On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
> >>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
> >>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
> >>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
> >>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
> >>>>>>>> every week.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
> >>>>>>>> the same rack?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
> >>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
> >>>>>> Why would a book full of
> >>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
> >>>>>> all the others?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
> >>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
> >>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
> >>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
> >>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
> >>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
> >>>>>> threw it away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
> >>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
> >>>>
> >>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
> >>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
> >>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
> >>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
> >>>>
> >>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
> >>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
> >>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
> >>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
> >>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
> >>>
> >>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
> >>> that you are stupid.
> >>>
> >> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
> >> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
> >>
> >> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
> >> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
> >> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
> >> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
> >> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
> >> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
> >> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
> >> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
> >> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
> >> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
> >> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
> > hy
> > The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
> > never get your work in.
> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2..6
> million submissions in every year?
>
> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?

Better than those like you who has nothing in it.

> > For that matter, you spend all your time cruising the internet you don’t
> > have time writing your trashy knowledge on physics to submit to the Library.
> >>
> >> The fact that you squandered some years of effort and spent your entire
> >> nest egg to do something rather ordinary, and that’s ALL you have to hang
> >> your legacy on — that’s your problem.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
>>>>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
>>>>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
>>>>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
>>>>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
>>>>>>>>>> every week.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
>>>>>>>>>> the same rack?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
>>>>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
>>>>>>>> Why would a book full of
>>>>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
>>>>>>>> all the others?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
>>>>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
>>>>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
>>>>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
>>>>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
>>>>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
>>>>>>>> threw it away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
>>>>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
>>>>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
>>>>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
>>>>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
>>>>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
>>>>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
>>>>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
>>>>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
>>>>> that you are stupid.
>>>>>
>>>> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
>>>> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
>>>>
>>>> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
>>>> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
>>>> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
>>>> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
>>>> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
>>>> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
>>>> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
>>>> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
>>>> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
>>>> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
>>>> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
>>> hy
>>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
>>> never get your work in.
>> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
>> million submissions in every year?
>>
>> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
>
> Better than those like you who has nothing in it.

LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?

I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
looking like an old fool.

>
>>> For that matter, you spend all your time cruising the internet you don’t
>>> have time writing your trashy knowledge on physics to submit to the Library.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that you squandered some years of effort and spent your entire
>>>> nest egg to do something rather ordinary, and that’s ALL you have to hang
>>>> your legacy on — 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 Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 2:22:01 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
> >>>>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
> >>>>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
> >>>>>>>>>> every week.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
> >>>>>>>>>> the same rack?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
> >>>>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
> >>>>>>>> Why would a book full of
> >>>>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
> >>>>>>>> all the others?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
> >>>>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
> >>>>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
> >>>>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
> >>>>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
> >>>>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
> >>>>>>>> threw it away.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
> >>>>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
> >>>>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
> >>>>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
> >>>>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
> >>>>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
> >>>>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
> >>>>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
> >>>>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
> >>>>> that you are stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
> >>>> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
> >>>>
> >>>> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
> >>>> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
> >>>> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
> >>>> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
> >>>> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
> >>>> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
> >>>> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
> >>>> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
> >>>> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
> >>>> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
> >>>> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
> >>> hy
> >>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
> >>> never get your work in.
> >> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
> >> million submissions in every year?
> >>
> >> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
> >
> > Better than those like you who has nothing in it.
> LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
> furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
> for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?
>
> I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
> Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
> looking like an old fool.
> >
> >>> For that matter, you spend all your time cruising the internet you don’t
> >>> have time writing your trashy knowledge on physics to submit to the Library.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact that you squandered some years of effort and spent your entire
> >>>> nest egg to do something rather ordinary, and that’s ALL you have to hang
> >>>> your legacy on — 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

Electro magnetism is two forces with energy unified.
Light is in the Unified field/

On 8/11/2021 5:21 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
>>>> never get your work in.
>>> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
>>> million submissions in every year?
>>>
>>> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
>>
>> Better than those like you who has nothing in it.
>
> LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
> furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
> for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?
>
> I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
> Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
> looking like an old fool.
>
He's got you, Ken. He became a craftsman and spent his money wisely,
meanwhile you blew your money on some books nobody will buy and now you
are stuck in a home for indigent old folks watching nobody buying your
books. You should have learned physics (and fourth grade math) before
writing about it.

