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 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pup0en$1ol0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479606 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > 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. And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b > 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. You don’t know that. > > 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”.... Which is not science, as we’ve discussed. You can call it “Ken Seto’s way of thinking” but it sure isn’t science. > 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. And as you can see by the lack of interest in a FREE download, nobody cares. > >> >> 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 > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 18:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9f72e0c3-3eaf-4f22-a1d8-8a35fb6a9759@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479620 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > 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. > > And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid Technique which eliminate the need of the extra 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. > > You don’t know that. Yes I know that because 100 years of trying physicists still failed to come up with a valid TOE. > > > > > 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”.... > > Which is not science, as we’ve discussed. Which is science....your assertion is not science. > > You can call it “Ken Seto’s way of thinking” but it sure isn’t science. My way of thinking rewarded with a valid TOE (Model Mechanics). > > > 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. > > And as you can see by the lack of interest in a FREE download, nobody > cares. > > > > >> > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-11 20:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <06f9c15e-87ef-485d-a5ad-fb05aca82977@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479660 |
On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 6:09:54 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b > > It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid Technique which eliminate the need of the extra dimensions. That you'd believe such unmitigated nonsense is amazing. An adult, posts like a child. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-12 13:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pur3th$p0n$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479660 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b > > It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still > failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years > I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid > Technique which eliminate the need of the extra dimensions. Three bits of bad news: 1. Yours is not a theory of everything because it is not a theory. No scientist in the planet will characterize your ideas as a theory. You calling it a theory doesn’t make it a theory, it makes it a pretense. 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. 3. Yours is not a theory of everything either. For example, your idea does not explain dementia or seizures or continental drift or DNA or thermodynamics or why the sky is blue or why metals are shiny or why there are no mammals with an odd number of limbs or the Krebs cycle, just to list a few things your idea doesn’t explain. > >> >>> 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. >> >> You don’t know that. > > Yes I know that because 100 years of trying physicists still failed to > come up with a valid TOE. >> >>> >>> 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”.... >> >> Which is not science, as we’ve discussed. > > Which is science....your assertion is not science. >> >> You can call it “Ken Seto’s way of thinking” but it sure isn’t science. > > My way of thinking rewarded with a valid TOE (Model Mechanics). > >> >>> 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. >> >> And as you can see by the lack of interest in a FREE download, nobody >> cares. >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 07:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2935cd27-cafc-4337-83f7-bf8538289a3f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479678 |
On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> 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. > >> > >> And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b > > > > It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still > > failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years > > I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid > > Technique which eliminate the need of the extra dimensions. > > Three bits of bad news: > 1. Yours is not a theory of everything because it is not a theory. No scientist in the planet will characterize your ideas as a theory. You calling it a theory doesn’t make it a theory, it makes it a pretense Moron, so you don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. BTW, you are not a scientist....you are merely a stupid woodworker. > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated with non-physical and fantasy models such as extra dimensions, fields/virtual particles, spacetime, curvature in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation. This leads their developments to an infinite number of fantasy TOEs and none of these fantasy TOEs is correct. If physicists think outside of this fantasy box then they will be able to formulate a TOE quickly. For example, I formulated Model Mechanics by adopting the idea that there is only one physical TOE that can explain all the processes of nature and I invented the Pyramid Technique to find this physical TOE quickly. > 3. Yours is not a theory of everything either. For example, your idea does > not explain dementia or seizures or continental drift or DNA or > thermodynamics or why the sky is blue or why metals are shiny or why there > are no mammals with an odd number of limbs or the Krebs cycle, just to list > a few things your idea doesn’t explain. Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a theory of everything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puu8kh$18fr$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479743 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b >>> >>> It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still >>> failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years >>> I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid >>> Technique which eliminate the need of the extra dimensions. >> >> Three bits of bad news: >> 1. Yours is not a theory of everything because it is not a theory. No >> scientist in the planet will characterize your ideas as a theory. You >> calling it a theory doesn’t make it a theory, it makes it a pretense > > Moron, so you don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. BTW, you are > not a scientist....you are merely a stupid woodworker. NEITHER of us is a scientist. I am a non-scientist who has read a lot of books by physicists. You are a non-scientist who has read nothing by physicists. So tell me again how this makes you better informed. I *do* know the meaning of the word “theory” exactly because I’ve read what physicists say a theory is. What you have is whatever you’ve made up on your own. > >> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in >> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything >> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated with > non-physical and fantasy models such as extra dimensions, fields/virtual > particles, spacetime, curvature in spacetime, length contraction and time > dilation. This leads their developments to an infinite number of fantasy > TOEs and none of these fantasy TOEs is correct. There are no TOEs at all, let alone fantasy TOEs. Where are you getting this nonsense? > > If physicists think outside of this fantasy box then they will be able to > formulate a TOE quickly. For example, I formulated Model Mechanics by > adopting the idea that there is only one physical TOE that can explain > all the processes of nature and I invented the Pyramid Technique to find > this physical TOE quickly. > >> 3. Yours is not a theory of everything either. For example, your idea does >> not explain dementia or seizures or continental drift or DNA or >> thermodynamics or why the sky is blue or why metals are shiny or why there >> are no mammals with an odd number of limbs or the Krebs cycle, just to list >> a few things your idea doesn’t explain. > > Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a theory of everything. Then explain thermodynamics with it. You see? There’s a difference between mouthing a fantasy and demonstrating the truth of what you say. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 13:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <78d6ae56-22f1-4e84-a165-9457c18f0c80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479755 |
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > >>>>> 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. > >>>> > >>>> And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b > >>> > >>> It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still > >>> failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years > >>> I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid > >>> Technique which eliminate the need of the extra dimensions. > >> > >> Three bits of bad news: > >> 1. Yours is not a theory of everything because it is not a theory. No > >> scientist in the planet will characterize your ideas as a theory. You > >> calling it a theory doesn’t make it a theory, it makes it a pretense > > > > Moron, so you don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. BTW, you are > > not a scientist....you are merely a stupid woodworker. > > NEITHER of us is a scientist. I am a non-scientist who has read a lot of > books by physicists. You are a non-scientist who has read nothing by > physicists. So tell me again how this makes you better informed. > > I *do* know the meaning of the word “theory” exactly because I’ve read what > physicists say a theory is. What you have is whatever you’ve made up on > your own. arms fault So tell us the meaning of the word theory. I saw a red car and a blue car crashed and I think that it was the red car’s fault.....is that a theory? > > > > >> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > >> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > >> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated with > > non-physical and fantasy models such as extra dimensions, fields/virtual > > particles, spacetime, curvature in spacetime, length contraction and time > > dilation. This leads their developments to an infinite number of fantasy > > TOEs and none of these fantasy TOEs is correct. > > There are no TOEs at all, let alone fantasy TOEs. Where are you getting > this nonsense? Right current theories are based on divergent fantasy premises and that’s why physicists can’t come up with a valid TOE. Some of these divergent fantasy premises: 1. fields/virtual particles 2. extra spatial dimensions 3.Spacetime and curvature in spacetime 4. Constant light speed in all frames 5. Time dilation 6. Length contraction Model Mechanics replaces these fantasy premises with physical premises as follows: 1. Field/virtual particle is replaced by a structured aether called the E-Matrix. The different distorted local geometries exist in the E-Matrix causes a real particle to react to these local geometries and that’s the observed interactions betted. 2. In Model Mechanics, there is no extra dimension. 3. Spacetime and curvature in spacetime are replaced by the different geometries exist in the local E-Matrix. 4. Constant light speed is replaced by isotropic light speed in all frames. 5. Time dilation is replaced by absolute time and that a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. 6. Length contraction is replaced with light-path-length contraction or expansion. The above new premises of relativity gives rise to a new theory of relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > > > > If physicists think outside of this fantasy box then they will be able to > > formulate a TOE quickly. For example, I formulated Model Mechanics by > > adopting the idea that there is only one physical TOE that can explain > > all the processes of nature and I invented the Pyramid Technique to find > > this physical TOE quickly. > > > >> 3. Yours is not a theory of everything either. For example, your idea does > >> not explain dementia or seizures or continental drift or DNA or > >> thermodynamics or why the sky is blue or why metals are shiny or why there > >> are no mammals with an odd number of limbs or the Krebs cycle, just to list > >> a few things your idea doesn’t explain. > > > > Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a theory of everything. > > Then explain thermodynamics with it. > > You see? There’s a difference between mouthing a fantasy and demonstrating > the truth of what you say. > > > > > > > > > -- > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 21:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puujuu$n3u$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #479765 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:32:53 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 