On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the stationary aether.:
>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
>>>
>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
>> A list of assertions follows:
>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations (inertial frames in SR)
>>> in the stationary aether.
>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
>> of an aether added.
>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is isotropic in all directions.
>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
>
> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here and asked for help.

You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.

(for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
>>
>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
>> didn't. Period.
>
> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.

That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
never did.

> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize that.

"Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...

> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.

Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
disavowed.

> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.

That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.

On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the stationary aether.:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
> >>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
> >>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
> >> A list of assertions follows:
> >>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations (inertial frames in SR)
> >>> in the stationary aether.
> >> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
> >> of an aether added.
> >>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is isotropic in all directions.
> >> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
> >>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
> >> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
> >>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> >> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
> >>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
> >> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
> >> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
> >
> > Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here and asked for help.
> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
>
> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
> >>
> >> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
> >> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
> >> didn't. Period.
> >
> > Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
> never did.

Are you really that stupid?
Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
of the aether. If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
Gee you are so fucking stupid.

> > I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...
> > Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.
> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
> disavowed.
> > But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the stationary aether.:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
>>>> A list of assertions follows:
>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
>>>>> in the stationary aether.
>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
>>>> of an aether added.
>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
>>>
>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
>>> and asked for help.
>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
>>
>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
>>>>
>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
>>>> didn't. Period.
>>>
>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
>> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
>> never did.
>
> Are you really that stupid?
> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
> of the aether.

So he just hid it and never said it. But you know he thought it because you
can read the minds of dead people.

> If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
> BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>
>>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
>> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...
>>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.
>> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
>> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
>> disavowed.
>>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
>> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
>

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

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the stationary aether.:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
> >>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
> >>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
> >>>> A list of assertions follows:
> >>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
> >>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
> >>>>> in the stationary aether.
> >>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
> >>>> of an aether added.
> >>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
> >>>>> isotropic in all directions.
> >>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
> >>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
> >>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
> >>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> >>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
> >>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
> >>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
> >>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
> >>>
> >>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
> >>> and asked for help.
> >> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
> >>
> >> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
> >> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
> >> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
> >> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
> >> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
> >>>>
> >>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
> >>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
> >>>> didn't. Period.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
> >> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
> >> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
> >> never did.
> >
> > Are you really that stupid?
> > Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
> > of the aether.
> So he just hid it and never said it.
He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.

>But you know he thought it because you
> can read the minds of dead people.
> > If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
> > BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> > Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >
> >>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
> >> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...
> >>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.
> >> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
> >> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
> >> disavowed.
> >>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
> >> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
>>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
>>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
>>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
>>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
>>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
>>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
>>>>>> of an aether added.
>>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
>>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
>>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
>>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
>>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
>>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
>>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
>>>>> and asked for help.
>>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
>>>>
>>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
>>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
>>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
>>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
>>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
>>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
>>>>>> didn't. Period.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
>>>> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
>>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
>>>> never did.
>>>
>>> Are you really that stupid?
>>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
>>> of the aether.
>> So he just hid it and never said it.
> He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
> are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.

LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
theory, and physicists never saw the connection?

>
>> But you know he thought it because you
>> can read the minds of dead people.
>>> If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
>>> BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>
>>>>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
>>>> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...
>>>>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.
>>>> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
>>>> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
>>>> disavowed.
>>>>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
>>>> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 10:51:11 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
> >>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
> >>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
> >>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
> >>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
> >>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
> >>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
> >>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
> >>>>>> of an aether added.
> >>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
> >>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
> >>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
> >>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
> >>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
> >>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> >>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
> >>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
> >>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
> >>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
> >>>>> and asked for help.
> >>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>
> >>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
> >>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
> >>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
> >>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
> >>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
> >>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
> >>>>>> didn't. Period.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
> >>>> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
> >>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
> >>>> never did.
> >>>
> >>> Are you really that stupid?
> >>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
> >>> of the aether.
> >> So he just hid it and never said it.
> > He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
> > are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.
> LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
> but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
> theory, and physicists never saw the connection?

