Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #479238 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800 |
| Last post | 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 158 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 16:58 +0000
Re: What is a field? paulcardinale0@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 11:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 14:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 11:39 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 17:52 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 18:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-08 18:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:18 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:04 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 10:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 13:33 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 13:53 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 14:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 14:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 23:03 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 01:37 +0000
Re: What is a field? Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 16:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:32 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-11 16:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 06:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:09 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 20:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:20 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:47 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-14 05:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:13 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 15:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-15 14:05 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 23:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:04 -0500
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:30 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:12 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 17:19 +0100
Re: What is a field? Rich Carpenter <lcug@kigcohc.pa> - 2018-12-09 00:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 10:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:29 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 06:18 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 07:26 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:11 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:14 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-12 04:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 07:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:00 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 10:59 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 08:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 13:23 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 23:36 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 20:06 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-14 15:16 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-15 02:14 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 19:53 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-14 12:21 +0000
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 10:38 -0800
Re: What is a field? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 12:48 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-07 12:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 12:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 22:05 +0100
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 16:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:46 -0500
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 14:44 -0800
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:36 -0500
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 21:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:22 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 12:35 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-07 22:01 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 06:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:21 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:17 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:58 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-09 01:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:26 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 10:27 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:23 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 14:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:25 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:15 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:14 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 18:18 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-08 20:09 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:28 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 22:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:56 -0800
Re: What is a field? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:06 +0100
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 00:13 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:44 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 09:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 07:50 -0800
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-10 17:09 +0000
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:41 +0000
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:37 -0500
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 13:07 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 08:40 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-09 22:22 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-10 08:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 07:07 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-11 18:19 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-13 07:54 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 01:24 +0100
Re: What is a field? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-12-08 23:42 -0500
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-09 10:08 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 19:36 +0100
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-08 14:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-09 11:51 +0100
Re: What is a field? carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-12-07 13:42 -0800
Re: What is a field? "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-12-15 19:51 -0800
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 06:08 -0800 |
| Subject | What is a field? |
| Message-ID | <f3767f3e-a90d-4477-9a36-f621ece8f3dc@googlegroups.com> |