8:53:56 AM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, December 11, 2018 at 1:42:35 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> And again, we are back to YOUR silly notions of what a theory should be b >>>>> >>>>> It’s not my silly notion....after 100 years of trying, physicists still >>>>> failed to come up with a valid theory of everything. OTOH, after 10 years >>>>> I was able to formulate a valid TOE (Model Mechanics) using the Pyramid >>>>> Technique which eliminate the need of the extra dimensions. >>>> >>>> Three bits of bad news: >>>> 1. Yours is not a theory of everything because it is not a theory. No >>>> scientist in the planet will characterize your ideas as a theory. You >>>> calling it a theory doesn’t make it a theory, it makes it a pretense >>> >>> Moron, so you don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. BTW, you are >>> not a scientist....you are merely a stupid woodworker. >> >> NEITHER of us is a scientist. I am a non-scientist who has read a lot of >> books by physicists. You are a non-scientist who has read nothing by >> physicists. So tell me again how this makes you better informed. >> >> I *do* know the meaning of the word “theory” exactly because I’ve read what >> physicists say a theory is. What you have is whatever you’ve made up on >> your own. arms fault > > So tell us the meaning of the word theory. I saw a red car and a blue car > crashed and I think that it was the red car’s fault.....is that a theory? Heck no. HECK no! Words have meanings that depend on context. “Cell” means a completely different thing in biology and criminology. “Current” has a much different meaning in news journalism and in electrical engineering. The meaning of theory in physics is something completely different than the conversational usage you just gave. If you don’t know what “theory” means in science, the ONLY way to learn that is from books, not from a newsgroup. Sheesh. > >> >>> >>>> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in >>>> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything >>>> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. >>> >>> That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated with >>> non-physical and fantasy models such as extra dimensions, fields/virtual >>> particles, spacetime, curvature in spacetime, length contraction and time >>> dilation. This leads their developments to an infinite number of fantasy >>> TOEs and none of these fantasy TOEs is correct. >> >> There are no TOEs at all, let alone fantasy TOEs. Where are you getting >> this nonsense? > > Right current theories are based on divergent fantasy premises Physics is not building a TOE. There is no such thing. It’s a buzzword you’ve picked up as some fantasy you want to fulfill. You have failed. First of all, you cannot demonstrate your idea explains everything and I’ve given several examples. Secondly, your idea IS NOT EVEN A THEORY. Thats because you do not know what a physics theory is. Your comment about cars above illustrates this beautifully. What you described is in no way a physics theory. > and that’s why physicists can’t come up with a valid TOE. Some of these > divergent fantasy premises: > 1. fields/virtual particles > 2. extra spatial dimensions > 3.Spacetime and curvature in spacetime > 4. Constant light speed in all frames > 5. Time dilation > 6. Length contraction > > Model Mechanics replaces these fantasy premises with physical premises as follows: > 1. Field/virtual particle is replaced by a structured aether called the > E-Matrix. The different distorted local geometries exist in the E-Matrix > causes a real particle to react to these local geometries and that’s the > observed interactions betted. > > 2. In Model Mechanics, there is no extra dimension. > > 3. Spacetime and curvature in spacetime are replaced by the different > geometries exist in the local E-Matrix. > > 4. Constant light speed is replaced by isotropic light speed in all frames. > > 5. Time dilation is replaced by absolute time and that a clock second > represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames. > > 6. Length contraction is replaced with light-path-length contraction or expansion. > > The above new premises of relativity gives rise to a new theory of > relativity called IRT. A paper on IRT is available in the following link: > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015irt.pdf > > >> >>> >>> If physicists think outside of this fantasy box then they will be able to >>> formulate a TOE quickly. For example, I formulated Model Mechanics by >>> adopting the idea that there is only one physical TOE that can explain >>> all the processes of nature and I invented the Pyramid Technique to find >>> this physical TOE quickly. >>> >>>> 3. Yours is not a theory of everything either. For example, your idea does >>>> not explain dementia or seizures or continental drift or DNA or >>>> thermodynamics or why the sky is blue or why metals are shiny or why there >>>> are no mammals with an odd number of limbs or the Krebs cycle, just to list >>>> a few things your idea doesn’t explain. >>> >>> Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a theory of everything. >> >> Then explain thermodynamics with it. I’m waiting. You claim model mechanics explains everything. Back up your claim. You see? Putting in a cape and proclaiming on a newsgroup that you can fly does not mean you actually can fly. >> >> You see? There’s a difference between mouthing a fantasy and demonstrating >> the truth of what you say. >> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-13 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3263d4f5-47ec-4815-98bc-490deb6b4d32@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479743 |
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". How many times have we herad this particular idiocy here? Do you know how many physicists are/were there in the world since, say, 1905? Do you REALLY think that they are/were all "indoctrinated"? This is insanity, and I mean it literally, an adult in 2018 actually believing THAT. > with non-physical and fantasy models such as extra dimensions, fields/virtual particles, spacetime, curvature in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation. This is completely cuckoo, again. Not even wrong, complete gibberish. > This leads their developments to an infinite number of fantasy TOEs and none of these fantasy TOEs is correct. You cannot possibly know that, you are just farting around. You don't even know the theories you are talking about. Your posts are nonsense. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 05:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <puvfei$4po$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #479760 |
