On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
> >
> > 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.

No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able to maintain a stable orbit.
Gravity isa composite force as follows:
1. It is an attractive EM force derive from the fact that the earth and the moon are expanding
in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the earth and the moon are confined to follow the
divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This gives to an repulsive effect between them.
3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above two opposing forces and that’s why the moon
is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.

> 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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
> to maintain a stable orbit.

You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
learned it.

>
> Gravity isa composite force as follows:
> 1. It is an attractive EM force derive from the fact that the earth and
> the moon are expanding
> in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the earth and the moon
> are confined to follow the
> divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This gives to an repulsive effect between them.
> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above two opposing forces and that’s why the moon
> is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
>
>> 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
>

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

On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
> > to maintain a stable orbit.
> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
> learned it.

That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive force as you naively assumed.
> >
> > Gravity isa composite force as follows:
> > 1. It is an attractive EM force derive from the fact that the earth and
> > the moon are expanding
> > in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
> > 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the earth and the moon
> > are confined to follow the
> > divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This gives to an repulsive effect between them.
> > 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above two opposing forces and that’s why the moon
> > is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
> >
> >> 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
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
>> learned it.
>
> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive force as you naively assumed.

You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
Stupid Ken.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
>> learned it.
>
> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> force as you naively assumed.

No, Ken, you don’t get it.
It was shown in the 1670s that a single, unbalanced force can produce a
stable orbit.
You are saying that you don’t see how that is possible, and that as far as
you know a single, unbalanced force will alway result in one body falling
into the other.
As I said, just because YOU don’t know how it is possible does not make it
impossible.

You do not understand high school physics.

>>>
>>> Gravity isa composite force as follows:
>>> 1. It is an attractive EM force derive from the fact that the earth and
>>> the moon are expanding
>>> in the same direction in the E-Matrix as the universe expands.
>>> 2. The structure of the E-Matrix is divergent and the earth and the moon
>>> are confined to follow the
>>> divergent structure of the E-Matrix. This gives to an repulsive effect between them.
>>> 3. Gravity is the combined effect of the above two opposing forces and
>>> that’s why the moon
>>> is able to maintain a stable orbit around the earth.
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
> >>> to maintain a stable orbit.
> >> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
> >> learned it.
> >
> > That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive force as you naively assumed.
> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> Stupid Ken.

Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it toward your fingers.
2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
>>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
>>>> learned it.
>>>
>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>> force as you naively assumed.
>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>> Stupid Ken.
>
> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.

Actually, no, Ken. Your “everyday experience” is a great example of the
kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make. It’s a
perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
analyzing physical systems.

A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
things.

> Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
> 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
> toward your fingers.
> 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
> 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
>
>

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

On Friday, 30 April 2021 at 16:27:25 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
> things.

Without it, you'll never understand that you're FORCED to follow
our beloved gurus on THE BEST WAY of The Shit.

On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
> >>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
> >>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
> >>>> learned it.
> >>>
> >>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>> force as you naively assumed.
> >> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >> Stupid Ken.
> >
> > Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> > force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.

No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>
>It’s a
> perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
> analyzing physical systems.
>
> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
> things.
> > Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
> > 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
> > toward your fingers.
> > 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
> > 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
>>>>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
>>>>>> learned it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>
>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
>
> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> in circles.

Using “everyday experience” without a basic physics education is a bad
mistake.

> Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>>
>> It’s a
>> perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
>> analyzing physical systems.
>>
>> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
>> things.
>>> Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
>>> 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
>>> toward your fingers.
>>> 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
>>> 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>> force as you naively assumed.

>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>
>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.

>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
>
> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.

No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
proof, not a pack of useless assertions. And no, there is no new physics
which contradicts Newton's PROOF.

> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.

Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>
>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>
>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>
>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
>>
>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>
> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
> proof, not a pack of useless assertions. And no, there is no new physics
> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.

Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
explain it to you.