Right.....you finally got it.
> >
> >> But you know he thought it because you
> >> can read the minds of dead people.
> >>> If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
> >>> BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>
> >>>>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
> >>>> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct....
> >>>>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.
> >>>> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
> >>>> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
> >>>> disavowed.
> >>>>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
> >>>> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 10:51:11 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
> > >>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
> > >>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
> > >>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
> > >>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
> > >>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
> > >>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
> > >>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
> > >>>>>> of an aether added.
> > >>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
> > >>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
> > >>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
> > >>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
> > >>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
> > >>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> > >>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
> > >>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
> > >>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
> > >>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
> > >>>>> and asked for help.
> > >>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
> > >>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue.. In
> > >>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
> > >>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
> > >>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
> > >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
> > >>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
> > >>>>>> didn't. Period.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
> > >>>> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
> > >>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
> > >>>> never did.
> > >>>
> > >>> Are you really that stupid?
> > >>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
> > >>> of the aether.
> > >> So he just hid it and never said it.
> > > He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
> > > are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.
> > LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
> > but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
> > theory, and physicists never saw the connection?
> Right.....you finally got it.

The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
> > >
> > >> But you know he thought it because you
> > >> can read the minds of dead people.
> > >>> If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory.....the LET.
> > >>> BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> > >>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
> > >>>> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct....
> > >>>>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a stationary aether.
> > >>>> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
> > >>>> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
> > >>>> disavowed.
> > >>>>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
> > >>>> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 10:51:11 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
>>>>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
>>>>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
>>>>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
>>>>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
>>>>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
>>>>>>>> of an aether added.
>>>>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
>>>>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
>>>>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
>>>>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
>>>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
>>>>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
>>>>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
>>>>>>> and asked for help.
>>>>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
>>>>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
>>>>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
>>>>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
>>>>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
>>>>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
>>>>>>>> didn't. Period.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a stationary aether.
>>>>>> That is your unsupported assertion. You can't point out where Einstein
>>>>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
>>>>>> never did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you really that stupid?
>>>>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
>>>>> of the aether.
>>>> So he just hid it and never said it.
>>> He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
>>> are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.
>> LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
>> but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
>> theory, and physicists never saw the connection?
>
> Right.....you finally got it.

LOL. So you think if you rename spacetime the E-matrix (as you’ve said
you’re doing), then like Einstein, you’ll be credited with a whole new
theory, and physicists will not notice that it’s the same thing?

You think physicists won’t notice you couldn’t do a lick of physics if your
life depended on it?

Do you really think physicists are as stupid as you say they are?

>>>
>>>> But you know he thought it because you
>>>> can read the minds of dead people.
>>>>> If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
>>>>> BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
>>>>>> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...
>>>>>>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a
>>>>>>> stationary aether.
>>>>>> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He
>>>>>>> didn't lie about himself so he
>>>>>> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
>>>>>> disavowed.
>>>>>>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
>>>>>> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 10:51:11 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
>>>>>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
>>>>>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
>>>>>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
>>>>>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
>>>>>>>>> of an aether added.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
>>>>>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
>>>>>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
>>>>>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
>>>>>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
>>>>>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
>>>>>>>> and asked for help.
>>>>>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
>>>>>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
>>>>>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
>>>>>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
>>>>>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
>>>>>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
>>>>>>>>> didn't. Period.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a
>>>>>>>> stationary aether.
>>>>>>> That is your unsupported assertion.
>>>>>>>> You can't point out where Einstein
>>>>>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
>>>>>>> never did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you really that stupid?
>>>>>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
>>>>>> of the aether.
>>>>> So he just hid it and never said it.
>>>> He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
>>>> are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.
>>> LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
>>> but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
>>> theory, and physicists never saw the connection?
>> Right.....you finally got it.
>
> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether

Wait, you JUST SAID physicists knew these were the exclusive properties of
the ether. Now you say they couldn’t figure out these were the exclusive
properties of the ether.

And you say that you made this connection by inventing the word “E-matrix”?

