Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>
>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>> the data.
>> It is up to you to convince the world
>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>
> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.

Then you are done.

As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.

A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.

Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.

> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
> for another 100 years.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>>
>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>>> the data.
>>> It is up to you to convince the world
>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>>
>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
>
> Then you are done.
>
> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>
> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>
> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.

Perhaps the lesson here for you (and others) is not to wait too late in
life to take on something large in a field you know nothing about. Because
then you’ll be out of time and energy before you know it to do the work
expected of you in that endeavor.

>
>> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
>> for another 100 years.
>>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/14/2022 11:47 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

> I am 85 years old (close to 86). I don't have the
> time or energy to gp through the grant application.

Being close to you in age I have to say that it sounds
more as though you are ill equipped to engage in arguing
your points whenever you are not willing to do what is
necessary to support your thesis. In that case it is only
proper to enjoy discussions without engaging in ways that
require the work you are unable or unwilling to do.

Half measures are no good. Life is as good as you make it.

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
> >>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
> >>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
> >>>> UTC.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
> >>>
> >>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> >>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> >>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
> >>> the data.
> >> It is up to you to convince the world
> >> that you have something that is worth funding.
> >> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
> >> of computing something observable to better precision,
> >
> > I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
> Then you are done.
>
> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>
> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>
> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.

EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
I think my theory will adversely affect the live of too many scientists., . and thus no chance of being accepted......<sad>

> > If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
> > for another 100 years.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>>>> the data.
>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>>>
>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
>> Then you are done.
>>
>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>>
>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>>
>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
>
> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.

That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
separately. You’ve never done that.

Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity was not the total of what he
produced on the topic. It was just the first of many papers on the subject.
Nothing you have done has followed suit.

> I think my theory will adversely affect the live of too many scientists.,

Don’t flatter yourself.

> . and thus no chance of being accepted......<sad>
>
>>> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
>>> for another 100 years.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
> >>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
> >>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
> >>>>>> UTC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> >>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> >>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
> >>>>> the data.
> >>>> It is up to you to convince the world
> >>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
> >>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
> >>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
> >>>
> >>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
> >> Then you are done.
> >>
> >> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
> >> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
> >>
> >> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
> >> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
> >> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
> >> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
> >> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
> >> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
> >> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
> >> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
> >> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
> >>
> >> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
> >> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
> >
> > EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
> separately. You’ve never done that.

You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>
> Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity was not the total of what he
> produced on the topic. It was just the first of many papers on the subject.
> Nothing you have done has followed suit.
> > I think my theory will adversely affect the live of too many scientists..,
> Don’t flatter yourself.
> > . and thus no chance of being accepted......<sad>
> >
> >>> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
> >>> for another 100 years.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>>>>>> the data.
>>>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
>>>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>>>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>>>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
>>>> Then you are done.
>>>>
>>>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
>>>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>>>>
>>>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
>>>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
>>>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
>>>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
>>>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
>>>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
>>>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
>>>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
>>>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>>>>
>>>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
>>>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
>>>
>>> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
>> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
>> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
>> separately. You’ve never done that.
>
> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> replace SR and GR. <sad>..

When you can show, as any theorist would, that it generates real numbers
that agree with experiment, then you can claim its validity. Until then,
it’s just a fraudulent claim.

>>
>> Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity was not the total of what he
>> produced on the topic. It was just the first of many papers on the subject.
>> Nothing you have done has followed suit.
>>> I think my theory will adversely affect the live of too many scientists.,
>> Don’t flatter yourself.
>>> . and thus no chance of being accepted......<sad>
>>>
>>>>> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
>>>>> for another 100 years.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>>>>>> the data.
>>>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
>>>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>>>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>>>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>>>>>
>>>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
>>>> Then you are done.
>>>>
>>>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
>>>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>>>>
>>>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
>>>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
>>>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
>>>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
>>>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
>>>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
>>>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
>>>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
>>>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>>>>
>>>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
>>>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
>>>
>>> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
>> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
>> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
>> separately. You’ve never done that.
>
> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to replace SR and GR. <sad>..

Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.

On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..

> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.

Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
"the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
"golden years."

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:

> On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> >> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>
> > Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> > is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> > produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> > experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> > convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
>
> Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> "golden years."

PEBCAK is the standard computer jargon for it, (or PEBKAC)

Jan

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>
>> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
>> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
>> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
>> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
>> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
>
> Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> "golden years."
>

Ken, there is no shame in resetting.