It will just be a case of an old crank passing away muttering “impossible”
about something school children know very well how it works.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world, more educated about physics than you ever
were, will move on.

>
>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>
> Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
> correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
> have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
> proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
> PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
> Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.
>

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

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:30:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
> >>>>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
> >>>>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
> >>>>>> learned it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>>>> force as you naively assumed.
> >>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >>>> Stupid Ken.
> >>>
> >>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> >>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> >> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
> >> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
> >
> > No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> > in circles.
> Using “everyday experience” without a basic physics education is a bad
> mistake.

Why don’t you explain how the ball can go around in circles with just an attractive force?
You are a fraud. All you do is repeating your cult beliefs.

> > Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> > Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
> >>
> >> It’s a
> >> perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
> >> analyzing physical systems.
> >>
> >> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
> >> things.
> >>> Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
> >>> 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
> >>> toward your fingers.
> >>> 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
> >>> 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
> >
> >>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >>>>> Stupid Ken.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> >>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> >
> >>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
> >>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
> >>
> >> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> >> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> >
> > No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
> > PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
> > proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there is no new physics
> > which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
> explain it to you.

ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the other end of the string must be in circular motion in order to maintain the ball in circular motion. Guess why he is just a woodworker.
>
> It will just be a case of an old crank passing away muttering “impossible”
> about something school children know very well how it works.
>
> Meanwhile, the rest of the world, more educated about physics than you ever
> were, will move on.
> >
> >> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
> >
> > Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
> > correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
> > have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
> > proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
> > PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
> > Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, 4 May 2021 at 22:16:43 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
> correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF.

Stupid Mike, Pythagorean theorem has more than 100 independent
mathematical PROOFS, and your bunch of idiots still finds it false.
Mathematical PROOFS are not really what you believe they are.

On 5/4/2021 7:26 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>
>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>
>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>
>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there is no new physics
>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>> explain it to you.
>
> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the other end of the string must be in circular motion in order to maintain the ball in circular motion. Guess why he is just a woodworker.

Because that is very much a non-ideal situation. There's air resistance
on the ball and string, gravity is pulling it in a different direction
etc. So the hand has to supply energy to keep the ball moving.

Meanwhile there is no air/friction slowing the moon nor anything so
there is no need for any source of energy or mysterious repulsive force
to keep it in orbit. Simple math (yes I know, not simple enough for
you) is enough to show why this is so.

On Wednesday, 5 May 2021 at 07:13:01 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> Meanwhile there is no air/friction slowing the moon nor anything so
> there is no need for any source of energy or mysterious repulsive force
> to keep it in orbit. Simple math (yes I know, not simple enough for
> you) is enough to show why this is so.

Speaking of simple math, stupid Mike, it's always good to remind
you had to assume it false as your idiot guru had a POSTULATE.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:30:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
>>>>>>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>>>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
>>>>>>>> learned it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
>>>
>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>> in circles.
>> Using “everyday experience” without a basic physics education is a bad
>> mistake.
>
> Why don’t you explain how the ball can go around in circles with just an attractive force?

Why don’t you just stop saying simple things are impossible just to get
someone to explain them to you on Usenet?

Why don’t you for once rely on something other than Usenet for information
about physics?

I’m convinced you are incapable of learning anything today you won’t forget
by tomorrow.

> You are a fraud. All you do is repeating your cult beliefs.
>
>
>>> Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>>>>
>>>> It’s a
>>>> perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
>>>> analyzing physical systems.
>>>>
>>>> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
>>>> things.
>>>>> Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
>>>>> 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
>>>>> toward your fingers.
>>>>> 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
>>>>> 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>
>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>
>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>
>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>> is no new physics
>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>> explain it to you.
>
> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
> other end of the string must be in circular motion in order to maintain
> the ball in circular motion. Guess why he is just a woodworker.

Not when there’s no air.