> that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
>>>>
>>>>> But you know he thought it because you
>>>>> can read the minds of dead people.
>>>>>> If he did, his proposed theory become the already existing theory....the LET.
>>>>>> BTW that’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>>>> Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can’t help you if you are so stupid that you can’t visualize tathhat.
>>>>>>> "Visualizing" something which is incorrect doesn't make it correct...
>>>>>>>> Of corse Einstein wouldn’t admit that he got his postulates from a
>>>>>>>> stationary aether.
>>>>>>> Why would Einstein lie about himself? He didn't lie about himself so he
>>>>>>> never lied about getting his postulates from an aether he explicitly
>>>>>>> disavowed.
>>>>>>>> But the two SR postulates are exactly the properties of a stationary aether.
>>>>>>> That's your worthless, empty, unsupported assertion.
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 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 Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:50:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 10:51:11 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
> >>>>>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
> >>>>>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that..
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
> >>>>>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
> >>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
> >>>>>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
> >>>>>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
> >>>>>>>>> of an aether added.
> >>>>>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
> >>>>>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
> >>>>>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
> >>>>>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
> >>>>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
> >>>>>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
> >>>>>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
> >>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
> >>>>>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
> >>>>>>>> and asked for help.
> >>>>>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
> >>>>>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
> >>>>>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
> >>>>>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
> >>>>>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
> >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
> >>>>>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
> >>>>>>>>> didn't. Period.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a
> >>>>>>>> stationary aether.
> >>>>>>> That is your unsupported assertion.
> >>>>>>>> You can't point out where Einstein
> >>>>>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
> >>>>>>> never did.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Are you really that stupid?
> >>>>>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
> >>>>>> of the aether.
> >>>>> So he just hid it and never said it.
> >>>> He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
> >>>> are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.
> >>> LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
> >>> but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
> >>> theory, and physicists never saw the connection?
> >> Right.....you finally got it.
> >
> > The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether
> Wait, you JUST SAID physicists knew these were the exclusive properties of
> the ether. Now you say they couldn’t figure out these were the exclusive
> properties of the ether.

No, I said that they couldn’t come up with an aether that has the properties of SR postulates. I cam up with a structured aether called the E-Matrix that have those exclusive properties.
>
> And you say that you made this connection by inventing the word “E-matrix”?

No idiot, I came up with a structured aether called the E-Matrix that have those exclusive properties.
> > that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.

On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.

At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:50:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 1:29:21 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 10:51:11 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 9:58:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 6:58:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 3:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 26, 2021 at 12:06:41 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/26/2021 8:24 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 3:59:52 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/23/2021 9:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 23, 2021 at 7:33:27 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, Einstein got his postulates from the properties of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. You have no idea. You just make shit up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....the woodworker can’t go beyond what he was taught.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Assertions are not valid arguments. If Einstein "got his postulates
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the properties of the stationary aether" (an aether he explicitly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> stated he would not use) you could show us where he said that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, the exclusive properties of a stationary aether are as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>> A list of assertions follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The laws of physics are the same in all instantaneous locations
>>>>>>>>>>>> (inertial frames in SR)
>>>>>>>>>>>> in the stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>> Assertion. This is a mutated form of the first postulate with assertions
>>>>>>>>>>> of an aether added.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. The transmission of light pulses by the stationary aether is
>>>>>>>>>>>> isotropic in all directions.
>>>>>>>>>>> Assertion as it asserts a stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. Einstein called these properties as the SR postulates.
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. These are not Einstein's postulates but your assertions.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That’s why SR and LET have the same math.
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong. Odd already explained why.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Gee you are so stupid.....no wonder your name is moron_y.
>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken, unlike you I know that assertions are not science. And,
>>>>>>>>>>> unlike you, I know what (-6)/(-2) is.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yeah you and your moronic daughter can’t solve (-6/-2) so you came here
>>>>>>>>>> and asked for help.
>>>>>>>>> You are projecting again, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (for others: psychological projection is when someone has an issue he
>>>>>>>>> can't quite handle, so he accuses others of having that very issue. In
>>>>>>>>> Ken's case, he can't do any math whatsoever. That apparently bothers him
>>>>>>>>> immensely, so he continues to accuse me/my daughter of being unable to
>>>>>>>>> solve this 8 year old problem which he cannot solve.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection )
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once again, if Einstein really got his postulates from the properties of
>>>>>>>>>>> an aether, you can show us where he said that. You can't, because he
>>>>>>>>>>> didn't. Period.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Moron, the two postulates of SR are the exclusive properties of a
>>>>>>>>>> stationary aether.
>>>>>>>>> That is your unsupported assertion.
>>>>>>>>>> You can't point out where Einstein
>>>>>>>>> said the two postulates are the properties of the aether, because he
>>>>>>>>> never did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you really that stupid?
>>>>>>>> Of course Einstein wouldn’t say that his SR postulates are the exclusive properties
>>>>>>>> of the aether.
>>>>>>> So he just hid it and never said it.
>>>>>> He didn’t have to hide it. He wrote it as the SR postulates. Physicists
>>>>>> are so fucking dumb can’t make the connection.
>>>>> LOL. So physicists know these are the exclusive properties of the ether,
>>>>> but Einstein just called them something else, got credit for a while new
>>>>> theory, and physicists never saw the connection?
>>>> Right.....you finally got it.
>>>
>>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether
>> Wait, you JUST SAID physicists knew these were the exclusive properties of
>> the ether. Now you say they couldn’t figure out these were the exclusive
>> properties of the ether.
>
> No, I said that they couldn’t come up with an aether that has the
> properties of SR postulates.

