Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479159 > unrolled thread

DTG: A New Theory of Gravity

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  DTG: A New Theory of Gravity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-05 14:59 -0800
    Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2018-12-05 15:15 -0800
      Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-06 16:20 +0000
    Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Dusty Chancellor <uwn@paehwa.ir> - 2018-12-06 13:51 +0000
      Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-06 08:42 -0800
        Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 17:52 +0100
          Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-06 12:20 -0800
            Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-06 13:42 -0800
              Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-07 05:37 -0800
              Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Ejí Utorka <edew@aewedoc.cl> - 2018-12-07 18:43 +0000
                Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 15:58 -0800
                  Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-11 20:08 +0000
                    Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 16:00 -0800
                      Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-12 15:20 +0000
                        Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 12:49 -0800
            Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-06 22:51 +0100
            Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:59 +0000
              Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-07 17:47 +0000
                Re: DTG: A New Theory of Gravity Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 22:36 +0000

#479159 — DTG: A New Theory of Gravity

A paper on DTG is available in the following link:

http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#479160

On Wednesday, December 5, 2018 at 5:59:38 PM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
> 
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

2015?? Not worth looking at.
You should update it, removing all the errors in it, and post the 2018 version. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479188

rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> writes:

>2015?? Not worth looking at.
>You should update it, removing all the errors in it, and post the 2018 
>version. 

But if he removes all the errors in it, all that will be left is a blank
page.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479184

kenseto wrote:

> A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
> 
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf

It brakes my heart seeing another solid structured theory going to waste. 
You have to have your Roy Masters the right places, before putting out a 
theory. Not the other way around. This is Modern Science. I am wakening 
up. They are stealing patents, models and theories. Timing is everything. 
Take care.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479190

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 8:51:22 AM UTC-5, Dusty Chancellor wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> 
> > A paper on DTG is available in the following link:
> > 
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> 
> It brakes my heart seeing another solid structured theory going to waste. 
> You have to have your Roy Masters the right places, before putting out a 
> theory. Not the other way around. This is Modern Science. I am wakening 
> up. They are stealing patents, models and theories. Timing is everything. 
> Take care.

My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479191

kenseto wrote:
> My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:

That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.  Judging from
what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a bad example).

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479208

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
> 
> That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.  Judging from
> what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a bad example).
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 

Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. Gee you are stupid.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479210

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
> > 
> > That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.  Judging from
> > what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a bad example).
> > 
> > -- 
> > PointedEars
> > 
> 
> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. Gee you are stupid.

It's not even wrong, regardless. Junk "science".

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479236

On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 4:42:23 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
> > > 
> > > That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.  Judging from
> > > what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a bad example).
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > PointedEars
> > > 
> > 
> > Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. Gee you are stupid.
> 
> It's not even wrong, regardless. Junk "science".
> 

Moron, you don’t know the meaning of the phrase “not even wrong” mean.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479254

JanPB wrote:

> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas
>> 'PointedEars'
>> Lahn wrote:
>> > kenseto wrote:
>> > > My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
>> > 
>> > That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.
>> > Judging from what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a
>> > bad example).--PointedEars
>> 
>> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. Gee
>> you are stupid.
> 
> It's not even wrong, regardless. Junk "science".

Dream in. All you can do is to lower your theory's domain of 
applicability, every time gotten cornered in nonsense. All the other 
theories are demanding large errorbars. Try again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479580

On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 10:43:39 AM UTC-8, Ejí Utorka wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 12:20:35 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote:
> >> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas
> >> 'PointedEars'
> >> Lahn wrote:
> >> > kenseto wrote:
> >> > > My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
> >> > 
> >> > That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.
> >> > Judging from what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a
> >> > bad example).--PointedEars
> >> 
> >> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. Gee
> >> you are stupid.
> > 
> > It's not even wrong, regardless. Junk "science".
> 
> Dream in. All you can do is to lower your theory's domain of 
> applicability, every time gotten cornered in nonsense.

Give me ONE example of this "every time gotten cornered in nonsense".
Just ONE.