>>
>> It will just be a case of an old crank passing away muttering “impossible”
>> about something school children know very well how it works.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the rest of the world, more educated about physics than you ever
>> were, will move on.
>>>
>>>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>>>
>>> Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
>>> correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
>>> have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
>>> proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
>>> PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
>>> Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>
>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>
>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>
>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>
>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>> is no new physics
>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>> explain it to you.
>
> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
> other end of the string must be in circular motion in order to maintain
> the ball in circular motion.

Not if there’s no air.

> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
>>
>> It will just be a case of an old crank passing away muttering “impossible”
>> about something school children know very well how it works.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the rest of the world, more educated about physics than you ever
>> were, will move on.
>>>
>>>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>>>
>>> Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
>>> correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
>>> have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
>>> proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
>>> PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
>>> Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:12:07 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:30:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
> >>>>>>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
> >>>>>>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
> >>>>>>>> learned it.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
> >>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >>>>>> Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> >>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> >>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
> >>>> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
> >>>
> >>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> >>> in circles.
> >> Using “everyday experience” without a basic physics education is a bad
> >> mistake.
> >
> > Why don’t you explain how the ball can go around in circles with just an attractive force?
> Why don’t you just stop saying simple things are impossible just to get
> someone to explain them to you on Usenet?
>
> Why don’t you for once rely on something other than Usenet for information
> about physics?
>
> I’m convinced you are incapable of learning anything today you won’t forget
> by tomorrow.

Moron a single attractive force will cause the moon to crash into the earth.. Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as follows:
1. It composed of an attractive EM force derived from that the moon and the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure of the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This creates a repulsive effect between the earth and the moon.
3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two opposing forces.

> > You are a fraud. All you do is repeating your cult beliefs.
> >
> >
> >>> Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> >>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
> >>>>
> >>>> It’s a
> >>>> perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
> >>>> analyzing physical systems.
> >>>>
> >>>> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
> >>>> things.
> >>>>> Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
> >>>>> 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
> >>>>> toward your fingers.
> >>>>> 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
> >>>>> 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
> >>>>>

On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
> >>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
> >>>
> >>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
> >>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
> >>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
> >>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
> >>>
> >>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
> >>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
> >>>>
> >>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
> >>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
> >>>
> >>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
> >>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
> >>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
> >>> is no new physics
> >>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
> >> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
> >> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
> >> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
> >> explain it to you.
> >
> > ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
> > other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
> > the ball in circular motion.
> Not if there’s no air.
Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.
>
> > Guess why he is just a woodworker.
> >>
> >> It will just be a case of an old crank passing away muttering “impossible”
> >> about something school children know very well how it works.
> >>
> >> Meanwhile, the rest of the world, more educated about physics than you ever
> >> were, will move on.
> >>>
> >>>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
> >>>
> >>> Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
> >>> correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
> >>> have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
> >>> proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
> >>> PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
> >>> Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:12:07 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 3:30:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 5:17:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4, 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?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No sir, if gravity is only an attractive force, the moon will not be able
>>>>>>>>>>> to maintain a stable orbit.
>>>>>>>>>> You don’t know how, but it’s been known since the 1670s. You just never
>>>>>>>>>> learned it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>>>> kind of mistake that people with no education in physics make.
>>>>>
>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>>> in circles.
>>>> Using “everyday experience” without a basic physics education is a bad
>>>> mistake.
>>>
>>> Why don’t you explain how the ball can go around in circles with just
>>> an attractive force?
>> Why don’t you just stop saying simple things
>>> are impossible just to get
>> someone to explain them to you on Usenet?
>>
>> Why don’t you for once rely on something other than Usenet for information
>> about physics?
>>
>> I’m convinced you are incapable of learning anything today you won’t forget
>> by tomorrow.
>
> Moron a single attractive force will cause the moon to crash into the earth.

Repeating your misunderstandings over and over is not going to get anyone
to show you why it’s wrong.

