On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 2:52:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/11/2021 11:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/10/2021 3:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 6/10/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> Idiot, no object in the universe is in a state of absolute rest.
> >>
> >>>> Because there is no such thing, Stupid Ken. But since I never mentioned
> >>>> absolute rest, that’s just the chaff you’re throwing to avoid answering.
> >>>
> >>> Moron, in your calculations you assumed that the three rockets are in a state of absolute rest.
> >> No, Stupid Ken, I never even mentioned absolute rest. And how could I
> >> assume something which doesn’t even exist?
> >
> > Moron, you specified that they each took off in different and at the same velocity.
> Same speed, but because of different directions the velocities are
> different.
> > The only way that they can do that is that they were in a state of absolute rest to begin with.
> Stupid Ken, it sounds to me like you are inventing an excuse why your
> failed Muddle Mechanics cannot handle the problem. The excuse, being,
> "The only way the three rockets can have the same speed is if they were
> in absolute rest to start which Middle Mechanics can never happen!"
> >>>> I was asking you what the clock rates were, by how they measured each
> >>>> other's clocks! But you can't answer it! Because your Muddle Mechanics
> >>>> can’t handle that problem!
> >>>
> >>> I did tell you that each rocket measure each other’s velocity and calculate their clock rates.
>
> >> But you didn’t give a value for my example problem.
>
> > Moron, each rocket has to measure each other’s velocity to calculate each other’s clock rate.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> So your failed Muddle Mechanics can’t even make time’s speed to ole predictions????
> I gave you the launch speed and angles from the planet!

Morn you failed to include the fact that the earth is moving so the rockets were moving before the launch. That’s why each have to measure each other’s speed to determine each other’s clock rate. Gee you and your muddle Mechanics are so fucking stupid.
>
> A *real* theory will be able to make predictions and then allow you to
> compare predictions to measurements to see if the predictions are valid.
>
> Why do you even call your disasterous Muddle Mechanics a theory if it
> cannot make predictions? It even claims obviously valid problems like
> this aren't even possible!!
> >>> You assumed that each rocket has the same velocity
> >> That's an initial condition, not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It's their
> >> launch speed from the planet O.
> >
> > So your initial conditions implied that planet O is in a state of absolute rest. But no object in the universe is in a state of absolute rest. Gee you are so fucking stupid..
> Stupid Ken, I never mentioned that. The planet is inertial, as are the
> spaceships after takeoff and getting to speed.
> >

On 6/13/2021 9:22 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 2:52:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/11/2021 11:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2021 3:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/10/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>>>> Moron, in your calculations you assumed that the three rockets are in a state of absolute rest.

>>>> No, Stupid Ken, I never even mentioned absolute rest. And how could I
>>>> assume something which doesn’t even exist?
>>>
>>> Moron, you specified that they each took off in different and at the same velocity.

>> Same speed, but because of different directions the velocities are
>> different.

>>> The only way that they can do that is that they were in a state of absolute rest to begin with.

>> Stupid Ken, it sounds to me like you are inventing an excuse why your
>> failed Muddle Mechanics cannot handle the problem. The excuse, being,
>> "The only way the three rockets can have the same speed is if they were
>> in absolute rest to start which Middle Mechanics can never happen!"

No answer?

>>>>>> I was asking you what the clock rates were, by how they measured each
>>>>>> other's clocks! But you can't answer it! Because your Muddle Mechanics
>>>>>> can’t handle that problem!
>>>>>
>>>>> I did tell you that each rocket measure each other’s velocity and calculate their clock rates.
>>
>>>> But you didn’t give a value for my example problem.
>>
>>> Moron, each rocket has to measure each other’s velocity to calculate each other’s clock rate.Gee you are so fucking stupid.

>> So your failed Muddle Mechanics can’t even make time’s speed to ole predictions????
>> I gave you the launch speed and angles from the planet!
>
> Morn you failed to include the fact that the earth is moving so the rockets were moving before the launch. That’s why each have to measure each other’s speed to determine each other’s clock rate. Gee you and your muddle Mechanics are so fucking stupid.

