Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #472886 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-09-24 09:43 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-09-28 14:47 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 73 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-24 09:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-24 17:13 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-24 12:38 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 01:20 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 01:38 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 06:47 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 17:54 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 02:39 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 06:32 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 14:13 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 17:57 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 02:39 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-24 18:17 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-24 20:09 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 13:29 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Hilton Packett <wod@wcothr.ce> - 2018-09-25 22:29 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) herbertglazier0@gmail.com - 2018-09-25 16:55 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-25 17:52 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-25 20:11 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 04:11 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 09:54 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-26 14:00 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-26 21:29 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 01:10 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-27 06:47 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-27 18:37 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 13:18 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 22:05 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-29 08:11 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 15:25 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-29 12:40 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-29 20:03 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 22:03 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-30 19:07 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:52 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-01 11:46 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:30 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:30 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:08 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 08:37 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-29 09:20 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-29 12:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-29 15:00 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:31 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-01 11:51 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 21:30 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-02 07:21 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:08 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:27 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 06:03 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-03 13:38 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-03 09:10 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:41 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:24 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-03 05:59 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 06:20 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 07:10 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-28 16:45 +0000
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:39 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-26 13:57 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-26 14:42 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-27 12:46 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 06:30 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-09-28 06:56 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 09:41 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:44 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 09:43 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 13:51 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 14:30 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-09-28 14:41 -0700
Re: Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-09-28 14:47 -0700
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 08:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <122890ba-a14f-480d-9290-376db60f0c00@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473458 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:05:34 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > I don’t owe anything to anyone. Yes you do. > I invented a new theory of the universe, You *STOLE* a theory from another crank. > a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me > relevant questions. idiot ken, I'm a real/official physicist. And I often asked you what your theory predicts for a given (simple) exp. Yet, you refused to answer the questions. This makes you a fraud and a liar. Until you answer the questions physicist pose to you, you will remain a fraud. > And asked me to do calculations knowing that the IRT equations > call for data that are not yet available. The data is irrelevant here. Do the calculations and give the result symbolically. Its that simple. > How is that I am a fraud by inventing a new theory of relativity? 1- you refuse to do the calculations we request 2- you admitted to me that you plagiarized 'irt'. > You can point out that my theory is wrong because...... but > not simply say that I am a fraud. idiot ken, you say that your theory is, say, "rhJVFUbhjyuf". We say that the above is meaningless, and cant make any predictions. The theory "rhJVFUbhjyuf" is wrong because it makes NO predictions; its gibberish, random string of letters. Yet you claim it because we cant understand it. Perhaps, yet you cant answer us what result it predicts for a given exp. That's what makes you a fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 09:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6462a119-bdb9-4bfd-a44e-204080c587ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473461 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 8:37:24 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote: > >I'm a real/official physicist. You are just a fraud. A crank just one notch about Ken.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a45dc9d4-2beb-4870-85bc-03f3114e2fd7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473461 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:37:24 AM UTC-4, rotchm wrote: > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 6:05:34 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > I don’t owe anything to anyone. > > Yes you do. > > > I invented a new theory of the universe, > > You *STOLE* a theory from another crank. You are a racist. Http://www.modelmechanics.org/dehilster.pdf I am not going to waste time on you anymore. > > > a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me > > relevant questions. > > > idiot ken, I'm a real/official physicist. And I often asked you > what your theory predicts for a given (simple) exp. Yet, you refused to answer the questions. > > This makes you a fraud and a liar. Until you answer the questions physicist pose to you, you will remain a fraud. > > > And asked me to do calculations knowing that the IRT equations > > call for data that are not yet available. > > The data is irrelevant here. Do the calculations and give the result symbolically. Its that simple. > > > How is that I am a fraud by inventing a new theory of relativity? > > 1- you refuse to do the calculations we request > 2- you admitted to me that you plagiarized 'irt'. > > > You can point out that my theory is wrong because...... but > > not simply say that I am a fraud. > > idiot ken, you say that your theory is, say, "rhJVFUbhjyuf". > We say that the above is meaningless, and cant make any predictions. > The theory "rhJVFUbhjyuf" is wrong because it makes NO predictions; its gibberish, random string of letters. Yet you claim it because we cant understand it. Perhaps, yet you cant answer us what result it predicts for a given exp. That's what makes you a fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-29 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fec14b45-60f4-4d0f-bdac-8daffb60338e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473472 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 3:43:49 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > You are a racist. > Http://www.modlemechanics.org/dehilster.pdf Link doesnt work. > I am not going to waste time on you anymore. Liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 10:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75ea04e4-7f80-4907-ac17-f504e1a69313@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473458 |