> Gravity is not a single attractive force. It is a composite force as follows:
> 1. It composed of an attractive EM force derived from that the moon and
> the earth are expanding in the same direction as the universe expands.
> 2. The earth and the moon are confined to follow the divergent structure
> of the E-Matrix as the universe expands. This creates a repulsive effect
> between the earth and the moon.
> 3. Gravity between the earth and the moon is the result of these two opposing forces.
>
>>> You are a fraud. All you do is repeating your cult beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s a
>>>>>> perfect illustration that common sense intuition is NOT SUFFICIENT for
>>>>>> analyzing physical systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A physics education is necessary and required to understand the physics of
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>> Like whirling a ball on a string the following forces are involved:
>>>>>>> 1. The string is exerting a centripetal force on the ball and pulling it
>>>>>>> toward your fingers.
>>>>>>> 2. The centrifugal force of the ball is trying to break away from the string.
>>>>>>> 3. These two forces causing the ball go around in circles.
>>>>>>>
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a
>>>>>>> great example of the
>>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that
>>>>>>> t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>>>> is no new physics
>>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>>>> explain it to you.
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
>>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
>>> the ball in circular motion.
>> Not if there’s no air.
> Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end of
> the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum.

Lol. No sir.

How does it feel that high school students have a better grip on the basics
than you?

> Gee you are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.

“Just a woodworker” you feeble worthless old man?

>>
>>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.
>>>>
>>>> It will just be a case of an old crank passing away muttering “impossible”
>>>> about something school children know very well how it works.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile, the rest of the world, more educated about physics than you ever
>>>> were, will move on.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Go learn new physics and stop making unsupported assertions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Making unsupported assertions is your field, Stupid Ken. If you were
>>>>> correct, you'd have an actual mathematical PROOF. You don't, so all you
>>>>> have are your assertions. You don't even have a clue how to do a math
>>>>> proof anyway. And BTW the only "new physics" which counters Newton's
>>>>> PROOF in any way was Einstein's 100+ year old SR and GR which extends
>>>>> Newton's laws as a low speed approximation.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 5/5/2021 9:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 5, 2021 at 8:30:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 5:34:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2021 1:32 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 10:27:25 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 30, 2021 at 9:40:20 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/2021 9:31 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That’s because gravity is a composite force not a singular attractive
>>>>>>>>>> force as you naively assumed.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You never understood Newton's proof that only one force was necessary
>>>>>>>>> because you believe gravity is a composite force? That makes zero sense,
>>>>>>>>> Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey moron Mike.....our everyday experience know that a single attractive
>>>>>>>> force will cause the the object to crash into each other.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, no, Ken. Your “even in circles. ready experience” is a great example of the
>>>>>>> kind of mistake thadoesn’t know that t people with no education in physics make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No sir, a single attractive force will not maintain the ball go around
>>>>>> in circles.Your assertion is based on uneducated in new physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. If that were true, Newton would never have been able to
>>>>> PROVE that only one force was necessary, and you would have your own
>>>>> proof, not a pack of moron woodworker useless assertions. And no, there
>>>>> is no new physics
>>>>> which contradicts Newton's PROOF.
>>>> Ken, I’d be very happy with you slipping off one night, still firmly
>>>> believing that one unbalanced force cannot produce a stable orbit, just
>>>> because you can’t see how it’s possible and you never could get anyone to
>>>> explain it to you.
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL......the moon woodworker doesn’t know that the finger holding the
>>> other end of the string, must be in circular motion in order to maintain
>>> the ball in circular motion.
>> Not if there’s no air.
> Moron, learn high school physics.....the fingers holding the other end of the string must be in circular motion in air or in vacuum. Gee you are so fucking stupid.......no wonder you are just a woodworker.

Stupid Ken, the fingers need motion to overcome air resistance on the
ball/string and the "bearing" resistance of the string on the finger.
None of which apply to the moon in its orbit (in a vacuum and no string
attaching to some "bearing" on earth)
>>
>>> Guess why he is just a woodworker.

And you are just a senile old crank babbling away in an assisted living
home. Odd probably has forgotten more physics than you know now.