Discussion:
The Nuclear Strong Force
Add Reply
Ken Seto
2021-03-12 18:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,

In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-12 18:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?

I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomenal to make a
quantitative prediction that comes true.
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-12 20:23:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.

Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.

Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomenal to make a
quantitative prediction that comes true.
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Brodie Wiser
2021-03-12 20:30:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
ohh really?? Stolen stuff. Kiss my ass.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-12 20:48:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.

What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phenomena, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.

Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good science. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomenal to make a
quantitative prediction that comes true.
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-13 06:12:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phenomena,
What matters in physics is to make physicists feel good and
Bach-like, poor halfbrain.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-13 17:56:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phenomena,
What matters in physics is to make physicists feel good and
Bach-like, poor halfbrain.
You’re going to have to manage your own persecution and inferiority
complexes on your own, rather than putting them on someone else.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-13 13:44:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-13 17:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical
objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the
final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid
theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the
non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based
on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as
the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting
objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up
with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as
the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-13 19:07:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical
objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the
final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid
theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the
non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based
on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as
the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting
objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up
with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as
the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-13 20:31:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.

Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2

Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1

Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical
objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the
final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid
theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the
non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based
on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as
the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting
objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up
with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as
the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-14 14:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical
objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the
final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid
theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the
non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based
on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as
the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting
objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up
with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as
the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-14 17:46:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.

What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.

If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do a better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical
objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the
final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid
theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the
non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based
on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as
the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting
objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up
with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as
the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-14 18:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do a better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
If you think that your moronc Shit is "science as a whole", then
you are a straight out lunatic. But you don't know it.
Ken Seto
2021-03-15 13:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
These things you call fantasies have made clear quantitative predictions
that have been matched with later measurements. What is the likelihood that
someone would be able to take a fantasy and use it to ACCURATELY predict
the future of what would be seen in experiment?
Einstein didn’t know how the speed of light can be observer independent
so he invented a new set of measuring tools (time dilation and length
contraction) to make the speed of light measured to be constant by all observers.
Physicists knew that the up quarks in the nucleus must somehow able to
stick together to form the nucleus, but they don’t know how.....so they
invented the different non-existing color charges to make it so.
Model Mechanics says that the speed of light is observer depemdfemt as
agree with all observations.
Model Mechanics says that the up-quarks were able to stick together to
form the nucleus of an atom because of stack interaction.
Clearly, the MM model is preferred because it does not involve inventing
new measuring tools or new non-existing color charges.
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the standards of physics. It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do a better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What matters in physics is accurate, QUANTITATIVE predictions of measurable
phoneme matters.na, CALCULATED from equations DERIVED from central concepts in the
theory.
Wrong again. Both QUANTITATION and QUALITATIVE predictions are important.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Anything that avoids doing what matters is rightfully ignored. You have
nothing but excuses and flimsy and incorrect notions of what constitutes
good scainience. You are not a scientist. You don’t know what science is. You
have absolutely no idea how to do good science. You are a LYING FRAUD.
Your approach got you into a sea of non-xisting abstractive mathematical
objects (the virtual particles) that does not enabled you to reach the
final goal of a valid TOE. That’s why you cant’s come up with a valid
theory of gravity. The reason is that gravity is not transmitted via the
non-existing gravitons. Qualitatively, gravity is a composite force based
on that the gravitating objects are expanding in the same direction as
the universe expands in the E-Matrix. At the same time the granting
objects are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix.
So you see, without view qualitative, you will never be able to come up
with a valid theory of gravity. Live with it.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I mean, it’s easy to produce a qualitative prediction. It’s much harder to
produce a quantitative prediction. It’s pretty phenomena direction as
the universe expandsal to make a
quantitativth
Post by Ken Seto
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of
stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong
force. httat gp://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
--
Odd Bodkirvaity n -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-15 20:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Ken Seto <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do a better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is important, a TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-16 14:04:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold. But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is important, a TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-16 16:48:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is important, a TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-21 14:13:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-22 01:26:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-22 13:08:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-22 13:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-22 18:06:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-22 19:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.

I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.

There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-22 19:04:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Ken, you’ve been posting here since the early 1990’s, right?

In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?

And if the answer is no, why have you continued trying to get your
questions answered here for thirty years? Do you not know an unsuccessful
strategy when you see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 12:44:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Ken, you’ve been posting here since the early 1990’s, right?
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
Stupid moron Odd, I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
Post by Odd Bodkin
And if the answer is no, why have you continued trying to get your
questions answered here for thirty years? Do you not know an unsuccessful
strategy when you see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it dousing n’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2021-03-23 12:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
... I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
This, below, was a question Ken, wasn't it ?
Sqrt*(Faa^2-Fab^2)
If Fab^2 is larger than Faa^2 will the minus sign carries
with it? In other words, if Faa^2 is equal to 4 and Fab^2 is
equal to 25 will this term becomes sqrt (-20) and
thus becomes -4.472?
Thanks for your help.
Ken Seto
ref: Message-ID: <3bd95b06$0$37111$***@news.erinet.com>
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 13:35:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Odd Bodkin
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
... I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
This, below, was a question Ken, wasn't it ?
Sqrt*(Faa^2-Fab^2)
If Fab^2 is larger than Faa^2 will the minus sign carries
with it? In other words, if Faa^2 is equal to 4 and Fab^2 is
equal to 25 will this term becomes sqrt (-20) and
thus becomes -4.472?
Thanks for your help.
Ken Seto
Yes it was. This is obviously Ken’s improvement on failed and obsolete 4th
grade math.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 13:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public,
whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real
scientists say that?
Ken, remember that
Post by Ken Seto
others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Ken, you’ve been posting here since the early 1990’s, right?
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
Stupid moron Odd, I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
Then why do you ask questions?