You admit your Muddle Mechanics are fucking stupid? Good for you, Ken.

Your Muddle Mechanics needs extra data that ordinary SR or Newtonian
Mechanics doesn't need. That makes your Muddle Mechanics inferior to
them. For SR or Newtonian Mechanics all I need is to state the planet
is inertial, which I did. I can't state how the planet was moving since
I didn't specify anything it would be moving relative to, the only
objects in my gedanken were the three rockets and the planet.
>>
>> A *real* theory will be able to make predictions and then allow you to
>> compare predictions to measurements to see if the predictions are valid.

An SR analysis can do this. A Newtonian analysis can do this. Since
your Muddle Mechanics cannot do this you admit that your Muddle
Mechanics is inferior to both SR and Newtonian physics!

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 11, 2021 at 2:52:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/11/2021 11:09 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 10:03:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/10/2021 3:40 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 12:04:48 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/10/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Idiot, no object in the universe is in a state of absolute rest.
>>>>
>>>>>> Because there is no such thing, Stupid Ken. But since I never mentioned
>>>>>> absolute rest, that’s just the chaff you’re throwing to avoid answering.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, in your calculations you assumed that the three rockets are in
>>>>> a state of absolute rest.
>>>> No, Stupid Ken, I never even mentioned absolute rest. And how could I
>>>> assume something which doesn’t even exist?
>>>
>>> Moron, you specified that they each took off in different and at the same velocity.
>> Same speed, but because of different directions the velocities are
>> different.
>>> The only way that they can do that is that they were in a state of
>>> absolute rest to begin with.
>> Stupid Ken, it sounds to me like you are inventing an excuse why your
>> failed Muddle Mechanics cannot handle the problem. The excuse, being,
>> "The only way the three rockets can have the same speed is if they were
>> in absolute rest to start which Middle Mechanics can never happen!"
>>>>>> I was asking you what the clock rates were, by how they measured each
>>>>>> other's clocks! But you can't answer it! Because your Muddle Mechanics
>>>>>> can’t handle that problem!
>>>>>
>>>>> I did tell you that each rocket measure each other’s velocity and
>>>>> calculate their clock rates.
>>
>>>> But you didn’t give a value for my example problem.
>>
>>> Moron, each rocket has to measure each other’s velocity to calculate
>>> each other’s clock rate.Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>> So your failed Muddle Mechanics can’t even make time’s speed to ole predictions????
>> I gave you the launch speed and angles from the planet!
>
> Morn you failed to include the fact that the earth is moving so the
> rockets were moving before the launch. That’s why each have to measure
> each other’s speed to determine each other’s clock rate.

Actually , no they don’t.

> Gee you and your muddle Mechanics are so fucking stupid.
>>
>> A *real* theory will be able to make predictions and then allow you to
>> compare predictions to measurements to see if the predictions are valid.
>>
>> Why do you even call your disasterous Muddle Mechanics a theory if it
>> cannot make predictions? It even claims obviously valid problems like
>> this aren't even possible!!
>>>>> You assumed that each rocket has the same velocity
>>>> That's an initial condition, not an assumption, Stupid Ken. It's their
>>>> launch speed from the planet O.
>>>
>>> So your initial conditions implied that planet O is in a state of
>>> absolute rest. But no object in the universe is in a state of absolute
>>> rest. Gee you are so fucking stupid..
>> Stupid Ken, I never mentioned that. The planet is inertial, as are the
>> spaceships after takeoff and getting to speed.
>>>
>

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

By changing position in space how would distance leave?
and by what amount? What is the math behind contraction
you morons? Show that...

No. Contraction is what does not exist.
Never has.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:38:19 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 6/2/2021 7:16 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 6:13:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> No it does not exist in space or length...
> >>>> What causes it and why?
> >>>
> >>> You are right! There is no material contraction.
>
> >> You should also be happy to agree with a park bench babbler, Ken!
> >> You can join Keith Stein and his new army of park bench babblers!
> >
> > Come back when you and your moronic daughter solve (-6/-2).
> Once again, Stupid Ken, I can solve that.
No you can’t solve that and that’s why you came here for help.