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: [] > > I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, > a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant > questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to > refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations > knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, not even "a real physicist". Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. I presume you did the work to learn your field once the instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack of integrity and honor. So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or fails. It is up to you. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5387422f-3c43-41b9-87c1-5f2390359f5a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473686 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > [] > > > > I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, > > a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant > > questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to > > refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations > > knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. > > I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand > how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide > such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, > not even "a real physicist". > > Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. > I presume you did the work to learn your field once the > instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out > examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide > to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack > of integrity and honor. > > So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and > be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other > aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. > the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross > that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither > your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or > fails. > > It is up to you. > > Ed Yes it’s up to me. I decided that you are not important enough for me waste time to do any work to satisfy you. Furthermore, your motivation is to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-01 21:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pou3li$1qs6$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473693 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >> [] >>> >>> I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, >>> a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant >>> questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to >>> refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations >>> knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. >> >> I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand >> how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide >> such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, >> not even "a real physicist". >> >> Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. >> I presume you did the work to learn your field once the >> instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out >> examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide >> to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack >> of integrity and honor. >> >> So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and >> be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other >> aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. >> the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross >> that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither >> your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or >> fails. >> >> It is up to you. >> >> Ed > > Yes it’s up to me. I decided that you are not important enough for me > waste time to do any work to satisfy you. Furthermore, your motivation is > to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that. > Chickenshit fraudster. Real scientists put their calculations up in papers precisely so that other physicists can pick over them and try to find the holes. You don’t want to do that. Fine, then it won’t be treated like a physics theory. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 07:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3379b7ac-44e7-4625-9d92-401b2cb7bf30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473715 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:30:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > >> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > >> [] > >>> > >>> I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, > >>> a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant > >>> questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to > >>> refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations > >>> knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. > >> > >> I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand > >> how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide > >> such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, > >> not even "a real physicist". > >> > >> Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. > >> I presume you did the work to learn your field once the > >> instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out > >> examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide > >> to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack > >> of integrity and honor. > >> > >> So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and > >> be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other > >> aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. > >> the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross > >> that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither > >> your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or > >> fails. > >> > >> It is up to you. > >> > >> Ed > > > > Yes it’s up to me. I decided that you are not important enough for me > > waste time to do any work to satisfy you. Furthermore, your motivation is > > to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that. > > > > Chickenshit fraudster. Real scientists put their calculations up in papers > precisely so that other physicists can pick over them and try to find the > holes. You don’t want to do that. Fine, then it won’t be treated like a > physics theory. Real scientists would try to understand my theory before asking questions. You and Ed don’t understand my theory and want me to do calculations. I don’t think so.