And, Seto, it’s the height of insanity to say you’re here to teach physics
when you’ve never succeeded in even learning the basics of elementary
physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
And if the answer is no, why have you continued trying to get your
questions answered here for thirty years? Do you not know an unsuccessful
strategy when you see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it dousing n’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 14:06:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public,
whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real
scientists say that?
Ken, remember that
Post by Ken Seto
others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Ken, you’ve been posting here since the early 1990’s, right?
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
Stupid moron Odd, I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
Then why do you ask questions?
And, Seto, it’s the height of insanity to say you’re here to teach physics
when you’ve never succeeded in even learning the basics of elementary
physics.
I am here to teach Model Mechanics.......MM is a successful theory of physics. Current physics is obsolete and that’s why it failed to unify all the forces of nature.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
And if the answer is no, why have you continued trying to get your
questions answered here for thirty years? Do you not know an unsuccessful
strategy when you see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it dousing n’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 14:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public,
whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real
scientists say that?
Ken, remember that
Post by Ken Seto
others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Ken, you’ve been posting here since the early 1990’s, right?
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
Stupid moron Odd, I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
Then why do you ask questions?
And, Seto, it’s the height of insanity to say you’re here to teach physics
when you’ve never succeeded in even learning the basics of elementary
physics.
I am here to teach Model Mechanics.......
Then why do you ask questions about standard physics?

Nobody cares about Model Mechanics, except as an object lesson in
self-absorbed foolishness.
Post by Ken Seto
MM is a successful theory of physics. Current physics is obsolete and
that’s why it failed to unify all the forces of nature.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
And if the answer is no, why have you continued trying to get your
questions answered here for thirty years? Do you not know an unsuccessful
strategy when you see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it dousing n’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than
scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you
know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 15:09:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public,
whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real
scientists say that?
Ken, remember that
Post by Ken Seto
others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Ken, you’ve been posting here since the early 1990’s, right?
In the thirty years of posting, have you EVER gotten one of your questions
about physics or relativity answered on this newsgroup? Ever?
Stupid moron Odd, I am here to teach, not seeking answer.....Gee, you are so stupid.
Then why do you ask questions?
And, Seto, it’s the height of insanity to say you’re here to teach physics
when you’ve never succeeded in even learning the basics of elementary
physics.
I am here to teach Model Mechanics.......
Then why do you ask questions about standard physics?
what questions I asked about the standard model?
I summarized the standard model in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
Nobody cares about Model Mechanics, except as an object lesson in
self-absorbed foolishness.
Post by Ken Seto
MM is a successful theory of physics. Current physics is obsolete and
that’s why it failed to unify all the forces of nature.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
And if the answer is no, why have you continued trying to get your
questions answered here for thirty years? Do you not know an unsuccessful
strategy when you see it?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it dousing n’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than
scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you
know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 12:50:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
Idiot I am here to teach.....not here to learn obsolete physics from a woodworker.
Post by Odd Bodkin
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 13:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those
things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
Idiot I am here to teach.....not here to learn obsolete physics from a woodworker.
Imagine a fella who never learned how to play the flute, who can’t read
music, who doesn’t know what “eighth note” or “key of F minor” means, and
who says “I’m here to teach how to play flute” as he prepares to swing the
flute to strike a gong. “The other way to play the flute is failed and
obsolete flute playing.”

That’s you, Ken.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-23 13:42:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Imagine a fella who never learned how to play the flute, who can’t read
music, who doesn’t know what “eighth note” or “key of F minor” means, and
who says “I’m here to teach how to play flute” as he prepares to swing the
flute to strike a gong. “The other way to play the flute is failed and
obsolete flute playing.”
Why imagining? We have here poor idiot Tom screaming
THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MODEL WHAT NATURE DOES.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 13:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Odd Bodkin
Imagine a fella who never learned how to play the flute, who can’t read
music, who doesn’t know what “eighth note” or “key of F minor” means, and
who says “I’m here to teach how to play flute” as he prepares to swing the
flute to strike a gong. “The other way to play the flute is failed and
obsolete flute playing.”
Why imagining? We have here poor idiot Tom screaming
THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MODEL WHAT NATURE DOES.
And you have a knee jerk “nobody tells Woz what Woz must do” reaction. I
get that.
But you’re a little tetched in the head, so allowances might be made.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-23 14:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Odd Bodkin
Imagine a fella who never learned how to play the flute, who can’t read
music, who doesn’t know what “eighth note” or “key of F minor” means, and
who says “I’m here to teach how to play flute” as he prepares to swing the
flute to strike a gong. “The other way to play the flute is failed and
obsolete flute playing.”
Why imagining? We have here poor idiot Tom screaming
THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MODEL WHAT NATURE DOES.
And you have a knee jerk “nobody tells Woz what Woz must do” reaction.
Bod, poor idiot, it's actually you believing that nobody tells
you that.
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 14:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those
things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.
No it would not. Obviously you do not know why.
It is apparent that you don’t know and that’s why you argument is just assertions.
Ken, you aren’t ever going to get people to give you answers about physics
basics on Usenet, not even if you try to taunt them by saying that they
don’t know the answers.
Idiot I am here to teach.....not here to learn obsolete physics from a woodworker.
Imagine a fella who never learned how to play the flute, who can’t read
music, who doesn’t know what “eighth note” or “key of F minor” means, and
who says “I’m here to teach how to play flute” as he prepares to swing the
flute to strike a gong. “The other way to play the flute is failed and
obsolete flute playing.”
That’s you, Ken.
.
No that’s you. Your way of playing the flute is just give out noise....no music.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
I don’t know why you ever thought that would work.
There’s only one way to learn physics. You know what that one way is, don’t
you?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But they failed because gravity is a composite force.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
If you think that science as a whole has “failed”, and you, a non
scientist, can do force better job of science than scientists, then you are a
straight out lunatic. And you know it.
See? You just said that you think science as a whole has “failed” to
produce something YOU think is imanics.org2015gravity.pdfportant, a
TOE, and that you — a
nonscientist — can do a better job at that than scientists. You are a
straight out lunatic.
Moron, I was able to do so because I didn’t follow the dead end of force
messengers. Gee you are so stupid.
So you ARE a straight out lunatic.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-22 16:29:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Ken Seto
2021-03-22 18:09:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-22 19:00:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such
graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have
so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE..
No it wouldn’t. Already said that.
Post by Ken Seto
But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 12:47:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such
graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have
so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE..
No it wouldn’t. Already said that.
Assertion from a cult member of SR is worthless.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 13:08:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Stop it, Ken. Quality in science is not based on whether it involves
inventing new things, whether it makes sense to the common public, whether
it explains everything under the sun. None of those
things matter in
science.
You are wrong.....all of these thing matter in science.
Not so, Ken. This must be of your own fabrication. Because SCIENTISTS do
not say these things are important. You say they are important in science
but you’re not a scientist.
So you are now the scientist? If not where did the real scientists say that?
Ken, remember that others here are not like you. Others here have actually
read physics.
Hatton and Plouffe, Science and Its Ways of Knowing, chapter 2
Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, chapter 1
Mazur, Principles and Practices of Physics, chapter 1
These books are based on failed models.
More excuses.
What scientists consider important and not important in science is not
“failed”.
Sure they all consider Einstein’s shit and the quantum model are the
standards of physics.
Where did you get that idea?
Post by Ken Seto
It is not and that’s why they failed to find the valid TOE.
Where did you get the idea was to find a TOE?
Moron that’s why they invented the graviton to bring gravity into the fold.
Nope. And even the discovery of a graviton would not produce a ToE. Do you
have any understanding why it wouldn’t produce a ToE?
Yes, because gravity is not a force being transmitted by
gravitons.Gravity. It is a composite force as described in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
No, that’s the wrong reason. I take it you don’t know why the discovery of
a graviton would not produce a ToE.
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such
graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have
so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE..
No it wouldn’t. Already said that.
Assertion from a cult member of SR is worthless.
Assertion about physics fro, someone who never learned even high school
physics is more worthy?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-22 20:49:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-22 21:03:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Remember, Ken! They 're only valid when stupid Mike keeps
repeating them.
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 12:40:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 13:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such
graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have
so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE..
But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
It’s adorable that you’ve decided that anything you don’t understand cannot
possibly exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-23 13:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such
graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have
so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE..
But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
It’s adorable that you’ve decided that anything you don’t understand cannot
possibly exist.
If it exits why haven’t you find it yet?
I have a theory of gravity in the following link that doesn’t require the existence of gravitons.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-23 14:51:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such
graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have
so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE..
But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
It’s adorable that you’ve decided that anything you don’t understand cannot
possibly exist.
If it exits why haven’t you find it yet?
Because discovery takes time. Neutrino took 26 years to find. DNA took 84
years to find. Black hole took 100 years to find.