On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>

You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.

Pretty pictures, words, and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.

You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.

Without that, all you have is self-delusion.

Sylvia.

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
> >>>>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
> >>>>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
> >>>>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
> >>>>>>>>>> every week.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
> >>>>>>>>>> the same rack?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
> >>>>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
> >>>>>>>> Why would a book full of
> >>>>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
> >>>>>>>> all the others?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
> >>>>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
> >>>>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
> >>>>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
> >>>>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
> >>>>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
> >>>>>>>> threw it away.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
> >>>>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
> >>>>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
> >>>>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
> >>>>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
> >>>>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
> >>>>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
> >>>>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
> >>>>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
> >>>>> that you are stupid.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
> >>>> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
> >>>>
> >>>> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
> >>>> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
> >>>> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
> >>>> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
> >>>> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
> >>>> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
> >>>> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
> >>>> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
> >>>> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
> >>>> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
> >>>> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
> >>> hy
> >>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
> >>> never get your work in.
> >> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
> >> million submissions in every year?
> >>
> >> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
> >
> > Better than those like you who has nothing in it.
> LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
> furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
> for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?

I have those too and I gave it up and spent my money to develop new physics
and MM is the result so live with it.
>
> I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
> Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
> looking like an old fool.

Moron I didn’t inflate myself above others. I presented MM in the internet and you are the one who feel threatened.
> >
> >>> For that matter, you spend all your time cruising the internet you don’t
> >>> have time writing your trashy knowledge on physics to submit to the Library.
> >>>>
> >>>> The fact that you squandered some years of effort and spent your entire
> >>>> nest egg to do something rather ordinary, and that’s ALL you have to hang
> >>>> your legacy on — 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 Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> > The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >
> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>Unification have to have both physical model and math.

The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then develop the math based on this physical model. MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM. I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so. After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
>
> Pretty pictures, words,
>and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
>
> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
>
> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
>
> Sylvia.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
>>>>>>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
>>>>>>>>>>>> every week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same rack?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
>>>>>>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
>>>>>>>>>> Why would a book full of
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
>>>>>>>>>> all the others?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
>>>>>>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
>>>>>>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
>>>>>>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
>>>>>>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
>>>>>>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
>>>>>>>>>> threw it away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
>>>>>>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
>>>>>>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
>>>>>>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
>>>>>>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
>>>>>>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
>>>>>>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
>>>>>>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
>>>>>>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
>>>>>>> that you are stupid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
>>>>>> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
>>>>>> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
>>>>>> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
>>>>>> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
>>>>>> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
>>>>>> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
>>>>>> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
>>>>>> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
>>>>>> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
>>>>>> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
>>>>>> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
>>>>> hy
>>>>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
>>>>> never get your work in.
>>>> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
>>>> million submissions in every year?
>>>>
>>>> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
>>>
>>> Better than those like you who has nothing in it.
>> LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
>> furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
>> for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?
>
> I have those too and I gave it up and spent my money to develop new physics

You gave those things up and spent your money to promote yourself and to
try to make a more lasting name for yourself, and that has tanked. And what
have you got to show for it in the estimation of others? Of OTHERS, not
from yourself.

> and MM is the result so live with it.
>>
>> I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
>> Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
>> looking like an old fool.
>
> Moron I didn’t inflate myself above others.

Bullshit, Ken. You’ve said you’re the only person whose ever lived who was
able to revolutionize a whole field without being trained in it, because
you are “gifted”. That’s not elevating yourself above the WHOLE HUMAN RACE?

> I presented MM in the internet and you are the one who feel threatened.
>>>
>>>>> For that matter, you spend all your time cruising the internet you don’t
>>>>> have time writing your trashy knowledge on physics to submit to the Library.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that you squandered some years of effort and spent your entire
>>>>>> nest egg to do something rather ordinary, and that’s ALL you have to hang
>>>>>> your legacy on — 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
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>>>
>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>
>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
>
> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe
> then develop the math based on this physical model.

And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.

> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.

And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
side of it is more important.

> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.

And that tanked, didn’t it?

> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
>>
>> Pretty pictures, words,
>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
>>
>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
>>
>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>

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

Light is a force of nature.
It is Electro magnetism unified with its energy
Heat pushes a rocket and a supernova...