>My daughter can and did solve
> that, 8 years ago. Everyone else in this group can solve that, other
> than you. And Mitch, who doesn't believe in negative numbers. Mitch's
> excuse is that he's a park bench babbler. What is your excuse for being
> unable to do fourth grade level math? Is it because you are now a park
> bench babbler as well? Is that why you joined Keith's army of park bench
> babblers?

On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:38:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 9:28:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:57:46 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/2/2021 7:16 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 6:13:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> No it does not exist in space or length...
> >>>>>>>>> What causes it and why?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You are right! There is no material contraction.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> You should also be happy to agree with a park bench babbler, Ken!
> >>>>>>> You can join Keith Stein and his new army of park bench babblers!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Come back when you and your moronic daughter solve (-6/-2).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Once again, Stupid Ken, I can solve that. My daughter can and did solve
> >>>>> that, 8 years ago. Everyone else in this group can solve that, other
> >>>>> than you. And Mitch, who doesn't believe in negative numbers. Mitch's
> >>>>> excuse is that he's a park bench babbler. What is your excuse for being
> >>>>> unable to do fourth grade level math? Is it because you are now a park
> >>>>> bench babbler as well? Is that why you joined Keith's army of park bench
> >>>>> babblers?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Ken, this is another reason you are being mocked. When there is something
> >>>> that you obviously cannot do, and then you turn around and say, like a
> >>>> little child, “No, it is YOU that cannot do it!”, then you have exposed
> >>>> yourself as both mentally ill and emotionally childlike.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know it’s something you cannot help doing. Grown-ups don’t do things like
> >>>> that. You’re no longer a mentally competent grown-up.
> >>>>
> >>>> I know it sucks to be losing your mental capacity. But the worst thing you
> >>>> can do for it is to expose it all for the world to see, mackothing
> >>>> about ngnaw ing it even more
> >>>> of a frustration for you.
> >>>
> >>> You are an uneducated woodworker.ysics.
> >> That is inaccurate. I am a woodworker far more educated than you are.
> >
> > Yeah you are more educated in Einstein’s obsolete physics. You know
> > nothing about new physics.
> I’m not educated in the crap that you fraudulently call “new physics”.

It is new physics:
It unified all the forces of nature.
It gives rise to a viable new theory of gravity.
It gives rise to a new theory of relativity.
It viable gives rise to a viable origin of the universe.
>
> I’m also not educated in the powder made from talc sold by scam artists who
> fraudulently call it “new cure for cancer.”
>
> The only thing you are educated in is the crap you invented. That is not
> education.
> >>
> >>> Your posts have no physical content. So fuck off.
> >> You first.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:38:19 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/2/2021 7:16 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 6:13:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> No it does not exist in space or length...
>>>>>> What causes it and why?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right! There is no material contraction.
>>
>>>> You should also be happy to agree with a park bench babbler, Ken!
>>>> You can join Keith Stein and his new army of park bench babblers!
>>>
>>> Come back when you and your moronic daughter solve (-6/-2).
>> Once again, Stupid Ken, I can solve that.
> No you can’t solve that and that’s why you came here for help.
>

“I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

Ken, given how smart you say you are and how insane everyone else is, maybe
you can explain how it is that you’re in a home for the infirm and the
impoverished? Got a good explanation for that?