Why do you think thinks that exist are all easy to find?
Post by Ken Seto
I have a theory of gravity in the following link that doesn’t require the
existence of gravitons.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-23 15:09:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.

Nobody cares about your worthless empty assertions, Stupid Ken.
Ken Seto
2021-03-24 13:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-24 13:55:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??

Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??

You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-24 14:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but you haven’t found it yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-24 15:16:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.

Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-24 15:59:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-24 17:17:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-24 22:02:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-25 12:56:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?

In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.

All these things have since been found, their existence proven.

So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.

What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?

Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-25 14:14:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-25 14:49:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better. Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-25 15:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
Do you think we can still discover Terra Australis Incognita, Bod?
Ken Seto
2021-03-26 13:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
Is there no possibility that the concept of graviton is wrong?
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better.
MM is better.....the E-Matrix and the S-Particles unified all the forces. It added a new repulsive CRE force which is required for the stable orbit of the moon. The equation for MM gravity is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The E-matrix also explain why an object has momentum
It explains how a charged particle manifests its electric charge.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-26 14:54:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
No, no time limit. There has never been a time limit on any experimental
discovery.
Post by Ken Seto
Is there no possibility that the concept of graviton is wrong?
Of course there’s a possibility. But we are nowhere near making that call
yet.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better.
MM is better.....the E-Matrix and the S-Particles unified all the forces.
It added a new repulsive CRE force which is required for the stable orbit
of the moon. The equation for MM gravity is available in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The E-matrix also explain why an object has momentum
It explains how a charged particle manifests its electric charge.
Sorry but no. “Explanations why” are not what physics does. I’ve explained
to you over and over and over again what physics does.
Physicists hypothesize concepts from which they then DERIVE mathematical
formulations from which they then CALCULATE predictions of measurable
phenomena from which they then COMPARE with LIBRARY-RESEARCHED experimental
measurements.

You complain over and over and over again that you don’t have the skills to
derive or calculate or compare or do library research. And you say, so what
if my theory doesn’t have any of those things, it does these other things
that should count. But they DON’T count, and the things you don’t know how
to do MUST be done.

This is why Model Mechanics is not better. It doesn’t do any of the things
that it needs to do to be a physics theory, and all the things you say it
does are not important to physicists.