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp08n6$1bfq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #473810 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 5:30:30 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >>>> On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: >>>> [] >>>>> >>>>> I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, >>>>> a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant >>>>> questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to >>>>> refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations >>>>> knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. >>>> >>>> I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand >>>> how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide >>>> such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, >>>> not even "a real physicist". >>>> >>>> Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. >>>> I presume you did the work to learn your field once the >>>> instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out >>>> examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide >>>> to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack >>>> of integrity and honor. >>>> >>>> So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and >>>> be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other >>>> aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. >>>> the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross >>>> that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither >>>> your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or >>>> fails. >>>> >>>> It is up to you. >>>> >>>> Ed >>> >>> Yes it’s up to me. I decided that you are not important enough for me >>> waste time to do any work to satisfy you. Furthermore, your motivation is >>> to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that. >>> >> >> Chickenshit fraudster. Real scientists put their calculations up in papers >> precisely so that other physicists can pick over them and try to find the >> holes. You don’t want to do that. Fine, then it won’t be treated like a >> physics theory. > > Real scientists would try to understand my theory before asking > questions. You and Ed don’t understand my theory and want me to do > calculations. I don’t think so. > Ken, the real world doesn’t conform to what you think should be so. You say real scientists would give you attention before asking for calculations. I think you should have discovered by now — look at the lack of interest over the last two decades — that the opposite is true: scientists won’t give you any attention until you do what THEY consider to be minimum, which I guarantee includes one of the things you just don’t know how to do. Calculations. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a8d3738-4fb0-4d4b-95d8-8ca56a3e4aeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473810 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:21:15 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: [] > > Real scientists would try to understand my theory before asking questions. You and Ed don’t understand my theory and want me to do calculations. I don’t think so. I have tried to understand your theory. I asked you for a simple calculation to explain the one equation that your provide (a modified equation of gravity). If you want recognition, you need to stop hiding. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 06:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e2203c74-9414-4ef3-9a05-40497f538984@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473843 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:27:40 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 10:21:15 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > [] > > > > Real scientists would try to understand my theory before asking questions. You and Ed don’t understand my theory and want me to do calculations. I don’t think so. > > I have tried to understand your theory. > I asked you for a simple calculation to explain the one equation > that your provide (a modified equation of gravity). > > If you want recognition, you need to stop hiding. > Ed Told you that your motivation is to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp2gom$ep2$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473924 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:27:40 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> I have tried to understand your theory. >> I asked you for a simple calculation to explain the one equation >> that your provide (a modified equation of gravity). >> If you want recognition, you need to stop hiding. >Told you that your motivation is to refute my theory and I am not going to >help you to do that. Real physicists try to refute their OWN theory as well as helping others try to refute it. If they cannot, it's a sign he may be on to something. Conversely, if they can, there's less time wasted on something that's wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 09:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e99de79-7250-4b36-aab3-558349463a05@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473928 |
On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 15:38:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Real physicists try to refute their OWN theory as well as helping others > try to refute it. :) And real communists are just humble servants of working people of towns and villages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 07:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <43f76c2b-555f-44fa-9435-a08038af2fc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473924 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 9:03:50 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:27:40 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > Told you that your motivation is to refute my theory and I am > not going to help you to do that. But idiot ken, that is what you are supposed to do! As a real scientist, you are to try to refute your theory. Thats what scientist do. Since you reuse to try to refute your theory, you are not a scientist, and it makes you a fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-02 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <093934db-c153-45eb-b6a9-7ee5e3f55d2f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473693 |
On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > [] > > > > > > I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, > > > a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant > > > questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to > > > refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations > > > knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. > > > > I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand > > how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide > > such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, > > not even "a real physicist". > > > > Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. > > I presume you did the work to learn your field once the > > instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out > > examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide > > to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack > > of integrity and honor. > > > > So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and > > be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other > > aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. > > the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross > > that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither > > your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or > > fails. > > > > It is up to you. > > > > Ed > > Yes it’s up to me. I decided that you are not important enough for me waste time to do any work to satisfy you. Furthermore, your motivation is to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that. Then please do not complain when your theory is ignored. If you won't move your theory forward for yourself, then you have no reason to complain that others won't do your calculations or run your experiments. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 05:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f8d598d0-5393-42b4-bad8-19cb08d62ba0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473841 |