>
>> My daughter can and did solve
>> that, 8 years ago. Everyone else in this group can solve that, other
>> than you. And Mitch, who doesn't believe in negative numbers. Mitch's
>> excuse is that he's a park bench babbler. What is your excuse for being
>> unable to do fourth grade level math? Is it because you are now a park
>> bench babbler as well? Is that why you joined Keith's army of park bench
>> babblers?
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:38:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 9:28:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:57:46 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/2/2021 7:16 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 6:13:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not exist in space or length...
>>>>>>>>>>> What causes it and why?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are right! There is no material contraction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You should also be happy to agree with a park bench babbler, Ken!
>>>>>>>>> You can join Keith Stein and his new army of park bench babblers!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Come back when you and your moronic daughter solve (-6/-2).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again, Stupid Ken, I can solve that. My daughter can and did solve
>>>>>>> that, 8 years ago. Everyone else in this group can solve that, other
>>>>>>> than you. And Mitch, who doesn't believe in negative numbers. Mitch's
>>>>>>> excuse is that he's a park bench babbler. What is your excuse for being
>>>>>>> unable to do fourth grade level math? Is it because you are now a park
>>>>>>> bench babbler as well? Is that why you joined Keith's army of park bench
>>>>>>> babblers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken, this is another reason you are being mocked. When there is something
>>>>>> that you obviously cannot do, and then you turn around and say, like a
>>>>>> little child, “No, it is YOU that cannot do it!”, then you have exposed
>>>>>> yourself as both mentally ill and emotionally childlike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know it’s something you cannot help doing. Grown-ups don’t do things like
>>>>>> that. You’re no longer a mentally competent grown-up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know it sucks to be losing your mental capacity. But the worst thing you
>>>>>> can do for it is to expose it all for the world to see, mackothing
>>>>>> about ngnaw ing it even more
>>>>>> of a frustration for you.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are an uneducated woodworker.ysics.
>>>> That is inaccurate. I am a woodworker far more educated than you are.
>>>
>>> Yeah you are more educated in Einstein’s obsolete physics. You know
>>> nothing about new physics.
>> I’m not educated in the crap that you fraudulently call “new physics”.
>
> It is new physics:

That’s what YOU say. But nobody else does. Not one soul.

When that happens, then the one person who’s making the claim is a fraud.

> It unified all the forces of nature.
> It gives rise to a viable new theory of gravity.
> It gives rise to a new theory of relativity.
> It viable gives rise to a viable origin of the universe.
>>
>> I’m also not educated in the powder made from talc sold by scam artists who
>> fraudulently call it “new cure for cancer.”
>>
>> The only thing you are educated in is the crap you invented. That is not
>> education.
>>>>
>>>>> Your posts have no physical content. So fuck off.
>>>> You first.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
> >>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
> >>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
> >>>
> >>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
> >>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
> >>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
> >>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
> >>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a universal interval of time.
> >>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
> >>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
> >>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
> >>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
> >>> universal interval of time.
> >> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
> > Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
>
> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
> up in your head.
>
> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
> making it up.

Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds) for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means that clock second is a universal interval f time.
> >
> >>> It is not.
> >>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
> >>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
> >>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
> >>>
> >>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
> >>>> don’t see.
> >>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
> >>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
> >>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
> >>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a universal interval of time.
>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
>>
>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
>> up in your head.
>>
>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
>> making it up.
>
> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> that clock second is a universal interval f time.

A clock second is universal by not being universal? If there are a
different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?

Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?

>>>
>>>>> It is not.
>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
>>>>>
>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
>>>>>> don’t see.
>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 6/14/2021 10:25 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 3:38:49 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 3, 2021 at 9:28:04 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:57:46 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/2/2021 7:16 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 6:13:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it does not exist in space or length...
>>>>>>>>>>>> What causes it and why?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are right! There is no material contraction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You should also be happy to agree with a park bench babbler, Ken!
>>>>>>>>>> You can join Keith Stein and his new army of park bench babblers!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Come back when you and your moronic daughter solve (-6/-2).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once again, Stupid Ken, I can solve that. My daughter can and did solve
>>>>>>>> that, 8 years ago. Everyone else in this group can solve that, other
>>>>>>>> than you. And Mitch, who doesn't believe in negative numbers. Mitch's
>>>>>>>> excuse is that he's a park bench babbler. What is your excuse for being
>>>>>>>> unable to do fourth grade level math? Is it because you are now a park
>>>>>>>> bench babbler as well? Is that why you joined Keith's army of park bench
>>>>>>>> babblers?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ken, this is another reason you are being mocked. When there is something
>>>>>>> that you obviously cannot do, and then you turn around and say, like a
>>>>>>> little child, “No, it is YOU that cannot do it!”, then you have exposed
>>>>>>> yourself as both mentally ill and emotionally childlike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know it’s something you cannot help doing. Grown-ups don’t do things like
>>>>>>> that. You’re no longer a mentally competent grown-up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know it sucks to be losing your mental capacity. But the worst thing you
>>>>>>> can do for it is to expose it all for the world to see, mackothing
>>>>>>> about ngnaw ing it even more
>>>>>>> of a frustration for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are an uneducated woodworker.ysics.
>>>>> That is inaccurate. I am a woodworker far more educated than you are.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah you are more educated in Einstein’s obsolete physics. You know
>>>> nothing about new physics.
>>> I’m not educated in the crap that you fraudulently call “new physics”.
>>
>> It is new physics:
>
> That’s what YOU say. But nobody else does. Not one soul.
>
> When that happens, then the one person who’s making the claim is a fraud.