When you have a theory that does the things a real physics theory must
have, THEN physicists will be able to judge whether it’s better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-26 15:03:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
No, no time limit. There has never been a time limit on any experimental
discovery.
Do you think we can still discover phlogyston, poor halfbrain?
Physicists hypothesize concepts from which they then DERIVE mathematical
formulations from which they then CALCULATE predictions of measurable
phenomena from which they then COMPARE with LIBRARY-RESEARCHED experimental
measurements.
Samely as christians love their neigbours.
Ken Seto
2021-03-26 20:22:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
No, no time limit. There has never been a time limit on any experimental
discovery.
Post by Ken Seto
Is there no possibility that the concept of graviton is wrong?
Of course there’s a possibility. But we are nowhere near making that call
yet.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better.
MM is better.....the E-Matrix and the S-Particles unified all the forces.
It added a new repulsive CRE force which is required for the stable orbit
of the moon. The equation for MM gravity is available in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The E-matrix also explain why an object has momentum
It explains how a charged particle manifests its electric charge.
Sorry but no. “Explanations why” are not what physics does. I’ve explained
to you over and over and over again what physics does.
ROTFLOL.....so physicists can’t explain why and so it is not what physicists do!!!
Physicists hypothesize concepts from which they then DERIVE mathematical
formulations from which they then CALCULATE predictions of measurable
phenomena from which they then COMPARE with LIBRARY-RESEARCHED experimental
measurements.
Different model can use the same math to predict measurable phenomena...for example SR copied the LET math and both are based on different models. It appears that you have no clue and just making unsupported assertions.
.
You complain over and over and over again that you don’t have the skills .
derive or calculate or compare or do library research. And you say, so what
if my theory doesn’t have any of those things, it does these other things
that should count. But they DON’T count, and the things you don’t know how
to do MUST be done.
This is why Model Mechanics is not better. It doesn’t do any of the things
that it needs to do to be a physics theory, and all the things you say it
does are not important to physicists.
When you have a theory that does the things a real physics theory must
have, THEN physicists will be able to judge whether it’s better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-26 21:19:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
No, no time limit. There has never been a time limit on any experimental
discovery.
Post by Ken Seto
Is there no possibility that the concept of graviton is wrong?
Of course there’s a possibility. But we are nowhere near making that call
yet.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better.
MM is better.....the E-Matrix and the S-Particles unified all the forces.
It added a new repulsive CRE force which is required for the stable orbit
of the moon. The equation for MM gravity is available in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The E-matrix also explain why an object has momentum
It explains how a charged particle manifests its electric charge.
Sorry but no. “Explanations why” are not what physics does. I’ve explained
to you over and over and over again what physics does.
ROTFLOL.....so physicists can’t explain why and so it is not what physicists do!!!
That’s right. It’s not what physicists do. Laugh all you want. Look in a
physics book to see what physics really does. It doesn’t do what you think
it does. Check the books, not your own head.
Post by Ken Seto
Physicists hypothesize concepts from which they then DERIVE mathematical
formulations from which they then CALCULATE predictions of measurable
phenomena from which they then COMPARE with LIBRARY-RESEARCHED experimental
measurements.
Different model can use the same math to predict measurable
phenomena...for example SR copied the LET math and both are based on different models.
Repeating the same lies over and over again. There is no E=mc2 in LET. You
are senile if you don’t remember being corrected on this mistake.
Post by Ken Seto
It appears that you have no clue and just making unsupported assertions.
.
You complain over and over and over again that you don’t have the skills .
derive or calculate or compare or do library research. And you say, so what
if my theory doesn’t have any of those things, it does these other things
that should count. But they DON’T count, and the things you don’t know how
to do MUST be done.
This is why Model Mechanics is not better. It doesn’t do any of the things
that it needs to do to be a physics theory, and all the things you say it
does are not important to physicists.
When you have a theory that does the things a real physics theory must
have, THEN physicists will be able to judge whether it’s better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-28 14:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
No, no time limit. There has never been a time limit on any experimental
discovery.
Post by Ken Seto
Is there no possibility that the concept of graviton is wrong?
Of course there’s a possibility. But we are nowhere near making that call
yet.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better.
MM is better.....the E-Matrix and the S-Particles unified all the forces.
It added a new repulsive CRE force which is required for the stable orbit
of the moon. The equation for MM gravity is available in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The E-matrix also explain why an object has momentum
It explains how a charged particle manifests its electric charge.
Sorry but no. “Explanations why” are not what physics does. I’ve explained
to you over and over and over again what physics does.
ROTFLOL.....so physicists can’t explain why and so it is not what physicists do!!!
That’s right. It’s not what physicists do. Laugh all you want. Look in a
physics book to see what physics really does. It doesn’t do what you think
it does. Check the books, not your own head.
The why question is important because it explains how the universe works. It is laughable that you said that that’s not what physicists do.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Physicists hypothesize concepts from which they then DERIVE mathematical
formulations from which they then CALCULATE predictions of measurable
phenomena from which they then COMPARE with LIBRARY-RESEARCHED experimental
measurements.
Different model can use the same math to predict measurable
phenomena...for example SR copied the LET math and both are based on different models.
Repeating the same lies over and over again. There is no E=mc2 in LET. You
are senile if you don’t remember being corrected on this mistake.
Post by Ken Seto
It appears that you have no clue and just making unsupported assertions.
.
You complain over and over and over again that you don’t have the skills .
derive or calculate or compare or do library research. And you say, so what
if my theory doesn’t have any of those things, it does these other things
that should count. But they DON’T count, and the things you don’t know how
to do MUST be done.
This is why Model Mechanics is not better. It doesn’t do any of the things
that it needs to do to be a physics theory, and all the things you say it
does are not important to physicists.
When you have a theory that does the things a real physics theory must
have, THEN physicists will be able to judge whether it’s better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-28 19:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has
to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it
impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Some things are hard to find but exist just the same. There are billions of
galaxies, but no one suspected there was more than one until 1923! How
could so many things that are so huge and right up in the sky escape
detection for thousands of years??
ROTFLOL....So your argument is that the pink fairy (graviton) exists but
you haven’t found it yet.
Not everything that exists has been found.
Yeah, that’s right and that’s why the pink fairy haven’t been found yet.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Or do you say that everything that exists HAS already been found, and that
should be enough to explain everything, because that’s a much more
comforting feeling? Have you tried a lap blanket?
So you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
We were talking about graviton.
Yes, so?
In 1900, billions of galaxies existed but had not yet been found.
In 1940, neutrinos existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1925, black holes existed and were hypothesized and had not yet been
found.
In 1930, DNA existed and had been hypothesized and had not yet been found.
In 1915, cosmic rays existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 2000, Higgs bosons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
In 1925, positrons existed and were hypothesized but had not yet been
found.
All these things have since been found, their existence proven.
So today, gravitons have been hypothesized but have not yet been found.
So how long you going to wait?
Some discoveries take a long time. Decades or even more than a century. Why
do you think there should be a time limit when there has NEVER been a time
limit on discoveries, for at least the last six centuries?
So no time limit on graviton?
No, no time limit. There has never been a time limit on any experimental
discovery.
Post by Ken Seto
Is there no possibility that the concept of graviton is wrong?
Of course there’s a possibility. But we are nowhere near making that call
yet.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
The point is: we now have a better model for gravity in Model Mechanics
that does not require the hypothetical graviton. Why are you
rejecting it out of hand?
Because it’s not a better model. Your model dispenses with
not-yet-discovered gravitons and replaces it with not-yet-discovered
E-strings and not-yet-discovered S-particles — no better.
MM is better.....the E-Matrix and the S-Particles unified all the forces.
It added a new repulsive CRE force which is required for the stable orbit
of the moon. The equation for MM gravity is available in the following
link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
The E-matrix also explain why an object has momentum
It explains how a charged particle manifests its electric charge.
Sorry but no. “Explanations why” are not what physics does. I’ve explained
to you over and over and over again what physics does.
ROTFLOL.....so physicists can’t explain why and so it is not what physicists do!!!
That’s right. It’s not what physicists do. Laugh all you want. Look in a
physics book to see what physics really does. It doesn’t do what you think
it does. Check the books, not your own head.
The why question is important because it explains how the universe works.
How is different than why.