> All the other 
> theories are demanding large errorbars. Try again.

It's the same everywhere, relativity included.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479630

JanPB wrote:

>> >> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge.
>> >> Gee you are stupid.
>> > 
>> > It's not even wrong, regardless. Junk "science".
>> 
>> Dream in. All you can do is to lower your theory's domain of
>> applicability, every time gotten cornered in nonsense.
> 
> Give me ONE example of this "every time gotten cornered in nonsense".
> Just ONE.
> 
>> All the other theories are demanding large errorbars. Try again.
> 
> It's the same everywhere, relativity included.

You relativist believers are the bigges truthers on the face of the earth. 
What comes from the mainstream, goes directly through. No question asked, 
no strings attached.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479656

On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 12:08:44 PM UTC-8, Rich Carpenter wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge.
> >> >> Gee you are stupid.
> >> > 
> >> > It's not even wrong, regardless. Junk "science".
> >> 
> >> Dream in. All you can do is to lower your theory's domain of
> >> applicability, every time gotten cornered in nonsense.
> > 
> > Give me ONE example of this "every time gotten cornered in nonsense".
> > Just ONE.
> > 
> >> All the other theories are demanding large errorbars. Try again.
> > 
> > It's the same everywhere, relativity included.
> 
> You relativist believers are the bigges truthers on the face of the earth. 
> What comes from the mainstream, goes directly through. No question asked, 
> no strings attached.

Get real. Nonsense.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479683

JanPB wrote:

>> >> All the other theories are demanding large errorbars. Try again.
>> > 
>> > It's the same everywhere, relativity included.
>> 
>> You relativist believers are the bigges truthers on the face of the
>> earth. What comes from the mainstream, goes directly through. No
>> question asked, no strings attached.
> 
> Get real. Nonsense.

Yes, glad to see we agree. The hardcore relativists are even proclaiming 
they understand. As understanding the output from a logic circuitry. But 
there is no logic circuitry in relativity. Only the output.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479711

On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 7:21:00 AM UTC-8, Rich Carpenter wrote:
> JanPB wrote:
> 
> >> >> All the other theories are demanding large errorbars. Try again.
> >> > 
> >> > It's the same everywhere, relativity included.
> >> 
> >> You relativist believers are the bigges truthers on the face of the
> >> earth. What comes from the mainstream, goes directly through. No
> >> question asked, no strings attached.
> > 
> > Get real. Nonsense.
> 
> Yes, glad to see we agree. The hardcore relativists are even proclaiming 
> they understand. As understanding the output from a logic circuitry. But 
> there is no logic circuitry in relativity. Only the output.

You missed your calling. Go to politics.

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479212

kenseto wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
>>
>> That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.  Judging from
>> what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a bad example).
> 
> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. Gee you are stupid.

Well, then this is one of those cases when a book is actually worth its
content :->


  Free advice is seldom cheap.

    –59th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479244

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 at 11:52:29 AM UTC-5, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> My book in the following link that includes DTG, is copy-righted:
>> 
>> That does not mean that it is worth reading, let alone buying.  Judging from
>> what you post, it definitely is not (except perhaps as a bad example).
>> 
>> -- 
>> PointedEars
>> 
> 
> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. 

Because, as you’ve noted, nobody will pay for it. Because it has no value. 


> Gee you are stupid.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479245

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:

>> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. 

>Because, as you’ve noted, nobody will pay for it. Because it has no value. 

It potentially could have some value. What if you were lost in the woods
and needed to stay warm. There is plenty of firewood but no tinder. You
have matches and Ken's book. Does Ken's book have any value at all?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#479288

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Hey moron, I didn’t ask you to buy it. It is offered at no charge. 
> 
>> Because, as you’ve noted, nobody will pay for it. Because it has no value. 
> 
> It potentially could have some value. What if you were lost in the woods
> and needed to stay warm. There is plenty of firewood but no tinder. You
> have matches and Ken's book. Does Ken's book have any value at all?
> 

Firewood is hard on the bum after taking a shit in the woods, that true. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web