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:24:36 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 2:51:32 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, October 1, 2018 at 1:31:14 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > On Saturday, September 29, 2018 at 11:11:08 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > > [] > > > > > > > > I don’t owe anything to anyone. I invented a new theory of the universe, > > > > a real physicist would try to understand my theory ask me relevant > > > > questions. A want to be physicist such as you and ED would try to > > > > refute it without understanding it. And asked me to do calculations > > > > knowing that the IRT equations call for data that are not yet available. > > > > > > I only asked you to do a sample calculation so we could understand > > > how your equation of gravity works. That you care not to provide > > > such an example shows you do not care to share you theory with anyone, > > > not even "a real physicist". > > > > > > Even you had to go to school to become a Chemical Engineer. > > > I presume you did the work to learn your field once the > > > instructor provided clear guidance, including worked out > > > examples, of the specific topics. That you refuse to provide > > > to others what you yourself was given, points to your lack > > > of integrity and honor. > > > > > > So it seems you do not care to have your theory advance and > > > be tested. You have not provided equations to test any other > > > aspect of your theory, so that is why I ask you about this one. > > > the next step is up to you. If you are not willing to cross > > > that line, your theory will continue in obscurity. Neither > > > your nor the world will learn whether your theory works or > > > fails. > > > > > > It is up to you. > > > > > > Ed > > > > Yes it’s up to me. I decided that you are not important enough for me waste time to do any work to satisfy you. Furthermore, your motivation is to refute my theory and I am not going to help you to do that. > > > Then please do not complain when your theory is ignored. > If you won't move your theory forward for yourself, then > you have no reason to complain that others won't do your > calculations or run your experiments I don’t complain. If my theory is right then some bright young physicist will discover it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-03 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd670f29-0623-42ee-923c-0a6aa8c5cf03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473923 |
On Wednesday, October 3, 2018 at 8:59:27 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 at 4:24:36 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > I don’t complain. If my theory is right then some bright young > physicist will discover it. And if its wrong, everyone will tell you so and then just ignore it. That is what is happening btw! So this proves that your theory is wrong, that it is crap.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e27c388-7f0b-479b-9983-dd6d46fc37ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473254 |
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:47:16 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 9:10:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 12:54:49 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > >> This is getting interesting. It explains a lot, like why Ken cannot > > >> do even a simple calculation from "his own" formula for gravity. > > >> > > > > > > No idiot,I said that I don’t want to do what you asked me to do. It is beneath me. > > > > > > > > > > Lol. Doing what all physicists do is beneath you. > > It is beneath me to do work for amateur like you the woodworker and Ed. While I am not working as a physicist, I am not an amateur. My Undergraduate degree is Physics. Yours was Chemical Engineering. I have used my skills in physics and mathematics in a long and productive career in Software Engineering, much of it in embedded programming. I still work in a company making CT scanners. So I deal with more physics each week that you do in a year. You know I tried to be patient with you. I addressed you with respect, Mr. Seto. But I merely ask you do demonstrate what you yourself claim to have created. So the bottom line is: if you cannot make testable predictions with your own theory, then your theory is useless. I suggest you drop the theory and spend more time with your family. Enjoy, Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 07:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <833fbef4-f29d-4983-8dd7-efc1e05664ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #473345 |
On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:20:07 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 9:47:16 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 9:10:49 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 at 12:54:49 PM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: > [] > > > >> This is getting interesting. It explains a lot, like why Ken cannot > > > >> do even a simple calculation from "his own" formula for gravity. > > > >> > > > > > > > > No idiot,I said that I don’t want to do what you asked me to do. It is beneath me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol. Doing what all physicists do is beneath you. > > > > It is beneath me to do work for amateur like you the woodworker and Ed. > > While I am not working as a physicist, I am not an amateur. > My Undergraduate degree is Physics. Yours was Chemical Engineering. > I have used my skills in physics and mathematics in a long and > productive career in Software Engineering, much of it in embedded > programming. I still work in a company making CT scanners. > So I deal with more physics each week that you do in a year. That’s the point. You are still an amateur. You adopted some of the concepts of current physics and thus were not able to think outside the box. I invented the Pyramid Technique for doing physics and that enabled me to think outside the box and that, in turn, enabled me to come up with the revolutionary final theory of Model Mechanics. > > You know I tried to be patient with you. I addressed you > with respect, Mr. Seto. But I merely ask you do demonstrate > what you yourself claim to have created. No you were trying to refute my theory and you wanted me to help you to do so and I refused. > > So the bottom line is: if you cannot make testable predictions > with your own theory, then your theory is useless. I proposed experiments in Chapter 5 of my book to detect absolute motion. That’s testable. > > I suggest you drop the theory and spend more time with your family. ROTFLOL.... you the amateur want me to drop my theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-28 16:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pollr6$cme$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #473349 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 9:20:07 AM UTC-4, Edward Prochak wrote: >> While I am not working as a physicist, I am not an amateur. >> My Undergraduate degree is Physics. Yours was Chemical Engineering. >> I have used my skills in physics and mathematics in a long and >> productive career in Software Engineering, much of it in embedded >> programming. I still work in a company making CT scanners. >> So I deal with more physics each week that you do in a year. >That's the point. You are still an amateur. Wait a minute, Stupid Ken! Ed is the one with a physics degree, but you don't, and YOU call HIM an amateur?? What does that make you?? A rank novice, perhaps? >> You know I tried to be patient with you. I addressed you >> with respect, Mr. Seto. But I merely ask you do demonstrate >> what you yourself claim to have created. >No you were trying to refute my theory and you wanted me to help you to do >so and I refused. Part of being a physicist is doing calculations using their own theories to predict what happens in specific situations. >> So the bottom line is: if you cannot make testable predictions >> with your own theory, then your theory is useless. >I proposed experiments in Chapter 5 of my book to detect absolute motion. >That's testable. Yet YOU cannot make testable predictions with your own theory!!! It's your theory, it is your job to do so. You aren't fooling anyone, Ken. You aren't refusing to do the calculations. You *can't* do the calculations because you just can't do the math! You can't even calculate (-6)/(-2)! Not even after 6 years!!
[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