It doesn’t matter what YOU personally think is important in science. You
are not a scientist. What matters is what SCIENTISTS think science is
about, and to find that out, you have to read what they write. Not make
stuff up from your own engineer head.
Post by Ken Seto
It is laughable that you said that that’s not what physicists do.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Physicists hypothesize concepts from which they then DERIVE mathematical
formulations from which they then CALCULATE predictions of measurable
phenomena from which they then COMPARE with LIBRARY-RESEARCHED experimental
measurements.
Different model can use the same math to predict measurable
phenomena...for example SR copied the LET math and both are based on different models.
Repeating the same lies over and over again. There is no E=mc2 in LET. You
are senile if you don’t remember being corrected on this mistake.
Post by Ken Seto
It appears that you have no clue and just making unsupported assertions.
.
You complain over and over and over again that you don’t have the skills .
derive or calculate or compare or do library research. And you say, so what
if my theory doesn’t have any of those things, it does these other things
that should count. But they DON’T count, and the things you don’t know how
to do MUST be done.
This is why Model Mechanics is not better. It doesn’t do any of the things
that it needs to do to be a physics theory, and all the things you say it
does are not important to physicists.
When you have a theory that does the things a real physics theory must
have, THEN physicists will be able to judge whether it’s better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Gravitons allow
the derivation of mathematics that make specific quantitative predictions,
just like what was true for neutrinos, black holes, Higgs bosons,
positrons, etc. Your model can’t derive ANY mathematics or make ANY
quantitative predictions — not at all better.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
What makes you think that we should say today that gravitons will never be
found and that they do not exist, when all those other things were
hypothesized and later found?
Do you think that everything that exists should have been found by now?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Cosmic rays have rained down on the earth for millions of years, and yet no
one had a clue they existed until 1912! How could something so prevalent
everywhere on the surface of the earth go undetected for centuries??
You have this completely silly notion that everything that exists is plain
and obvious to human senses AND common, and anything that is not like that,
you say doesn’t exist.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-28 19:21:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
It doesn’t matter what YOU personally think is important in science. You
are not a scientist. What matters is what SCIENTISTS think science is
about, and to find that out, you have to read what they write.
You can, for instance, read that poor idiot Tom laughs at
your childish visions and tells you you're thinking like
a crank.
Still, scientists have very little clue about the subject, as it
is out of any scientific domain; thus, current "knowledge"
of what science is about - is mostly some naive fartings of a
philosopher of third sort.
Michael Moroney
2021-03-25 18:57:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.

Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
Ken Seto
2021-03-26 13:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton? And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-26 13:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
No time limit on ANY experimental discoveries, that’s right. Why do you
think there should be? Want it all done by the time you die?
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Except it’s not a physics theory. You say it’s a “new kind of science”. Ok.
Then it’s not physics.

A man off the street who puts on a white lab coat and a stethoscope and
announces he’s a “new kind of doctor” with “new medicine” isn’t a doctor.
He’s a fraud.

You’re a fraud. It’s obvious you’re a fraud. That’s why you get no more
inspection than a handwaving dismissal.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-26 14:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder
your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found
it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the
sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
No time limit on ANY experimental discoveries, that’s right. Why do you
think there should be? Want it all done by the time you die?
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Except it’s not a physics theory. You say it’s a “new kind of science”. Ok.
Then it’s not physics.
A man off the street who puts on a white lab coat and a stethoscope and
announces he’s a “new kind of doctor” with “new medicine” isn’t a doctor.
He’s a fraud.
You’re a fraud. It’s obvious you’re a fraud. That’s why you get no more
inspection than a handwaving dismissal.
Ken, everyone knows the effort, time, and expense you have put into
painting your legacy to be something other than what it really is. You want
to be remembered by loved ones and by history alike as someone you really
aren’t in fact. You don’t want to be remembered as a defunct chemical
engineer who passed away quietly and without fanfare in a retirement home
for the infirm and the indigent. You want to be remembered as someone more
important, more singular. You want to be remembered as a spectacularly
gifted man who changed a field he was not trained in.

Unfortunately, Ken, Walter Mitty dreams do not come true just because of
devout desire. They have to be earned. And you’ve done none of the work to
acquire the skills or the experience require to earn it. And you’re not
even trying to acquire those skills and experience because you know (but
don’t easily admit) you can’t do it at this stage in life. It is literally
too late for you, whether that fills you with despair or not.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-26 16:37:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
Ken Seto
2021-03-26 20:13:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
You are a lying piece of shit. My theory of gravity is in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-26 21:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.

It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”

This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.

In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.

What IS a prediction is this:
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
integrate the equations twice to DERIVE the equations:
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.

Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.

THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.

You clearly don’t know what these words mean in physics.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-27 04:49:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
Still, when the clocks of GPS keep indicating t'=t, just like serious
clocks always did - your idiot gurus and you are "explaining why"
quite well. A pity it's only when their predictions fail.
Ken Seto
2021-03-28 14:01:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity is clearly wrong. Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as shown in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in physics.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-28 14:08:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.

Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.