I know that you spent your last nickel and a ton of time and effort on your
book, hoping that it would be enough. Now that you’ve been informed that
the effort fell short, and now that you realize that you have neither the
time nor stamina to get it to a better place that might meet muster, it’s
really about behaving like a grown up about it.

You have choices about how you can be satisfied with your remaining time.
You can delude yourself that what you did was acceptable, or you can say it
was your best effort but didn’t meet muster and move on.

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

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> > On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> >>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> >>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> >
> >> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> >> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> >> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> >> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> >> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
> >
> > Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> > provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> > of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> > explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> > "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> > difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> > truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> > "golden years."
> >
> Ken, there is no shame in resetting.

Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE. Current physics failed to do that after 110years of trying. I bet that after another 110 years you guys will still be swimming in a sea of abstract math and still fail to find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is only one valid TOE exists and I have discovered it.

>
> I know that you spent your last nickel and a ton of time and effort on your
> book, hoping that it would be enough. Now that you’ve been informed that
> the effort fell short, and now that you realize that you have neither the
> time nor stamina to get it to a better place that might meet muster, it’s
> really about behaving like a grown up about it.
>
> You have choices about how you can be satisfied with your remaining time.
> You can delude yourself that what you did was acceptable, or you can say it
> was your best effort but didn’t meet muster and move on.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
> >>>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
> >>>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
> >>>>>>>> UTC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> >>>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> >>>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
> >>>>>>> the data.
> >>>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
> >>>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
> >>>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
> >>>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
> >>>> Then you are done.
> >>>>
> >>>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
> >>>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
> >>>>
> >>>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
> >>>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
> >>>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
> >>>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
> >>>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
> >>>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
> >>>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
> >>>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
> >>>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
> >>>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
> >>>
> >>> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
> >> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
> >> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
> >> separately. You’ve never done that.
> >
> > You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> > replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> When you can show, as any theorist would, that it generates real numbers
> that agree with experiment, then you can claim its validity. Until then,
> it’s just a fraudulent claim.

You are a woodworker. I don't have to show you anything.
> >>
> >> Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity was not the total of what he
> >> produced on the topic. It was just the first of many papers on the subject.
> >> Nothing you have done has followed suit.
> >>> I think my theory will adversely affect the live of too many scientists.,
> >> Don’t flatter yourself.
> >>> . and thus no chance of being accepted......<sad>
> >>>
> >>>>> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
> >>>>> for another 100 years.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:07:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
> >>>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
> >>>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
> >>>>>>>> UTC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> >>>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> >>>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
> >>>>>>> the data.
> >>>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
> >>>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
> >>>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
> >>>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
> >>>> Then you are done.
> >>>>
> >>>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
> >>>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
> >>>>
> >>>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
> >>>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
> >>>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
> >>>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
> >>>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
> >>>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
> >>>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
> >>>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
> >>>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
> >>>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
> >>>
> >>> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
> >> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
> >> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
> >> separately. You’ve never done that.
> >
> > You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.

I don't see Einstein did any calculations or experiments. Physicists at his time are so desperate so they cooked up number to support his theory.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>>>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>>>
>>>> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
>>>> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
>>>> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
>>>> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
>>>> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
>>>
>>> Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
>>> provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
>>> of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
>>> explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
>>> "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
>>> difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
>>> truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
>>> "golden years."
>>>
>> Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
>
> Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE.

Ken, it will be a valid TOE when others say it is, because physicists know
what a TOE entails and you, sadly, do not.

> Current physics failed to do that after 110years of trying. I bet that
> after another 110 years you guys will still be swimming in a sea of
> abstract math and still fail to find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is
> only one valid TOE exists and I have discovered it.
>
>>
>> I know that you spent your last nickel and a ton of time and effort on your
>> book, hoping that it would be enough. Now that you’ve been informed that
>> the effort fell short, and now that you realize that you have neither the
>> time nor stamina to get it to a better place that might meet muster, it’s
>> really about behaving like a grown up about it.
>>
>> You have choices about how you can be satisfied with your remaining time.
>> You can delude yourself that what you did was acceptable, or you can say it
>> was your best effort but didn’t meet muster and move on.

See your response above. It’s unfortunate that you cannot accept reality
and enjoy life remaining without this bogus claim.

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

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 7:11:20 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>>>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>>>>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>>>>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>>>>>>>> the data.
>>>>>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
>>>>>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>>>>>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>>>>>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and
>>>>>>> do the experiments.
>>>>>> Then you are done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
>>>>>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
>>>>>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
>>>>>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
>>>>>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
>>>>>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
>>>>>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
>>>>>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
>>>>>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
>>>>>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
>>>>>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
>>>> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
>>>> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
>>>> separately. You’ve never done that.
>>>
>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>> When you can show, as any theorist would, that it generates real numbers
>> that agree with experiment, then you can claim its validity. Until then,
>> it’s just a fraudulent claim.
>
> You are a woodworker. I don't have to show you anything.