According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether? Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows: 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. A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pue8rj$1j0o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479238 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether? No it does not. He is making an ANALOGY not an IDENTIFICATION. That is what the phrase “something like” is supposed to do for you. A bat wing is analogous to a dragonfly. This should not suggest to you that a bar wing is made of chitin or that a dragonfly wing has bones in it. You cannot read. > > Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the > E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads > to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The > main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows: > > 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. > > A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paulcardinale0@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-07 11:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <833a9c1d-54a3-4d72-947a-0e203db101e8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479242 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 8:58:31 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > > something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > > > This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether? > > No it does not. He is making an ANALOGY not an IDENTIFICATION. Oh come on! "Analogy" has 3 syllables to many for the kenseto to understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 06:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8aced374-13c1-4d70-8e28-7683ef0fd6aa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479242 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 11:58:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > > something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > > > This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether? > > No it does not. He is making an ANALOGY not an IDENTIFICATION. If space is not a solid body, how can it has properties? In any case, the E-Matrix is assumed to be a solid body and the absolute motions of material objects in the E-Matrix give rise to all the processes and interactions. > > That is what the phrase “something like” is supposed to do for you. > > A bat wing is analogous to a dragonfly. This should not suggest to you that > a bar wing is made of chitin or that a dragonfly wing has bones in it. > > You cannot read. > > > > > Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the > > E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads > > to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The > > main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows: > > > > 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. > > > > A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: > > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 14:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pugjhs$144m$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479327 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 11:58:31 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>> >>> This suggests that space is some sort of solid body--the aether? >> >> No it does not. He is making an ANALOGY not an IDENTIFICATION. > > If space is not a solid body, how can it has properties? Ken, there are many many many things in this world that are not solid bodies and still have properties. All of these things are real world things with properties that physicists have recognized before you were born: Air Liquid helium Electric fields Photons Radio waves Neutrinos Magnetic fields Xrays Rainbows Bose-Einstein condensates UV radiation Heat I realize that your wee mind can only consider things that are real that you can see, hold, taste, and directly sense — like cars, watermelons, dogs, shopping carts, balls. But the world is much richer than those simple things you can grasp with your senses. > In any case, the E-Matrix is assumed to be a solid body and the absolute > motions of material objects in the E-Matrix give rise to all the > processes and interactions. > >> >> That is what the phrase “something like” is supposed to do for you. >> >> A bat wing is analogous to a dragonfly. This should not suggest to you that >> a bar wing is made of chitin or that a dragonfly wing has bones in it. >> >> You cannot read. >> >>> >>> Based on this, I developed a structured and elastic aether called the >>> E-Matrix that fits Weinberg’s definition of the field. The E-Matrix leads >>> to the development of a theory of everything called Model Mechanics. The >>> main features of Mode lMechanics are as follows: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 | 2018-12-07 11:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bb7d3817-4a8d-4ca8-8fc7-c41a83e2e51e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479238 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 06:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <937bc9d6-9a6c-45fe-be9c-2b06c804d7b3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479259 |
On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. So what is a field in physics? Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is the true meaning of a field? In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for space. And a field is the stress in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute motions of the material body in the E-Matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 15:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pugobf$1c8p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479329 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >> >> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > So what is a field in physics? > Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > the true meaning of a field? He was giving an analogy for everyday people to give them an idea, just an idea, of what they are something like, just like he said. He wasn’t trying to define what they are. > > In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. It may be irrelevant to you. It’s not irrelevant to anyone else. You are only interested in your own ideas, and the ideas of physics are irrelevant to you. > My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid > body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for > space. And a field is the stress in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute > motions of the material body in the E-Matrix. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 10:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <117abdb6-f585-4b79-a7b1-601d97716925@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479334 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > >> > >> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > > > So what is a field in physics? > > Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > > the true meaning of a field? > > He was giving an analogy for everyday people to give them an idea, just an > idea, of what they are something like, just like he said. He wasn’t trying > to define what they are. His analogy led me to formulate Model Mechanics...the most successful theory of modern physics. > > > > > In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. > > It may be irrelevant to you. It’s not irrelevant to anyone else. You are > only interested in your own ideas, and the ideas of physics are irrelevant > to you. > > > My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid > > body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for > > space. And a field is the stress in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute > > motions of the material body in the E-Matrix. > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1336020a-f421-44c0-a842-636b550920cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479360 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:33:41 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > > >>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. > > >> > > >> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > > > > > So what is a field in physics? > > > Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > > > the true meaning of a field? > > > > He was giving an analogy for everyday people to give them an idea, just an > > idea, of what they are something like, just like he said. He wasn’t trying > > to define what they are. > > His analogy led me to formulate Model Mechanics...the most successful theory of modern physics. You live your life with this sort of perception of reality? Well, I guess it's harmless and everyone needs a myth now and then. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh58j$39v$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479360 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 10:35:14 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within a solid body. >>>> >>>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. >>> >>> So what is a field in physics? >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>> the true meaning of a field? >> >> He was giving an analogy for everyday people to give them an idea, just an >> idea, of what they are something like, just like he said. He wasn’t trying >> to define what they are. > > His analogy led me to formulate Model Mechanics...the most successful > theory of modern physics. His analogy managed to confuse you. You don’t get to decide if your theory is the most successful one. That would be decided by others. Note that no one else thinks it is. >> >>> >>> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. >> >> It may be irrelevant to you. It’s not irrelevant to anyone else. You are >> only interested in your own ideas, and the ideas of physics are irrelevant >> to you. >> >>> My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid >>> body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for >>> space. And a field is the stress in the E-Matrix caused by the absolute >>> motions of the material body in the E-Matrix. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 17:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh0cj$2id$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479329 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >> > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >> > something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >> > a solid body. >> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. It is more like an example of a field, stresses at different points in a body. >So what is a field in physics? A map of the values for some property at every point in space. An example is the temperature of the air in a room. Or a weather map with air temperature or wind speed and direction plotted. A disturbance in a field is something that affects or changes the field. Say a person in the room waving a blowtorch around is a disturbance of the room's temperature field. >Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >the true meaning of a field? He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, it didn't work for you. >In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. Irrelevant to you, which is just one reason why you are a failure at physics. > My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid > body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for > space. Which is yet another reason why your E-Matrix/IRT is a complete, total, absolute failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 18:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh23l$1tao$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479350 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>> According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, >>>> something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within >>>> a solid body. > >>> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > It is more like an example of a field, stresses at different points in > a body. > >> So what is a field in physics? > > A map of the values for some property at every point in space. > An example is the temperature of the air in a room. Or a weather map with > air temperature or wind speed and direction plotted. > > A disturbance in a field is something that affects or changes the field. > Say a person in the room waving a blowtorch around is a disturbance of the > room's temperature field. > >> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >> the true meaning of a field? > > He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, > it didn't work for you. > >> In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. > > Irrelevant to you, which is just one reason why you are a failure at > physics. > >> My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid >> body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for >> space. I would also point out that space has properties but is in no way an elastic solid body. This should be obvious to anyone. I gather Ken believes for some reason that the only physical things with properties must be elastic solid bodies, so that if space has properties, it must be an elastic solid body. > > Which is yet another reason why your E-Matrix/IRT is a complete, total, > absolute failure. > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 10:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b1f09a5a-223b-4a10-8d69-a810b07eaaa5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479350 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 2:39:34 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >> On Friday, December 7, 2018 at 6:08:50 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >> > According to Steven Weinberg: A field is a sort of stress in space, > >> > something like the various sorts of stress that are possible within > >> > a solid body. > > >> This is strictly pop-sci talk. It's not what field in physics is. > > It is more like an example of a field, stresses at different points in > a body. > > >So what is a field in physics? > > A map of the values for some property at every point in space. > An example is the temperature of the air in a room. Or a weather map with > air temperature or wind speed and direction plotted. > > A disturbance in a field is something that affects or changes the field. > Say a person in the room waving a blowtorch around is a disturbance of the > room's temperature field. > > >Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >the true meaning of a field? > > He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, > it didn’t work for you. It works for me very well. It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, the most successful theory of physics. > > >In any case, it is irrelevant what a field is in physics. > > Irrelevant to you, which is just one reason why you are a failure at > physics. > > > My theory assumes that the E-Matrix is a structured and elastic solid > > body occupying all of space...IOW, the E-Matrix is another name for > > space. > > Which is yet another reason why your E-Matrix/IRT is a complete, total, > absolute failure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 18:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh30g$p11$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479357 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, >> it didn't work for you. >It works for me very poorly. It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, the >biggest failure in the history of physics. There. I corrected your mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <d23c0596-0283-bee7-4567-a5ab8fc8c840@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #479357 |
kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>> the true meaning of a field? >> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, >> it didn’t work for you. > > It works for me very well. You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. > the most successful theory of physics. Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puh7l2$74i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479381 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > kenseto wrote: >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is >>>> the true meaning of a field? >>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, >>> it didn’t work for you. >> >> It works for me very well. > > You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > >> It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, > > Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. > >> the most successful theory of physics. > > Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. > Ken is beyond recognizing that point. He’s too heavily invested. Ken’s stance is essentially this: “I, Ken Seto, have an idea of what a physical theory should be like. What physicists think a physical idea should be like is irrelevant. What I know is that every theory produced by physicists so far doesn’t matter measure up to MY idea of a physical theory. They don’t make sense, they don’t use plain language, they’re complicated, they involve non-intuitive ideas. None of those traits should belong to a good physical theory. On the other hand, MY theory completely satisfies everything I think a theory should be. It is therefore in MY EYES the most successful theory ever. And if physicists don’t agree about the value of what I’ve produced, that’s their loss.” -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-08 21:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <23230e34-986b-4f68-8040-1a7e17ecb2e3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479383 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 11:56:22 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >>>> the true meaning of a field? > >>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, > >>> it didn’t work for you. > >> > >> It works for me very well. > > > > You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > > > >> It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, > > > > Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. > > > >> the most successful theory of physics. > > > > Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. > > > > Ken is beyond recognizing that point. He’s too heavily invested. > > Ken’s stance is essentially this: “I, Ken Seto, have an idea of what a > physical theory should be like. What physicists think a physical idea > should be like is irrelevant. What I know is that every theory produced by > physicists so far doesn’t matter measure up to MY idea of a physical > theory. They don’t make sense, they don’t use plain language, they’re > complicated, they involve non-intuitive ideas. None of those traits should > belong to a good physical theory. On the other hand, MY theory completely > satisfies everything I think a theory should be. It is therefore in MY EYES > the most successful theory ever. And if physicists don’t agree about the > value of what I’ve produced, that’s their loss.” > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables It's always the same with those types: "What I don't understand, does not count." -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 08:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1177fb38-7331-4f86-9664-7072aa539cfa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479383 |
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:56:22 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > kenseto wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > >>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > >>>> the true meaning of a field? > >>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, > >>> it didn’t work for you. > >> > >> It works for me very well. > > > > You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > > > >> It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, > > > > Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. > > > >> the most successful theory of physics. > > > > Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. > > > > Ken is beyond recognizing that point. He’s too heavily invested. > > Ken’s stance is essentially this: “I, Ken Seto, have an idea of what a > physical theory should be like. What physicists think a physical idea > should be like is irrelevant. What I know is that every theory produced by > physicists so far doesn’t matter measure up to MY idea of a physical > theory. They don’t make sense, they don’t use plain language, they’re > complicated, they involve non-intuitive ideas. None of those traits should > belong to a good physical theory. On the other hand, MY theory completely > satisfies everything I think a theory should be. It is therefore in MY EYES > the most successful theory ever. And if physicists don’t agree about the > value of what I’ve produced, that’s their loss.” Idiot....current theories are based on fantasy and non-existing mathematical objects. My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 12:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ecd1df1-e740-4ee3-99ac-ab1ac90d2568@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479462 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 8:20:47 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 2:56:22 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > > > kenseto wrote: > > >> On Saturday, December 8, 2018 at 12:52:21 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: > > >>>> Why did Weinberg gave pop-science talk of a field different than what is > > >>>> the true meaning of a field? > > >>> He was trying to explain a science concept to non-scientists. Obviously, > > >>> it didn’t work for you. > > >> > > >> It works for me very well. > > > > > > You think so because you are not competent enough to make a proper assessment. > > > > > >> It led me to formulate Model Mechanics, > > > > > > Your crackpot idea is not a formulation, it is a pipe dream or worse. > > > > > >> the most successful theory of physics. > > > > > > Show your Nobel Prize in Physics or shut up. > > > > > > > Ken is beyond recognizing that point. He’s too heavily invested. > > > > Ken’s stance is essentially this: “I, Ken Seto, have an idea of what a > > physical theory should be like. What physicists think a physical idea > > should be like is irrelevant. What I know is that every theory produced by > > physicists so far doesn’t matter measure up to MY idea of a physical > > theory. They don’t make sense, they don’t use plain language, they’re > > complicated, they involve non-intuitive ideas. None of those traits should > > belong to a good physical theory. On the other hand, MY theory completely > > satisfies everything I think a theory should be. It is therefore in MY EYES > > the most successful theory ever. And if physicists don’t agree about the > > value of what I’ve produced, that’s their loss.” > > Idiot....current theories are based on fantasy and non-existing mathematical objects. This is simply a false statement that borders on the "not even wrong" category. > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. Your theories are not "superior" in any way, who do you think everyone else is? -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web