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 168 — 16 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? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-17 08:24 -0800
Re: What is a field? "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-12-17 08:31 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-17 09:51 -0800
Re: What is a field? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-12-17 10:06 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 02:23 +0000
Re: What is a field? kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-12-18 07:41 -0800
Re: What is a field? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-12-18 12:43 -0800
Re: What is a field? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-19 14:17 +0000
Re: What is a field? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-19 15:46 +0000
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? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2019-01-13 12:16 -0800
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 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-09 22:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puk4es$1kui$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479462 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t really a sign of a sane person. > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 08:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ddb0997-11f0-46aa-973b-c6e41588f4c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479501 |
On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > really a sign of a sane person. I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > > > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > > I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > smaller list of things you’re familiar with. It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 10:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5ad8a772-5fdd-4910-bf31-fc6915051d75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479529 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > > things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > > However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > > really a sign of a sane person. > > I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > > > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > > > > I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > > material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > > years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > > reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > > smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you refuse to study. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 13:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4a996036-4e7b-45ac-8200-97b93bb24a83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479550 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > > > things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > > > However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > > > really a sign of a sane person. > > > > I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > > And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > > > > > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > > > > > > I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > > > material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > > > years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > > > reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > > > smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > > > It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > > You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > refuse to study. > > -- > Jan Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three dimensions is wrong. The point is: There exists a theory of everything that is based on the observable three dimensions so why complicate yourself with all these complexities?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 13:53 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <15fbc931-3b4d-4663-811e-6d1531642a07@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479564 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:33:55 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > > > That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > > > > things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > > > > However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > > > > really a sign of a sane person. > > > > > > I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > > > > And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > > > > > > > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > > > > > > > > I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > > > > material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > > > > years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > > > > reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > > > > smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > > > > > It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > > > > You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > > who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > > of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > > boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > > refuse to study. > > > > -- > > Jan > > Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three dimensions is wrong. What kind of nonsense is that? Hamiltonian (classical) mechanics uses a 7-dimensional space for just one particle motion. Lagrangian mechanics uses 4-dimensional space for one particle motion. A graph of a stock price uses a 2-dimensional space which according to you "is wrong" because it doesn't "exist", and yet people still make money off it. > The point is: There exists a theory of everything that is based on the observable three dimensions so why complicate yourself with all these complexities? That's because there doesn't exist a theory of everything that is based on the observable three dimensions. I can keep repeating that I am the queen of England too, you know. It doesn't mean anything. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 06:16 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0703f48f-3112-4f5a-ab24-36932767c618@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479570 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:53:57 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:33:55 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > > > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > > > > > > > > > That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > > > > > things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > > > > > However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > > > > > really a sign of a sane person. > > > > > > > > I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > > > > > > And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > > > > > > > > > My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > > > > > > > > > > I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > > > > > material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > > > > > years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > > > > > reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > > > > > smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > > > > > > > It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > > > > > > You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > > > who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > > > of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > > > boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > > > refuse to study. > > > > > > -- > > > Jan > > > > Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three dimensions is wrong. > > What kind of nonsense is that? Hamiltonian (classical) mechanics uses > a 7-dimensional space for just one particle motion. Lagrangian mechanics > uses 4-dimensional space for one particle motion. A graph of a stock > price uses a 2-dimensional space which according to you "is wrong" because > it doesn't "exist", and yet people still make money off it. > > > The point is: There exists a theory of everything that is based on the observable three dimensions so why complicate yourself with all these complexities? > > That's because there doesn't exist a theory of everything that is based > on the observable three dimensions. Model Mechanics is such theory. >I can keep repeating that I am > the queen of England too, you know. It doesn't mean anything. > Yeah, you