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> writes: >There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". How many times have we herad >this particular idiocy here? Do you know how many physicists are/were there in >the world since, say, 1905? Do you REALLY think that they are/were all "indoctrinated"? >This is insanity, and I mean it literally, an adult in 2018 actually believing THAT. #34 in the Crackpot Index is close. "40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike. " http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 15:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c3116935-aadb-4c5a-9ea3-dd4d8ed94ec2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479760 |
On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". Yes that’s right physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation...etc. >How many times have we herad > this particular idiocy here? Until you bone heads realize that you are in a dead end cut-de-sac. >Do you know how many physicists are/were there in > the world since, say, 1905? Do you REALLY think that they are/were all “indoctrinated"? Yes they are all indoctrinated.....that’s why they failed to come up with a unified theory of all the forces. > This is insanity, and I mean it literally, an adult in 2018 actually believing THAT. Yes this is insanity to blindly follow the failed premise of current physics. > > > with non-physical and fantasy models such as extra dimensions, fields/virtual particles, spacetime, curvature in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation. > > This is completely cuckoo, again. Not even wrong, complete gibberish. > > > This leads their developments to an infinite number of fantasy TOEs and none of these fantasy TOEs is correct. > > You cannot possibly know that, you are just farting around. You don't even know the > theories you are talking about. Your posts are nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-14 15:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ca633e6a-bbd8-41a5-98d3-a9b52a8e5b25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479836 |
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > Yes that’s right No, it's not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation...etc. Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 14:05 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bfbd699f-0fff-41f0-8624-397c2c183454@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479838 |
On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > > > > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > > > Yes that’s right > > No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. > > > physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation...etc. > > Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. ROTFLOL....pot kettle black
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-15 23:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a220aab7-c986-4082-94ea-994f43e7b637@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479898 |
On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > > > > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > > > > > > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > > > > > Yes that’s right > > > > No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > > Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) > > > physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation...etc. > > > > Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. > > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c5d268f8-1b05-47d5-9417-281cc64aab78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #479928 |
On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > > > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > > > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > > > > > > > > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > > > > > > > Yes that’s right > > > > > > No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > > > > Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. > > You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings > of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. > > > > > physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation...etc. > > > > > > Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. > > > > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black > > Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally > 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who > devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something > you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a TOE. I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a9e5ff31-d018-42e2-a286-01f7c949ede1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480052 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 10:24:52 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > > > > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > > > > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > > > > > > > > > > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > > > > > > > > > Yes that’s right > > > > > > > > No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > > > > > > Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. > > > > You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings > > of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) > > Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. > > > > > > > > physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length contraction and time dilation...etc. > > > > > > > > Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. > > > > > > ROTFLOL....pot kettle black > > > > Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally > > 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who > > devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something > > you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. > > Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a TOE. I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress. THEY DON"T WANT A TOE or Solution !!!!! THE FUNDING & GRANTS WILL DRY UP AND THEY WILL ALL BE OUT OF A JOB FOR EVER !!