That's right, Stupid Ken. You are a fraud.
>
>> It unified all the forces of nature.

Assertion, so worthless.

>> It gives rise to a viable new theory of gravity.

Assertion, so worthless.

>> It gives rise to a new theory of relativity.

Assertion, so worthless.

>> It viable gives rise to a viable origin of the universe.

Assertion, so worthless.

On 6/14/2021 10:11 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 2, 2021 at 10:38:19 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 6/2/2021 7:16 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, June 1, 2021 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 5:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 31, 2021 at 6:13:05 PM UTC-4, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> No it does not exist in space or length...
>>>>>> What causes it and why?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right! There is no material contraction.
>>
>>>> You should also be happy to agree with a park bench babbler, Ken!
>>>> You can join Keith Stein and his new army of park bench babblers!
>>>
>>> Come back when you and your moronic daughter solve (-6/-2).
>> Once again, Stupid Ken, I can solve that.

> No you can’t solve that and that’s why you came here for help.

You are projecting, Stupid Ken. Don't project your inability to do math
beyond the third grade level on us. I did solve it 8 years ago when I
checked my kid's homework. She got it correct, too. But in that time,
not once have you solved that simple problem. Not once.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
>> making it up.
>
> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> that clock second is a universal interval f time.

for speeds near c time stops to flow, your clock will not tick nor clock
anything since there is no passage of time. Your spaceshit arrives your
planet destination in less than a nanosecond. Also, a theory of
everything without the faster than light tachyon, is incomplete.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> That’s what YOU say. But nobody else does. Not one soul.
>> When that happens, then the one person who’s making the claim is a
>> fraud.
>
> That's right, Stupid Ken. You are a fraud.

it takes a fake moon landing to be a fraud.

On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
> >>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
> >>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
> >>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
> >>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
> >>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
> >>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a universal interval of time.
> >>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
> >>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
> >>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
> >>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
> >>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
> >>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
> >> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
> >> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said.. And
> >> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
> >> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
> >>
> >> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
> >> up in your head.
> >>
> >> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
> >> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
> >> making it up.
> >
> > Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> > for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> > observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> > that clock second is a universal interval f time.
> A clock second is universal by not being universal?

No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
>
>If there a frame.re a
> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
>
> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
> >>>
> >>>>> It is not.
> >>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
> >>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
> >>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
> >>>>>> don’t see.
> >>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
> >>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
> >>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
> >>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
>>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
>>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
>>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
>>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
>>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
>>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
>>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
>>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
>>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
>>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
>>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
>>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
>>>>
>>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
>>>> up in your head.
>>>>
>>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
>>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
>>>> making it up.
>>>
>>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
>>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
>>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
>>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
>> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
>
> No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
> clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.

And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”

Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
infirm.