It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in physics.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-28 14:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot maintain an object in circular motion. Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration and tangential accerlation.
The moon is able to orbit around the earth because:
1. There is an attractive electromagnetic force between them caused by the fact that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix. That causes a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is a composite force of the above opposing forces and that’s why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.
It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in physics.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-28 16:20:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity is clearly wrong.
It is clearly NOT wrong because Newton PROVED a single force is all that
is needed.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot maintain an object in circular motion. Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration and tangential accerlation.
Stupid Ken, there is no tangential acceleration of an object on a string
moving circularly. But you don't understand that, because you can't math.
[snip baseless assertions]
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-28 19:04:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot
maintain an object in circular motion.
But it can. This is proven in high school physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration
and tangential accerlation.
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.

Remember, UNIFORM circular motion. Not slowing down or speeding up. UNIFORM
circular motion.
Like whirling an object at the end of a string at constant speed.
Post by Ken Seto
1. There is an attractive electromagnetic force between them caused by
the fact that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as
the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the
E-Matrix. That causes a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is a composite force of the above opposing forces and that’s
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.
It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in 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
Ken Seto
2021-03-29 17:19:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot
maintain an object in circular motion.
But it can. This is proven in high school physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration
and tangential accerlation.
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Remember, UNIFORM circular motion. Not slowing down or speeding up. UNIFORM
circular motion.
Like whirling an object at the end of a string at constant speed.
Post by Ken Seto
1. There is an attractive electromagnetic force between them caused by
the fact that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as
the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the
E-Matrix. That causes a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is a composite force of the above opposing forces and that’s
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.
It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in 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
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-29 17:35:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity
is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school
Post by Ken Seto
physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot
maintain an object in circular motion.
But it can. This is proven in high school physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration
and tangential accerlation.
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.

Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?

Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Remember, UNIFORM circular motion. Not slowing down or speeding up. UNIFORM
circular motion.
Like whirling an object at the end of a string at constant speed.
Post by Ken Seto
1. There is an attractive electromagnetic force between them caused by
the fact that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as
the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the
E-Matrix. That causes a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is a composite force of the above opposing forces and that’s
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.
It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in 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
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Python
2021-03-29 17:42:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Who could believe that Ken could compute dV/dt when V is a constant
tangential velocity on a circle? This is high school stuff he's never
heard about.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-29 20:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Who could believe that Ken could compute dV/dt when V is a constant
tangential velocity on a circle? This is high school stuff he's never
heard about.
I’m fairly certain Ken acquired at some point a bad habit, possibly mid
career. The bad habit was that when he runs into something he doesn’t know,
he guesses. As he played with the this tactic, it didn’t matter much if the
guess was awful and stupid. A third of the time he bluffed the people
around him and got away with it. A third of the time his audience knew he
was bullshitting but let it slide. A third of the time, he got called on it
and as long as he put up a fight and eventually got the right answer from
people who knew better, he counted it as a win.

His family is in the second category, by the way. They know he’s full of
shit, but they know it makes Ken feel better to look impressive on their
eyes, so they pretend.

This bad habit has gotten progressively worse where now he is addicted to
it, a shameless bullshitter who can’t help himself anymore.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-29 20:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Python
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Who could believe that Ken could compute dV/dt when V is a constant
tangential velocity on a circle? This is high school stuff he's never
heard about.
Idiot there is no constant tangential V in any planetary orbit. All planetary orbits are elliptical. Besides V is composed of magnitude and direction......you need a force to change the direction of motion. Learn some high school physics.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-29 20:12:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Python
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Who could believe that Ken could compute dV/dt when V is a constant
tangential velocity on a circle? This is high school stuff he's never
heard about.
Idiot there is no constant tangential V in any planetary orbit.
But there is for a satellite.

And there is for the moon.

And there is for an object twirled at the end of a string at constant
speed.
Post by Ken Seto
All planetary orbits are elliptical. Besides V is composed of magnitude and
direction......you need a force to change the direction of motion.
Since the change in direction is centripetal, you need an unbalanced
centripetal force for uniform circular motion.
Post by Ken Seto
Learn some high school physics.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-29 20:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Python
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Who could believe that Ken could compute dV/dt when V is a constant
tangential velocity on a circle? This is high school stuff he's never
heard about.
Idiot there is no constant tangential V in any planetary orbit.
But there is for a satellite.
A tangential acceleration is applied to the satellite when it reaches the desired height. If there is no tangential acceleration to cancel out the centripetal acceleration the satellite will simply crash back to earth. Learn some high school physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
And there is for the moon.
The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because the repulsive CRE force cancels out the centripetal force between the moon and the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
And there is for an object twirled at the end of a string at constant
speed.
And if there is no tangential acceleration the object at the end of the string will not be able to maintain a stable orbit. Learn some high school physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
All planetary orbits are elliptical. Besides V is composed of magnitude and
direction......you need a force to change the direction of motion.
Since the change in direction is centripetal, you need an unbalanced
centripetal force for uniform circular motion.
Post by Ken Seto
Lear.n some high school physics.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-29 21:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Python
...
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Who could believe that Ken could compute dV/dt when V is a constant
tangential velocity on a circle? This is high school stuff he's never
heard about.
Idiot there is no constant tangential V in any planetary orbit.
But there is for a satellite.
A tangential acceleration is applied to the satellite when it reaches the desired height.
That’s not true. Satellites don’t go straight up and then sideways to
accelerate again. What are you, nuts?

Satellites in orbits for decades do not have any tangential acceleration
when they are orbiting. They ONLY have centripetal acceleration for the
years and years they are in uniform circular motion.
Post by Ken Seto
If there is no tangential acceleration to cancel out the centripetal
acceleration the satellite will simply crash back to earth. Learn some
high school physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
And there is for the moon.
The moon is able to maintain a stable orbit because the repulsive CRE
force cancels out the centripetal force between the moon and the earth.
The moon in orbits for millions of years does not have any tangential
acceleration when it is orbiting. It ONLY has centripetal acceleration for
the millions of years it is in uniform circular motion.
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
And there is for an object twirled at the end of a string at constant
speed.
And if there is no tangential acceleration the object at the end of the
string will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.
The object at the end of a string does not have any tangential acceleration
when it is orbiting. It ONLY has centripetal acceleration for the entire
time it is in uniform circular motion.

As I said, this is all in a high school physics book.