Then when you can show it to physicists, that it generates real numbers
that agree with experiment, THEN you can claim its validity.

>>>>
>>>> Einstein’s 1905 paper on special relativity was not the total of what he
>>>> produced on the topic. It was just the first of many papers on the subject.
>>>> Nothing you have done has followed suit.
>>>>> I think my theory will adversely affect the live of too many scientists.,
>>>> Don’t flatter yourself.
>>>>> . and thus no chance of being accepted......<sad>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant
>>>>>>> for another 100 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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 <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> > > On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >
> > >>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> > >>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> > >
> > >> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> > >> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> > >> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> > >> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> > >> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
> > >
> > > Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> > > provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> > > of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> > > explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> > > "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> > > difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> > > truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> > > "golden years."
> > >
> > Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
>
> Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE. Current physics failed to
> do that after 110years of trying. I bet that after another 110 years you
> guys will still be swimming in a sea of abstract math and still fail to
> find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is only one valid TOE exists and I
> have discovered it.

So predict the standard model from it.
Or even predicting a small part of it,
like the value of \alpha for example,
will get you all the attention you so desperately crave,

Jan

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 2:13:32 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> > > >>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> > > >
> > > >> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> > > >> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> > > >> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> > > >> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> > > >> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
> > > >
> > > > Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> > > > provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> > > > of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> > > > explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> > > > "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> > > > difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> > > > truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> > > > "golden years."
> > > >
> > > Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
> >
> > Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE. Current physics failed to
> > do that after 110years of trying. I bet that after another 110 years you
> > guys will still be swimming in a sea of abstract math and still fail to
> > find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is only one valid TOE exists and I
> > have discovered it.
> So predict the standard model from it.
> Or even predicting a small part of it,
> like the value of \alpha for example,
> will get you all the attention you so desperately crave,
>
> Jan

Newton's equation had a flaw. It was not Galilean.
And NASA admitted to only using Newton not Einstein...
NASA now want to pretend.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 15, 2022 at 11:07:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 4:07:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 12:59:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>>>>>>> earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
>>>>>>>>>> the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
>>>>>>>>>> UTC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
>>>>>>>>> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
>>>>>>>>> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
>>>>>>>>> the data.
>>>>>>>> It is up to you to convince the world
>>>>>>>> that you have something that is worth funding.
>>>>>>>> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
>>>>>>>> of computing something observable to better precision,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and
>>>>>>> do the experiments.
>>>>>> Then you are done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As it is, the work you started is incomplete and nonviable, and you say you
>>>>>> are now past the age to progress it to a viable state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A theorist has to be able to show explicitly with examples how calculations
>>>>>> can be done in the theory, and how those can be compared to extant
>>>>>> experimental data. As an example of this, Einstein in a 1905 paper took
>>>>>> existing data from colloidal solutions to calculate the size of atoms in
>>>>>> the Brownian motion paper. If the data do not exist, the physicist has to
>>>>>> devise observations and collect data to use as tests of the idea. Darwin
>>>>>> did that in his journeys on the Beagle. Galileo did it with constructed
>>>>>> experiments with ramps and rolling balls, which he built himself. Kepler
>>>>>> did that by applying for a position in Brahe’s observatory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since you say that all of that is now inaccessible to you, then you’ve
>>>>>> given up on doing the work that would be needed to make it a viable idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> EINSTEIN DIDN'T DO ANY CALCULATONS IN HIS SR PAPER.
>>>> That’s true. But outside that particular paper, he used the expression in
>>>> the paper to make calculation after calculation and he published those
>>>> separately. You’ve never done that.
>>>
>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
>> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
>> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
>> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
>> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
>
>
> I don't see Einstein did any calculations or experiments.

This may be because you’ve only tried to read one or two things of his. His
work on relativity was not confined to one paper.

He did lots of calculations and published them, as have others who have
contributed to relativity. As do ALL theorists presenting a new theory.

> Physicists at his time are so desperate so they cooked up number to support his theory.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at
> worst.