are the queen of England....LOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 14:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puoib6$4i9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479604 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:53:57 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> > Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable >> > three dimensions is wrong. Why, because 'You Say So and That's That!' ? >> What kind of nonsense is that? Hamiltonian (classical) mechanics uses >> a 7-dimensional space for just one particle motion. Lagrangian mechanics >> uses 4-dimensional space for one particle motion. A graph of a stock >> price uses a 2-dimensional space which according to you "is wrong" because >> it doesn't "exist", and yet people still make money off it. >> > The point is: There exists a theory of everything that is based on the >observable three dimensions so why complicate yourself with all these complexities? >> That's because there doesn't exist a theory of everything that is based >> on the observable three dimensions. >Model Mechanics is such theory. No, it is not. It's not even a theory! No equations, no calculations, nothing! Just a bunch of vapid claims such as "XXX happens because of absolute motion in the Ematrix". >>I can keep repeating that I am >> the queen of England too, you know. It doesn't mean anything. >Yeah, you are the queen of England....LOL. And you are a great scientist....LOL. Most Europeans can find European royal blood in their tree, way back, if only the long-lost lineage was known. So Jan has a better chance of being the Queen of England (perhaps 572,774,480th in line for the throne) than you have of actually creating an actual theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pumnme$126h$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479564 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>> >>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those >>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. >>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t >>>> really a sign of a sane person. >>> >>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. >>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. >> >> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? >> >>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are >>>>> superior theories. >>>> >>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains >>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred >>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that >>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the >>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. >>> >>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. >> >> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person >> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity >> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to >> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you >> refuse to study. >> >> -- >> Jan > > Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three > dimensions is wrong. So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday senses is wrong. So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? > The point is: There exists a theory of everything that is based on the > observable three dimensions so why complicate yourself with all these complexities? > Simpler is not always more right. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <125ffacc-e657-4e3e-9fb7-91394c473b7e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479574 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >>>> > >>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > >>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > >>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > >>>> really a sign of a sane person. > >>> > >>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > >>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > >> > >> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > >> > >>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are > >>>>> superior theories. > >>>> > >>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > >>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > >>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > >>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > >>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > >>> > >>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > >> > >> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > >> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > >> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > >> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > >> refuse to study. > >> > >> -- > >> Jan > > > > Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three > > dimensions is wrong. > > So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be > seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday > senses is wrong. > > So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 23:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pumrcn$158a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479575 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those >>>>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. >>>>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t >>>>>> really a sign of a sane person. >>>>> >>>>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. >>>>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. >>>> >>>> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? >>>> >>>>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are >>>>>>> superior theories. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains >>>>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred >>>>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that >>>>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the >>>>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. >>>>> >>>>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. >>>> >>>> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person >>>> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity >>>> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to >>>> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you >>>> refuse to study. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jan >>> >>> Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three >>> dimensions is wrong. >> >> So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be >> seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday >> senses is wrong. >> >> So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? > > It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: > "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more > simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". > > -- > Jan > “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 15:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aafa9c2d-6716-45e6-8efb-4df872fc2c30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479576 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:03:55 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > >>>>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > >>>>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > >>>>>> really a sign of a sane person. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > >>>>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > >>>> > >>>> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > >>>> > >>>>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are > >>>>>>> superior theories. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > >>>>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > >>>>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > >>>>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > >>>>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > >>>>> > >>>>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > >>>> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > >>>> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > >>>> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > >>>> refuse to study. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jan > >>> > >>> Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three > >>> dimensions is wrong. > >> > >> So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be > >> seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday > >> senses is wrong. > >> > >> So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? > > > > It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: > > "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more > > simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". > > > > -- > > Jan > > > > “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and > nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” Also known as "My lack of knowledge allows my intuition to bloom and perform unencumbered". -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 01:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pun4ch$1mb8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479578 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 3:03:55 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those >>>>>>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. >>>>>>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t >>>>>>>> really a sign of a sane person. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. >>>>>>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are >>>>>>>>> superior theories. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains >>>>>>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred >>>>>>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that >>>>>>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the >>>>>>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of >>>>>>> current physics is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person >>>>>> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity >>>>>> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to >>>>>> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you >>>>>> refuse to study. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three >>>>> dimensions is wrong. >>>> >>>> So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be >>>> seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday >>>> senses is wrong. >>>> >>>> So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? >>> >>> It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: >>> "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more >>> simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". >>> >>> -- >>> Jan >>> >> >> “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and >> nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” > > Also known as "My lack of knowledge allows my intuition to bloom and perform > unencumbered". > > -- > Jan > Also known as “All that is irrelevant. Point is I spent months and hundreds of dollars if not thousands to publish a book. I deserve attention just because of that.” -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 16:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <08a52699-6c38-4553-9f93-48cd04562bc4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479576 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:03:55 PM UTC-6, Odd Bodkin wrote: > “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and > nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” That's a quote from Donald Trump, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 07:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9a763ed-6ed4-4cbf-85c3-1c2c2a2e2a38@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479576 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:03:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > >>>>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > >>>>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > >>>>>> really a sign of a sane person. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > >>>>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > >>>> > >>>> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > >>>> > >>>>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are > >>>>>>> superior theories. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > >>>>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > >>>>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > >>>>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > >>>>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > >>>>> > >>>>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > >>>> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > >>>> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > >>>> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > >>>> refuse to study. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jan > >>> > >>> Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three > >>> dimensions is wrong. > >> > >> So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be > >> seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday > >> senses is wrong. > >> > >> So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? > > > > It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: > > "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more > > simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". > > > > -- > > Jan > > > > “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and > nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables No, any theory based on fantasy entities will not be able to lead to a correct theory of everything
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pur3th$p0n$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479611 |
Kkenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:03:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those >>>>>>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. >>>>>>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t >>>>>>>> really a sign of a sane person. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. >>>>>>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are >>>>>>>>> superior theories. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains >>>>>>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred >>>>>>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that >>>>>>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the >>>>>>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of >>>>>>> current physics is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person >>>>>> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity >>>>>> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to >>>>>> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you >>>>>> refuse to study. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three >>>>> dimensions is wrong. >>>> >>>> So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be >>>> seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday >>>> senses is wrong. >>>> >>>> So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? >>> >>> It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: >>> "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more >>> simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". >>> >>> -- >>> Jan >>> >> >> “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and >> nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > No, any theory based on fantasy entities will not be able to lead to a > correct theory of everything > That’s what I just said. Those things don’t make sense to you and so you say they can’t be right. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 07:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <29ddd61d-5831-49e7-89b6-1f2e1c3325a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479677 |
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Kkenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 6:03:55 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > >>>>>>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > >>>>>>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > >>>>>>>> really a sign of a sane person. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > >>>>>>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are > >>>>>>>>> superior theories. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > >>>>>>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > >>>>>>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > >>>>>>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > >>>>>>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of > >>>>>>> current physics is wrong. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > >>>>>> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > >>>>>> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > >>>>>> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > >>>>>> refuse to study. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Jan > >>>>> > >>>>> Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three > >>>>> dimensions is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be > >>>> seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday > >>>> senses is wrong. > >>>> > >>>> So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? > >>> > >>> It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: > >>> "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more > >>> simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Jan > >>> > >> > >> “Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and > >> nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp.” > >> > >> -- > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > > > > No, any theory based on fantasy entities will not be able to lead to a > > correct theory of everything > > > > That’s what I just said. Those things don’t make sense to you and so you > say they can’t be right. No, moron....I said that any theory based on fantasy entities will not be able to lead to a correct theory of everything. Gee you are stupid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 07:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3eaedd64-b709-4930-9653-e73f5b240a35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479575 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 2:00:50 PM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 1:31:59 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 8:04:04 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > >>> On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > > >>>> > > >>>> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > > >>>> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > > >>>> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > > >>>> really a sign of a sane person. > > >>> > > >>> I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > > >>> And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > > >> > > >> And what makes you think this is not the fault of quantum theory? > > >> > > >>>>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are > > >>>>> superior theories. > > >>>> > > >>>> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > > >>>> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > > >>>> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > > >>>> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > > >>>> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > >>> > > >>> It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > > >> > > >> You cannot form a valid opinion of that sort. By definition only a person > > >> who is an expert in physics can make sweeping statements about the validity > > >> of physics. Just change your hobby, find yourself some other way to > > >> boost your ego. This science thing will get you absolutely nowhere if you > > >> refuse to study. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Jan > > > > > > Anything that depends on extra dimensions other than the observable three > > > dimensions is wrong. > > > > So you are saying that any theory that relies on something that can’t be > > seen or touched or directly observed by a human observer with everyday > > senses is wrong. > > > > So, since you can’t observe atoms directly, atomic theory is wrong? > > It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: > "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more > simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". > > -- > Jan No, whatever based on fantasy entities such as extra dimensions, fields, virtual particles length contraction and time dilation will not lead to a correct theory of everything
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 16:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puomvp$b8c$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479609 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes: >On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 5:13:09 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: >> "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more >> simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong". >No, whatever based on fantasy entities such as extra dimensions, fields, >virtual particles length contraction and time dilation will not lead to a >correct theory of everything So in other words, 'It's always the same thing at the end of the day with those types: "whatever I don't understand is irrelevant anyway". Or, even more simply: "No matter what, everyone else is wrong".' Or: "Only things that make sense to me can be right. Because I am a genius and nothing can be beyond my immediate grasp." Exactly as Jan and Odd said. Exactly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-10 21:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pumndn$11lv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479529 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. >> >> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those >> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. >> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t >> really a sign of a sane person. > > I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. Again, we are back to your silly notions of what a theory should be. You are claiming a theory is wrong if it doesn’t answer all questions. There are open questions in science always. That’s what makes the field alive. Note your own theory doesn’t explain continental drift, the cause of schizophrenia or Alzheimer’s, or the different colors of different metals. Your theory is also not incorporated into quantum mechanics. By your own logic then, your idea must be wrong because it fails in all those fronts. > >> >>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. >> >> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains >> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred >> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that >> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the >> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > It’s not current physics. You’re saying ALL physics from ANY time period is wrong. You are rejecting ALL physics, not just modern physics. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 06:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d0e4df6f-53c5-47f5-84f0-9760dda67b8e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479571 |
On Monday, December 10, 2018 at 4:56:11 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, December 9, 2018 at 5:20:16 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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. > >> > >> That’s not true, Ken. I get that you are not familiar with many of those > >> things, and that you hate the idea of new things you didn’t know about. > >> However denying that they exist, just because you don’t like them, isn’t > >> really a sign of a sane person. > > > > I don’t like it because it failed to give a quantum theory of gravity. > > And GR failed to incorporated into quantum physics. > > Again, we are back to your silly notions of what a theory should be. You > are claiming a theory is wrong if it doesn’t answer all questions. No I said that a theory should be based on the observable three dimensions. When mathematicians invoked non-existing extra dimensions lead generations of physicists in the wrong direction, into a dead end cul-de-sac that will not lead to a theory of everything. I abandoned these fantasy entities and easily developed Model Mechanics based on the observable three dimensions. I called this new approach of doing physics the “Pyramid Technique”....the rules of the Pyramid Technique are described in Chapter two of my book.. Model Mechanics says that all the processes of nature and all the interactions are the result of absolute motion of the interacting particles in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix. > > There are open questions in science always. That’s what makes the field > alive. > > Note your own theory doesn’t explain continental drift, the cause of > schizophrenia or Alzheimer’s, or the different colors of different metals. > Your theory is also not incorporated into quantum mechanics. By your own > logic then, your idea must be wrong because it fails in all those fronts. > > > > >> > >>> My theories are based on real material objects....that’s why they are superior theories. > >> > >> I understand, Ken, that your very limited view of reality only contains > >> material things. However, as I’ve pointed out to you, for four hundred > >> years — over five times your entire lifetime — physicists have known that > >> reality consists of more than material things. It can’t be reduced to the > >> smaller list of things you’re familiar with. > > > > It doesn’t matter if it is 1000 years.....the fundamental of current physics is wrong. > > > > It’s not current physics. You’re saying ALL physics from ANY time period is > wrong. You are rejecting ALL physics, not just modern physics. > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web