Are you incapable of being embarrassed when you say something obviously
stupid?
Post by Ken Seto
Learn some high school physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
All planetary orbits are elliptical. Besides V is composed of magnitude and
direction......you need a force to change the direction of motion.
Since the change in direction is centripetal, you need an unbalanced
centripetal force for uniform circular motion.
Post by Ken Seto
Lear.n some high school physics.
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Ken Seto
2021-03-29 20:31:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity
is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school
Post by Ken Seto
physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot
maintain an object in circular motion.
But it can. This is proven in high school physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration
and tangential accerlation.
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Idiot tangential velocity is composed of magnitude and direction. So constant changing of magnitude and/or direction is tangential acceleration. Besides, if there is no tangential acceleration to cancel out the centripetal acceleration the moon will not be able to maintain a stable orbit and simply crash into the earth in a short time. Learn some high school physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Remember, UNIFORM circular motion. Not slowing down or speeding up. UNIFORM
circular motion.
Like whirling an object at the end of a string at constant speed.
Post by Ken Seto
1. There is an attractive electromagnetic force between them caused by
the fact that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as
the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the
E-Matrix. That causes a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is a composite force of the above opposing forces and that’s
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.
It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in 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
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-29 21:21:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration
and tangential accerlation.
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Idiot tangential velocity is composed of magnitude and direction. So constant changing of magnitude and/or direction is tangential acceleration.
So your mistake was calling it tangential velocity, not tangential
speed. (and we didn't catch your mistake).
Post by Ken Seto
Besides, if there is no tangential acceleration to cancel out the centripetal acceleration the moon will not be able to maintain a stable orbit and simply crash into the earth in a short time.
Newton has already PROVEN that to be false. Instead of just making
vacuous empty assertions, PROVE Newton to have been wrong. (I won't
hold my breath waiting!)
Post by Ken Seto
Learn some high school physics.
It's obvious that you have forgotten 100% of yours.
Odd Bodkin
2021-03-29 21:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
The discovery of a correct graviton would produce a TOE. But no
such graviton to be found....why? Because it doesn’t exist. It
has to have so many abstract properties making it impossible to exist.
Stupid Ken, your assertions that discovery of a graviton would produce a
TOE or that its necessary properties would make it impossible to exist
are not valid arguments.
Moron, I said the discovery of a correct graviton would produce a
TOE.. But such graviton doesn’t exist. Gee you are stupid No
wonder your name is Moron-y.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the discovery of a correct graviton
would produce a TOE is merely a worthless assertion. Remember,
assertions are not valid arguments! Even (especially) if you keep
repeating them.
Stupid moron Mike, I also said that such correct graviton with
complicated properties doesn’t exist so there is no possibly of finding it
experimentally.
Stupid Ken, your assertion that the graviton is too complicated to exist
(more like too complicated for you to ever understand) is also not a
valid argument, just like every one of your worthless assertions.
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists
found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists
why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
It contains an equation and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain
a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force
between them. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Ken, “prediction” does not mean “explain why”.
It means, “under these conditions, you will measure events [X] to occur
with numerical rate [R] and property [Y] will have numerical value [V]”
This is why predictions involve NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS obtained from
equations DERIVED from the concepts. They have nothing to do with
“explaining why”.
In basic physics, for example, there is a chapter on two-dimensional
projectile motion. And example of something that is NOT a prediction is
“gravity affects the vertical component of the motion and does not affect
the horizontal component of the motion, and the result is a parabolic
trajectory.” Repeat: that is NOT a prediction.
The model for forces and accelerations is Newton’s second law
F=m*d2x/dt2, where F and x are vector force and position respectively.
Mathematically, we can resolve this differential equation into vertical and
horizontal components, noting that F_x = 0 and F_y = -mg. We can then
x = x0 + v0_x*t
y = y0 + v0_y*t - gt^2/2
Thus, in the circumstance of throwing a ball at 20 m/s from a height of 1m
above the ground at an angle of 30 degrees above horizontal, then the
PREDICTION is that the ball will just clear a 1 m fence if it is no more
than 35.3 m away from the thrower. This can be tested experimentally by
throwing the ball at this speed at different distances from the fence and
seeing at which distance the ball just clears the fence. Actual tests
verify this result, in support of the model.
Notice the model allows a DERIVATION of the mathematics, which in turn
allows to CALCULATE the PREDICTION of 35.3 m being the maximum distance
away this ball will clear the fence.
The current model that asserts that the moon is able to maintain a stable
orbit around the earth with just a single attractive force of gravity
is clearly wrong.
No, it is not clearly wrong. High school
Post by Ken Seto
physics, which you never learned,
explains it well.
It is wrong because we observe that a single attractive force cannot
maintain an object in circular motion.
But it can. This is proven in high school physics.
Post by Ken Seto
Whirl an object on the end of a string requires centripetal acceleration
and tangential accerlation.
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No it isn’t. Changing direction of tangential velocity is CENTRIPETAL
acceleration. This is high school physics.
Idiot tangential velocity is composed of magnitude and direction. So
constant changing of magnitude and/or direction is tangential acceleration.
Nope. Again, high school physics. The rate of change of the magnitude of
tangential velocity is tangential acceleration. The rate of change of the
direction of tangential velocity is centripetal acceleration. Go ahead,
look it up. Any basic physics textbook. Any one at all.
Post by Ken Seto
Besides, if there is no tangential acceleration to cancel out the
centripetal acceleration the moon will not be able to maintain a stable
orbit and simply crash into the earth in a short time.
Nope that’s not true. Read a chapter on uniform circular motion. For a
STABLE orbit of uniform circular motion there is an UNBALANCED centripetal
acceleration. By Newton’s second law, there is also an UNBALANCED
centripetal force.

Any basic physics textbook. Any one at all.