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 09:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9686f78d-0b1d-41fa-b9ac-beb067f44683@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480052 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:24:52 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > > > > > > > > a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > > > > > > > > within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > > > > > > > > > > > > There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > > > > > > > > > > Yes that’s right > > > > > > > > No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > > > > > > Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. > > > > You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings > > of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) > > Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. But such "non-existing abstract mathematical objects" are used everywhere, see e.g. navigation, engineering, etc. > > Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally > > 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who > > devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something > > you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. > > Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a TOE. Yes but how does that imply that you can contribute anything of value by ignoring the science as it is today? > I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress. No, it's dreamland. It only "works" for *you* because you don't know current theories and current experimental results both of which would stop you in your tracks in a fraction of a second. That's one reason you don't want to learn anything. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-17 10:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9668ff0e-532f-412e-b9b8-eada6974b8e7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480062 |
On Monday, 17 December 2018 18:51:41 UTC+1, JanPB wrote: > > No, it's dreamland. It only "works" for *you* because you don't know current theories > and current experimental results And you don't listen to guru Jan! You have to listen to guru Jan, fool!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 02:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pv9lmb$16gc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #480052 |
kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in >>>>>>>> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything >>>>>>>> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated >>>>>> >>>>>> There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". >>>>> >>>>> Yes that’s right >>>> >>>> No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. >>> >>> Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. >> >> You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings >> of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) > > Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. You don’t know enough about them to classify them as abstract mathematical objects. > >> >>>>> physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy >>>>> and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, >>>>> extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length >>>>> contraction and time dilation...etc. >>>> >>>> Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. >>> >>> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black >> >> Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally >> 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who >> devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something >> you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. > > Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a > TOE. I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress. It’s not a TOE for two reasons. 1. It’s not a theory, as scientists would recognize that term. 2. It doesn’t explain everything. I’ve asked you to show how it explains thermodynamics. Response? Nothing. > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kenseto <setoken@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-18 07:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4eeb83ed-6af8-4863-a439-86454dccc306@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #480103 |
On Monday, December 17, 2018 at 9:23:12 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote: > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, December 16, 2018 at 2:27:07 AM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >> On Saturday, December 15, 2018 at 2:05:26 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 6:22:50 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>> On Friday, December 14, 2018 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 1:47:06 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > >>>>>> On Thursday, December 13, 2018 at 7:21:10 AM UTC-8, kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 2. It is not a failure that a theory of everything hasn’t been produced in > >>>>>>>> a hundred years. No physicist expects to produce a theory of everything > >>>>>>>> within a thousand years, let alone a hundred. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That’s because generations of physicists were being indoctrinated > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There we go again, physicists are "indoctrinated". > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes that’s right > >>>> > >>>> No, it’s not any "that's right", it's a ludicrous fantasyland. > >>> > >>> Yes, the current assumed mathematical objects are indeed fantasyland. > >> > >> You don't even know anything about them. (All you know is the mundane meanings > >> of the WORDS used to describe those abstractions.) > > > > Yes I don’t know anything about non-existing abstract mathematical objects. > > You don’t know enough about them to classify them as abstract mathematical > objects. Even your SR brothers agree that they are math constructs. > > > > >> > >>>>> physicists of the current generations are indoctrinate with fantasy > >>>>> and non-existing math entities such as fields, virtual particles, > >>>>> extra dimensions, spacetime and curve in spacetime, length > >>>>> contraction and time dilation...etc. > >>>> > >>>> Gobbledygopok. Not even wrong. You have no clue what you are saying. Zero. > >>> > >>> ROTFLOL....pot kettle black > >> > >> Zero. Bottom of the intellectual barrel. Sorry but anyone claiming that literally > >> 100s of thousands of people since 1905 were (and are) idiots, people who > >> devoted decades of their lives to actually study the subject, which is something > >> you've NEVER done... well, you are a zero as far as intellectual honesty goes. > > > > Nevertheless those 100s of thousand of people failed to come up with a > > TOE. I proposed a valid TOE and that’s progress. > > It’s not a TOE for two reasons. > 1. It’s not a theory, as scientists would recognize that term. > 2. It doesn’t explain everything. I’ve asked you to show how it explains > thermodynamics. Response? Nothing. 1. You don’t know the meaning of the word “theory”. 2. Model Mechanics explains everything. That’s why it is a TOE.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 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