>>
>> If there a frame.re a
>> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
>> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
>>
>> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not.
>>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
>>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
>>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
>>>>>>>> don’t see.
>>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
>>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
>>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
>>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
> >>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
> >>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
> >>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
> >>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
> >>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
> >>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
> >>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
> >>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
> >>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
> >>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
> >>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
> >>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
> >>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
> >>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
> >>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
> >>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
> >>>>
> >>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
> >>>> up in your head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
> >>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
> >>>> making it up.
> >>>
> >>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> >>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> >>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> >>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
> >> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
> >
> > No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
> > clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
> And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
> interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
> clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”
>
> Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
> infirm.
> >>
> >> If there a frame.re a
> >> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
> >> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
> >>
> >> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is not.
> >>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
> >>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
> >>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
> >>>>>>>> don’t see.
> >>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
> >>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
> >>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
> >>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Where is the mathematical proof you morons?

Why would changing position in dimension cause
dimension to leave?

Mitchell Raemsch

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
>>>>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
>>>>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
>>>>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
>>>>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
>>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
>>>>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
>>>>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
>>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
>>>>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
>>>>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
>>>>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
>>>>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
>>>>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
>>>>>> up in your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
>>>>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
>>>>>> making it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
>>>>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
>>>>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
>>>>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
>>>> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
>>>
>>> No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
>>> clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
>> And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
>> interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
>> clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”
>>
>> Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
>> infirm.
>>>>
>>>> If there a frame.re a
>>>> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
>>>> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
>>>>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
>>>>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
>>>>>>>>>> don’t see.
>>>>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
>>>>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
>>>>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
>>>>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Where is the mathematical proof you morons?

I have one simple question for you, Mitch. Did you wake up with little
sticks stuck in your hair? How much were you able to panhandle yesterday?

>
> Why would changing position in dimension cause
> dimension to leave?
>
> Mitchell Raemsch
>

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

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 10:41:40 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
> >>>>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
> >>>>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
> >>>>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
> >>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
> >>>>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
> >>>>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
> >>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
> >>>>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
> >>>>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
> >>>>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
> >>>>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
> >>>>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
> >>>>>> up in your head.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
> >>>>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
> >>>>>> making it up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> >>>>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> >>>>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> >>>>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
> >>>> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
> >>>
> >>> No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
> >>> clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
> >> And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
> >> interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
> >> clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”
> >>
> >> Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
> >> infirm.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there a frame.re a
> >>>> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
> >>>> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is not.
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
> >>>>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
> >>>>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
> >>>>>>>>>> don’t see.
> >>>>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
> >>>>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
> >>>>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
> >>>>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Where is the mathematical proof you morons?

What is the math that takes away distance you moron?
Either the atom contracts or it doesn't.
And it does not.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:15:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
> >>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
> >>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
> >>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
> >>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
> >>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
> >>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
> >>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
> >>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
> >>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
> >>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
> >>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
> >>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
> >>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
> >>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
> >>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
> >>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
> >>>>
> >>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
> >>>> up in your head.
> >>>>
> >>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
> >>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
> >>>> making it up.
> >>>
> >>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> >>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> >>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> >>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
> >> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
> >
> > No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
> > clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
> And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
> interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
> clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”

When you said that less clock seconds is time dilation. Doesn’t that mean that no time dilation means that a cock second is a universal interval of time?
>
> Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
> infirm.
> >>
> >> If there a frame.re a
> >> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
> >> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
> >>
> >> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is not.
> >>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
> >>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
> >>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
> >>>>>>>> don’t see.
> >>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
> >>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
> >>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
> >>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:15:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
>>>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
>>>>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
>>>>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
>>>>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
>>>>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
>>>>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
>>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
>>>>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
>>>>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
>>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
>>>>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
>>>>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
>>>>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
>>>>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
>>>>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
>>>>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
>>>>>> up in your head.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
>>>>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
>>>>>> making it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
>>>>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
>>>>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
>>>>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
>>>> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
>>>
>>> No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
>>> clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
>> And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
>> interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
>> clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”
>
> When you said that less clock seconds is time dilation. Doesn’t that mean
> that no time dilation means that a cock second is a universal interval of time?

No it doesn’t mean that.