BRITISH EMPIRE CENSORS SPUTNIKNEWS - Censorship Update 20
https://www.bitchute.com/video/CX8mU38ZZJ3w/
BRITISH EMPIRE [UK, USA, NZ, OZ] WILL NOT TOLLERATE ANY NARRATIVE OTHER
THAN THE BRITISH EMPIRE NARRATIVE. This collective NARCISSISTIC
PERSONALITY DISORDER mobilises in an orchestrated attack on INDEPENDENT
JOURNALISM, a second opinion that exposes 700 years of The Empire...

If the atomic explosions' does get you, the spend fuel ponds will.

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 3:49:42 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> >>> On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> >>>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> >>>
> >>>> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> >>>> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> >>>> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> >>>> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> >>>> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
> >>>
> >>> Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> >>> provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> >>> of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> >>> explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> >>> "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> >>> difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> >>> truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> >>> "golden years."
> >>>
> >> Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
> >
> > Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE.
> Ken, it will be a valid TOE when others say it is, because physicists know
> what a TOE entails and you, sadly, do not.

My theory (Model Mechanics) will resolve the following current problems to come up with a Valid TOE:
1. Unification of all the forces.
2. The origin of all the particles.
3. The origin of the uniivserse.
4. The origin of all the forces.
5. A New theory of gravity that is compatible with the other forces.

Current physics based on Einstein's obsolete physics have no chance of resolving these goals.
I think that MM is superior and therefore it is a valid TOE.
you keep on assuming that Einstein's theory is the standard you will never come close to come up with a valid TOE.
<<<<<<<<Sad>>>>>>>>

> > Current physics failed to do that after 110years of trying. I bet that
> > after another 110 years you guys will still be swimming in a sea of
> > abstract math and still fail to find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is
> > only one valid TOE exists and I have discovered it.
> >
> >>
> >> I know that you spent your last nickel and a ton of time and effort on your
> >> book, hoping that it would be enough. Now that you’ve been informed that
> >> the effort fell short, and now that you realize that you have neither the
> >> time nor stamina to get it to a better place that might meet muster, it’s
> >> really about behaving like a grown up about it.
> >>
> >> You have choices about how you can be satisfied with your remaining time.
> >> You can delude yourself that what you did was acceptable, or you can say it
> >> was your best effort but didn’t meet muster and move on.
> See your response above. It’s unfortunate that you cannot accept reality
> and enjoy life remaining without this bogus claim.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 3:49:42 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>>>>>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>>>>>
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
>>>>>> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
>>>>>> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
>>>>>> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
>>>>>> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
>>>>> provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
>>>>> of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
>>>>> explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
>>>>> "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
>>>>> difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
>>>>> truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
>>>>> "golden years."
>>>>>
>>>> Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
>>>
>>> Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE.
>> Ken, it will be a valid TOE when others say it is, because physicists know
>> what a TOE entails and you, sadly, do not.
>
> My theory (Model Mechanics) will resolve the following current problems
> to come up with a Valid TOE:
> 1. Unification of all the forces.
> 2. The origin of all the particles.
> 3. The origin of the uniivserse.
> 4. The origin of all the forces.
> 5. A New theory of gravity that is compatible with the other forces.
>
> Current physics based on Einstein's obsolete physics have no chance of
> resolving these goals.
> I think that MM is superior and therefore it is a valid TOE.

It does not matter what YOU think of your creation. It only matters what
other physicists think of it.

You can sniff the rest of your days that you are being persecuted. If you
had something of value, if it were in fact a valid ToE, then physicists
would take note. They do not, and it isn’t.

> you keep on assuming that Einstein's theory is the standard you will
> never come close to come up with a valid TOE.
> <<<<<<<<Sad>>>>>>>>
>
>>> Current physics failed to do that after 110years of trying. I bet that
>>> after another 110 years you guys will still be swimming in a sea of
>>> abstract math and still fail to find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is
>>> only one valid TOE exists and I have discovered it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I know that you spent your last nickel and a ton of time and effort on your
>>>> book, hoping that it would be enough. Now that you’ve been informed that
>>>> the effort fell short, and now that you realize that you have neither the
>>>> time nor stamina to get it to a better place that might meet muster, it’s
>>>> really about behaving like a grown up about it.
>>>>
>>>> You have choices about how you can be satisfied with your remaining time.
>>>> You can delude yourself that what you did was acceptable, or you can say it
>>>> was your best effort but didn’t meet muster and move on.
>> See your response above. It’s unfortunate that you cannot accept reality
>> and enjoy life remaining without this bogus claim.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 3:49:42 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
>>>>>>>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
>>>>>>> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
>>>>>>> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
>>>>>>> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
>>>>>>> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
>>>>>> provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
>>>>>> of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
>>>>>> explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
>>>>>> "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
>>>>>> difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
>>>>>> truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
>>>>>> "golden years."
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
>>>>
>>>> Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE.
>>> Ken, it will be a valid TOE when others say it is, because physicists know
>>> what a TOE entails and you, sadly, do not.
>>
>> My theory (Model Mechanics) will resolve the following current problems
>> to come up with a Valid TOE:
>> 1. Unification of all the forces.
>> 2. The origin of all the particles.
>> 3. The origin of the uniivserse.
>> 4. The origin of all the forces.
>> 5. A New theory of gravity that is compatible with the other forces.
>>
>> Current physics based on Einstein's obsolete physics have no chance of
>> resolving these goals.
>> I think that MM is superior and therefore it is a valid TOE.
>
> It does not matter what YOU think of your creation. It only matters what
> other physicists think of it.
>
> You can sniff the rest of your days that you are being persecuted. If you
> had something of value, if it were in fact a valid ToE, then physicists
> would take note. They do not, and it isn’t.