Why would you think that anyone would heed anything you write when you
don’t know the SIMPLE things high school students know?
Post by Ken Seto
Learn some high school physics.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Why would you think anyone is going to pay any heed to anything you say
when you don’t know SIMPLE things?
Are you incapable of embarrassment?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
Remember, UNIFORM circular motion. Not slowing down or speeding up. UNIFORM
circular motion.
Like whirling an object at the end of a string at constant speed.
Post by Ken Seto
1. There is an attractive electromagnetic force between them caused by
the fact that they are expanding in the same direction in the E-Matrix as
the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to the divergent structure of the
E-Matrix. That causes a repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is a composite force of the above opposing forces and that’s
why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
Post by Odd Bodkin
Uniform circular motion is not equilibrium. Uniform circular motion
involves a NET acceleration toward the center of the circle, even though
the radius never changes.
It’s true that you do not understand this at all. That fact does not mean
that it is wrong, though. It just means you don’t understand high school
physics. It also means that anything you don’t understand you then say is
wrong, a clear mark of insanity.
Post by Ken Seto
Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Post by Odd Bodkin
THAT, Ken, is an example of a PREDICTION of a measurable quantity. A
prediction is NOT “explaining why”.
You clearly don’t know what these words mean in 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
--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Michael Moroney
2021-03-29 20:46:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Odd Bodkin
No, it doesn’t. An object whirled at the end of a string in uniform
circular motion has no tangential acceleration. A satellite orbiting the
earth in uniform circular motion has no tangential acceleration.
Idiot, constant changing of tangential direction is tangential acceleration.
No, Stupid Ken. Tangential acceleration means it's going around the
circle faster and faster (or slower and slower if negative).
"Tangential direction" doesn't even make sense since the only
"direction" is along the circle. The only "directions" are clockwise and
counterclockwise.

You are inventing your very own definitions for words and phrases which
you don't know again, aren't you.

(There is _radial_ velocity and acceleration, which is the motion toward
or away from the center of the circle, of course)
Michael Moroney
2021-03-27 07:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Yes your pack of assertions which you call a "theory" is there.
But it's not physics.
Post by Ken Seto
It contains an equation
ONE equation? An equation which you copied from somewhere else because
you can't do math? Hahahaha!!!
Post by Ken Seto
and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force between them.
Yet you don't have any equations which demonstrate this, or an example
problem like the moon Deimos orbiting Mars or whatever. FAIL.
Plus you ignore the elephant in the room, by not showing how Newton was
wrong when he proved only one force was needed.
Ken Seto
2021-03-28 14:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Yes your pack of assertions which you call a "theory" is there.
But it's not physics.
Post by Ken Seto
It contains an equation
ONE equation? An equation which you copied from somewhere else because
you can't do math? Hahahaha!!!
Like SR copied the LET math? Yes.
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force between them.
Yet you don’t have any equations which demonstrate this,
Moron there is an equation in the link. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
Post by Michael Moroney
or an example
problem like the moon Deimos orbiting Mars or whatever. FAIL.
Plus you ignore the elephant in the room, by not showing how Newton was
wrong when he proved only one force was needed.
Michael Moroney
2021-03-28 16:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Yes your pack of assertions which you call a "theory" is there.
But it's not physics.
Post by Ken Seto
It contains an equation
ONE equation? An equation which you copied from somewhere else because
you can't do math? Hahahaha!!!
Like SR copied the LET math? Yes.
Nope. SR did not copy the SR math. Einstein DERIVED the math
independently of the LET math, plus created additional math.
You could see that if you understood Einstein's SR paper, but of course,
you can't.

So the ONLY equation you have is plagiarized? Unlike Einstein?
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
and it predicts why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth because it predicts a repulsive CRE force between them.
Yet you don’t have any equations which demonstrate this,
Moron there is an equation in the link. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
ONE plagiarized equation? And you think you have physics? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
or an example
problem like the moon Deimos orbiting Mars or whatever. FAIL.
Plus you ignore the elephant in the room, by not showing how Newton was
wrong when he proved only one force was needed.
Maciej Wozniak
2021-03-28 18:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Post by Michael Moroney
Post by Ken Seto
Hey stupid moron Mike, if graviton exists, why haven't physicists found it after 110 years of search? In any case if graviton exists why the sky is not full of it?
Who put a time limit on it? The neutrino took 26 years from the time it
was theorized to the time it was discovered. The Higgs took almost 50
years from being theorized to discovery.
Also 110 years is too long. The graviton was first theorized in the
1930s, so 90 years of "knowing" of the possibility. Plus its existence
depends on gravity actually being quantized, something only theoretical.
So no time limit for graviton?
Nope. Physics doesn't set any time limits. The limitation is the
technology, and even that is not absolute.
Post by Ken Seto
And yet I have a new theory of gravity you just hand waving it away?
Because it's not physics. No experimental results, no observations, no
equations, no predictions, no math, nothing but assertions. And what
good is it to replace undiscovered gravitons with undiscovered EStrings
and SParticles? As Odd already said.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Yes your pack of assertions which you call a "theory" is there.
But it's not physics.
Post by Ken Seto
It contains an equation
ONE equation? An equation which you copied from somewhere else because
you can't do math? Hahahaha!!!
Like SR copied the LET math? Yes.
Nope. SR did not copy the SR math. Einstein DERIVED the math
independently of the LET math, plus created additional math.
Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that your idiot
guru had to assume and announce its oldest part false, as it
didn't want to fit his madness.
mitchr...@gmail.com
2021-03-12 19:12:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
What keeps the nucleus together?
What causes it to do the opposite of fusion?

Mitchell Raemsch
Michael Moroney
2021-03-12 19:58:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Seto
In QCD, the nuclear strong force is based on the following fantasies
Multicolor charges,
Gluons,
In Model Mechanics, the nuclear strong force is simply the result of stacked interactions between the up-quarks in the nucleus.
Chapter 3 of my book in the following link describes the nuclear strong force. http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
OK, show us your calculations for the strong force according to your
Muddle Mechanics. Show your derivation. That's not in your "book".

Show us examples with calculations for the strength of the forces,
compare to electrostatic repulsion and how it overcomes that. Show us
example calculations which shows fusion/fission and other nuclear
reactions and whether they can or can't take place and release or absorb
energy.

Do all that and _maybe_ you will catch up to existing theory. Now you
have to show Muddle Mechanics is superior, by making a prediction which
is different from QCD, and show that yours but not QCD's prediction is
correct. (and no postdictions!)

Good luck!
Loading...