics is available in Chapter 3 of my book in the following link: > >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 amalgamate 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. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> 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 | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-13 11:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <de2ce6b9-8d71-4c54-9de7-94bbb6467463@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #471664 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web