That’s not what you said. What you said is above.

The problem with talking to an 85-year-old in steep mental decline is that
the 85-year-old cannot keep track of what he said even a few hours ago.
Pretty soon he will forget his login credentials to get online to the
newsgroup, then he will forget where the post-it note is where he wrote his
credentials, then he will forget why he wanted to be online in the first
place.

> I cam up with a structured aether called the E-Matrix that have those exclusive properties.
>>
>> And you say that you made this connection by inventing the word “E-matrix”?
>
> No idiot, I came up with a structured aether called the E-Matrix that
> have those exclusive properties.
>>> that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and
>>> invented the E-Matrix.
>

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

On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.

Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:
1. The cause of gravity.
2. Unification of all the forces of nature.
3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as the universe expands.
4. much more....

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have
>>> the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
>> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
>> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
>
> Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
> The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:

> 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as the universe expands.

Why do you think your “discovery” of a new repulsive force solves a problem
of modern physics?
What problem does this solve?

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

On 4/28/2021 8:19 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
>> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
>> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
>
> Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.

But there must be an underlying reason for any assumptions, otherwise
they are worthless assertions. For example, Einstein's SR postulates
are based on what has actually been observed.

> The assumption of the E-Matrix

You mean assertion.

> solves the following problem of modern physics:
> 1. The cause of gravity.

You assert a cause of gravity.

> 2. Unification of all the forces of nature.

You assert a unification.

> 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as the universe expands.

No, you "invented" that force. A discovery means you have gone out and
measured it or otherwise actually detected it. Meanwhile, tou haven't
seen the insides of a physics lab for decades, if ever.

> 4. much more....

More assertions.
>

On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:10:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> But there must be an underlying reason for any assumptions, otherwise
> they are worthless assertions. For example, Einstein's SR postulates
> are based on what has actually been observed.

Stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
lie.

On 4/28/2021 10:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:10:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> But there must be an underlying reason for any assumptions, otherwise
>> they are worthless assertions. For example, Einstein's SR postulates
>> are based on what has actually been observed.
>
> Stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
> lie.
>
OK, I'll assume the real cause of orbital motion of the planets are the
invisible pink fairies which push them around. Because of this, we can
throw out Newton's laws, general relativity because nothing is stopping
the fairies from deciding to follow an inverse fourth power law for
orbits tomorrow.

Lay off the vodka for once.

On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:36:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 10:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:10:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> >> But there must be an underlying reason for any assumptions, otherwise
> >> they are worthless assertions. For example, Einstein's SR postulates
> >> are based on what has actually been observed.
> >
> > Stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
> > lie.
> >
> OK, I'll assume the real cause of orbital motion of the planets are the
> invisible pink fairies which push them around. Because of this, we can
> throw out Newton's laws, general relativity because nothing is stopping
> the fairies from deciding to follow an inverse fourth power law for
> orbits tomorrow.

See how simple it is, stupid Mike? And more reasonable than
violating basic definitions mumble of your idiot guru.

Which, BTW, has announced that there is no motion of
planets and the illusion is caused by some
"spacetime curvature" thingie.