From your world, Ken, you may know that there are lots of worthless
patented ideas out there. If you patent an invention, but nobody cares
about the invention, then the patent is essentially worthless. And it won’t
matter one single bit if the inventor thinks it’s the greatest thing since
sliced bread. What matters is whether other people think the invention is
worthwhile.

Inventors who blame the world for not appreciating their inventions are
deluding themselves. Inventors who crow about the accomplishment of holding
a patent on a worthless invention are also deluding themselves.

>
>> you keep on assuming that Einstein's theory is the standard you will
>> never come close to come up with a valid TOE.
>> <<<<<<<<Sad>>>>>>>>
>>
>>>> Current physics failed to do that after 110years of trying. I bet that
>>>> after another 110 years you guys will still be swimming in a sea of
>>>> abstract math and still fail to find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is
>>>> only one valid TOE exists and I have discovered it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I know that you spent your last nickel and a ton of time and effort on your
>>>>> book, hoping that it would be enough. Now that you’ve been informed that
>>>>> the effort fell short, and now that you realize that you have neither the
>>>>> time nor stamina to get it to a better place that might meet muster, it’s
>>>>> really about behaving like a grown up about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have choices about how you can be satisfied with your remaining time.
>>>>> You can delude yourself that what you did was acceptable, or you can say it
>>>>> was your best effort but didn’t meet muster and move on.
>>> See your response above. It’s unfortunate that you cannot accept reality
>>> and enjoy life remaining without this bogus claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 5:13:32 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 12:47:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > whodat <who...@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/15/2022 10:08 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >> On 4/15/2022 6:52 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> You just don't want to accept that I have an equation that is valid to
> > > >>> replace SR and GR. <sad>..
> > > >
> > > >> Stupid Ken, nobody will consider it valid just because you proclaimed it
> > > >> is valid to replace SR and GR. You have to be able to show that it can
> > > >> produce actual numbers which agree with actual observations and
> > > >> experiments. Every physicist has to do that. Until you produce actual
> > > >> convincing numbers, expect to be ignored at best, or laughed at at worst.
> > > >
> > > > Ken, you need to listen to Odd Bodkin and Michael, who have repeatedly
> > > > provided you with the criteria needed for the world to accept the value
> > > > of your discovery. If you cannot, or for any reason will not, do as they
> > > > explain, the the adage from our more productive years comes into play,
> > > > "the trouble is in the cockpit." That meant the airplane didn't have any
> > > > difficulties, but the pilot (in this case you) does. That's a universal
> > > > truism. Deal with it like a gentleman. please. Best of luck in our
> > > > "golden years."
> > > >
> > > Ken, there is no shame in resetting.
> >
> > Why do I have to reset when I got a valid TOE. Current physics failed to
> > do that after 110years of trying. I bet that after another 110 years you
> > guys will still be swimming in a sea of abstract math and still fail to
> > find a valid TOE. Why? Because there is only one valid TOE exists and I
> > have discovered it.
> So predict the standard model from it.
> Or even predicting a small part of it,
> like the value of \alpha for example,
> will get you all the attention you so desperately crave,

You don't get it. I came up with a basic assumptions that leads to a TOE. You physicists should investigate the validity of my assumptions. Instead you want to trash my assumptions so that you can keep Einstein's absolete physics. COME ON!!!! be a real physicists and explore new physics. That's's the only way to come up with a real TOE.
You guys keep on asking me to come up with answers for this and that because you are afraid that I will get all the credits. That's is a wrong thinking......instead go ahead and develop the math base on my assumptions and you will get all the credits.

> Jan