>>
>> Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
>> infirm.
>>>>
>>>> If there a frame.re a
>>>> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
>>>> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
>>>>
>>>> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is not.
>>>>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
>>>>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
>>>>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
>>>>>>>>>> don’t see.
>>>>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
>>>>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
>>>>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
>>>>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 5:08:53 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 11:15:32 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, June 14, 2021 at 10:55:21 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 7, 2021 at 11:43:39 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, June 6, 2021 at 11:57:54 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, June 5, 2021 at 3:59:32 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/5/2021 2:08 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> All your posts about my book are content free.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your book is content free, Stupid Ken.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The laws of physics are not the same in
> >>>>>>>>>> Indeed. e simple reason a clock second
> >>>>>>>>>> Ken’s book is nothing but a string of idiotic complaints like:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, there is no complain in my book. I presented a new theoryto
> >>>>>>>>> define of physics. Gee you are so fucking stupid.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t understand it.
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because the two postulates are wrong.
> >>>>>>>>> The the laws of physics are not the same in all frames for the simple
> >>>>>>>>> reason that a clock second use to define the laws is not a
> >>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>>>>> The speed of anything (including light) is observer dependent. No need
> >>>>>>>>> to invent a new set of measuring tools for each observer to force the
> >>>>>>>>> speed of light to be the same in all frames.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it introduces new things.
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’s theory is wrong because he thought that a clock second is a
> >>>>>>>>> universal interval of time.
> >>>>>>>> Where did Einstein ever say that? You know you made that up, right?
> >>>>>>> Idiot, his concept of time dilation means that.
> >>>>>> No it doesn’t mean that at all. You just asked in another post about this
> >>>>>> same thing, where you completely misunderstood something that Tom said. And
> >>>>>> now you are applying your misunderstanding to Einstein as well, apparently
> >>>>>> using Tom as the voice for Einstein (never a good idea).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND the concept of time dilation AT ALL. It is all mixed
> >>>>>> up in your head.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Einstein NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT a clock second being a universal
> >>>>>> interval of time. And so when you say this is what he thought, you are
> >>>>>> making it up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Idiot, the concept of time dilation means less time (less clock seconds)
> >>>>> for an observed clock. When you assert less time you mean that the
> >>>>> observed clock accumulates less clock second. This automatically means
> >>>>> that clock second is a universal interval f time.
> >>>> A clock second is universal by not being universal?
> >>>
> >>> No stupid, a clock second is not a universal interval of TIME because a
> >>> clock second in my frame is worth 1/gamma seconds in your frame.
> >> And so you say “This automatically means that a clock second is a universal
> >> interval of time.” And then you turn right around and say, “No stupid, a
> >> clock second is not a universal interval of TIME.”
> >
> > When you said that less clock seconds is time dilation. Doesn’t that mean
> > that no time dilation means that a cock second is a universal interval of time?
> No it doesn’t mean that.
> >>
> >> Well done, you’ve illustrated amply well why you’re in a home for the
> >> infirm.
> >>>>
> >>>> If there a frame.re a
> >>>> different number of clock seconds I’m different frames and therefore is not
> >>>> a universal duration, this makes the clock second universal?
> >>>>
> >>>> Tell me, does a cat not being canine automatically make it canine?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It is not.
> >>>>>>>>> Einstein’’theory is wrong because no object is in an inertial frame. The
> >>>>>>>>> only inertial frame exists is the aether frame in which all objects in
> >>>>>>>>> the universe are in a state of absolute motion within it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because my theory is right. So there.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That’s right IRT correct all of Einstein’s mistakes.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because somebody said 10 dimensions, which I
> >>>>>>>>>> don’t see.
> >>>>>>>>> Do you see 6 extra dimensions?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because attention should be spread around more
> >>>>>>>>>> evenly, including to amateurs.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because I don’t believe it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it can’t prove God exists.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it uses math and math isn’t real.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because that’s the only way I can think of to
> >>>>>>>>>> get people to buy my book or mention my name.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> - Einstein’s theory is wrong because it refers to spacetime and space and
> >>>>>>>>>> time aren’t real things, only material things are real things.
> >>>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

What is your mathematical evidence for distance contraction?
You would end with a lopsided universe or an atom.
Either contraction happens or it doesn't.
Math suggests it has never happened.