On 4/28/2021 10:55 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:36:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/28/2021 10:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:10:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>> But there must be an underlying reason for any assumptions, otherwise
>>>> they are worthless assertions. For example, Einstein's SR postulates
>>>> are based on what has actually been observed.
>>>
>>> Stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
>>> lie.
>>>
>> OK, I'll assume the real cause of orbital motion of the planets are the
>> invisible pink fairies which push them around. Because of this, we can
>> throw out Newton's laws, general relativity because nothing is stopping
>> the fairies from deciding to follow an inverse fourth power law for
>> orbits tomorrow.
>
> See how simple it is, stupid Mike? And more reasonable than
> violating basic definitions mumble of your idiot guru.
>
> Which, BTW, has announced that there is no motion of
> planets and the illusion is caused by some
> "spacetime curvature" thingie.
>

I said lay off the vodka, not take another gulp.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:22:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have
> >>> the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
> >> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
> >> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
> >
> > Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
> > The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:
> > 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as the universe expands.
> Why do you think your “discovery” of a new repulsive force solves a problem
> of modern physics?
> What problem does this solve?

It solves the cause of gravity and it explains why the moon is able to maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 18:20:35 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/28/2021 10:55 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:36:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2021 10:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 16:10:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> But there must be an underlying reason for any assumptions, otherwise
> >>>> they are worthless assertions. For example, Einstein's SR postulates
> >>>> are based on what has actually been observed.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
> >>> lie.
> >>>
> >> OK, I'll assume the real cause of orbital motion of the planets are the
> >> invisible pink fairies which push them around. Because of this, we can
> >> throw out Newton's laws, general relativity because nothing is stopping
> >> the fairies from deciding to follow an inverse fourth power law for
> >> orbits tomorrow.
> >
> > See how simple it is, stupid Mike? And more reasonable than
> > violating basic definitions mumble of your idiot guru.
> >
> > Which, BTW, has announced that there is no motion of
> > planets and the illusion is caused by some
> > "spacetime curvature" thingie.
> >
> I said lay off the vodka, not take another gulp.

You did; you're such a fanatic piece of lying shit.
As dishonest as stupid, stupid Mike.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:22:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have
>>>>> the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
>>>> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
>>>> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
>>>
>>> Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
>>> The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:
>>> 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as
>>> the universe expands.
>> Why do you think your “discovery” of a new
>>> repulsive force solves a problem
>> of modern physics?
>> What problem does this solve?
>
> It solves the cause of gravity and it explains why the moon is able to
> maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.

The maintenance of stable orbits for billions of years without a repulsive
force has been solved since the 1670s. Granted, you don’t understand it,
but it’s not an outstanding problem in physics.

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

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

On Wednesday, 28 April 2021 at 19:20:27 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:22:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have
> >>>>> the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
> >>>> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
> >>>> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
> >>> The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:
> >>> 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as
> >>> the universe expands.
> >> Why do you think your “discovery” of a new
> >>> repulsive force solves a problem
> >> of modern physics?
> >> What problem does this solve?
> >
> > It solves the cause of gravity and it explains why the moon is able to
> > maintain a stable orbit for billions of years.
> The maintenance of stable orbits for billions of years without a repulsive
> force has been solved since the 1670s.

Of course, later your insane Giant Guru has announced
the solution to be nothing but a common sense prejudice.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:22:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have
> >>> the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
> >> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
> >> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
> >
> > Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
> > The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:
> > 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as the universe expands.
> Why do you think your “discovery” of a new repulsive force solves a problem
> of modern physics?
> What problem does this solve?

Without the repulsive CRE force. The moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:22:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 3:24:32 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/2021 1:44 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The main reason is that they couldn’t figure out an aether that have
>>>>> the properties of the SR postulate until I came along and invented the E-Matrix.
>>>> At least you admit you just made up that Ematrix crap, by saying you
>>>> invented it. If it were real, you would have *discovered* it.
>>>
>>> Moron, any new theory must have new assumptions.
>>> The assumption of the E-Matrix solves the following problem of modern physics:
>>> 3. Discovery of a new repulsive force between interacting objects as
>>> the universe expands.
>> Why do you think your “discovery” of a new
>>> repulsive force solves a problem
>> of modern physics?
>> What problem does this solve?
>
> Without the repulsive CRE force. The moon is not able to maintain a stable orbit.
>
>

That is incorrect, as was proven in the 1670s. Whether you understand it or
not is irrelevant. It is not an outstanding physics problem.

The only problem is in your head, where because you don’t understand
something, you think there’s a problem. And you don’t understand a lot of
things because you don’t read, and that’s YOUR problem.

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