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
> >>>>>>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
> >>>>>>>>>>>> every week.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the same rack?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
> >>>>>>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why would a book full of
> >>>>>>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
> >>>>>>>>>> all the others?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
> >>>>>>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
> >>>>>>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
> >>>>>>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
> >>>>>>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
> >>>>>>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
> >>>>>>>>>> threw it away.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
> >>>>>>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
> >>>>>>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
> >>>>>>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
> >>>>>>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
> >>>>>>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
> >>>>>>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
> >>>>>>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
> >>>>>>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
> >>>>>>> that you are stupid.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
> >>>>>> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
> >>>>>> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
> >>>>>> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
> >>>>>> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
> >>>>>> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
> >>>>>> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
> >>>>>> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
> >>>>>> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
> >>>>>> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
> >>>>>> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
> >>>>>> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
> >>>>> hy
> >>>>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
> >>>>> never get your work in.
> >>>> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
> >>>> million submissions in every year?
> >>>>
> >>>> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
> >>>
> >>> Better than those like you who has nothing in it.
> >> LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
> >> furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
> >> for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?
> >
> > I have those too and I gave it up and spent my money to develop new physics
> You gave those things up and spent your money to promote yourself and to
> try to make a more lasting name for yourself, and that has tanked. And what
> have you got to show for it in the estimation of others? Of OTHERS, not
> from yourself.
MM is not tanked. If it is correct it will live forever and it is worth all the money I spent. So live with it.
> > and MM is the result so live with it.
> >>
> >> I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
> >> Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
> >> looking like an old fool.
> >
> > Moron I didn’t inflate myself above others.
> Bullshit, Ken. You’ve said you’re the only person whose ever lived who was
> able to revolutionize a whole field without being trained in it, because
> you are “gifted”. That’s not elevating yourself above the WHOLE HUMAN RACE?
> > I presented MM in the internet and you are the one who feel threatened.

Yes I am gifted because no body has been able to come up with a unified theory.
> >>>
> >>>>> For that matter, you spend all your time cruising the internet you don’t
> >>>>> have time writing your trashy knowledge on physics to submit to the Library.
> >>>>>> nufued th
> >>>>>> The fact that you squandered some years of effort and spent your entire
> >>>>>> nest egg to do something rather ordinary, and that’s ALL you have to hang
> >>>>>> your legacy on — that’s your problem.
> >>>>>> -- gory.
> >>>>>> 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 Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
> >>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >>>
> >> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
> >
> >> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
> >
> > The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
> > then develop the math based on this physical model.
> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.

But developing the physical model then the math is such easier. The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
> > MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
> > forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
> > processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
> > or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> > I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
> side of it is more important.
> > I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
> And that tanked, didn’t it?
> > After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
> >>
> >> Pretty pictures, words,
> >> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
> >>
> >> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
> >> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
> >>
> >> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:37 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 5:22:01 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 11:50:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 9:02:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 3:22 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 11:53:11 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/9/2021 10:58 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No body published a TOE like I did. My book is in the Library of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Congress. So it will last for centuries....live with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thousands have published a "TOE" just like you did. Including
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NoEinstein and Koobee. Your kookbook resides in a section of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Library of Congress with thousands of other kookbooks, with more added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every week.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would your kookbook stand out from all the other "treatises" filling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same rack?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moron, if my work is a true TOE then it will eventually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> discovered...so live with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would a book full of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions be of any value and stand out among
>>>>>>>>>>>> all the others?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Any future scientists investigating the kookbook section of the Library
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Congress will be looking for lost experiments and observations of
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual theories being developed and lost. A collection of worthless
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions will still be a book of worthless assertions and will be
>>>>>>>>>>>> tossed aside once they realize it's nothing but useless assertions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You wasted much of your life on this. Too bad, you possibly could have
>>>>>>>>>>>> accomplished some good over the last several years, but instead you
>>>>>>>>>>>> threw it away.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You wasted most of your life and accomplished nothing.....nota.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Word to the wise, Ken. Accomplishments are based on what OTHERS see as
>>>>>>>>>> valuable, not what YOU see as valuable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It’s like a patent. If you patent an original idea for something no one
>>>>>>>>>> cares about or would ever use, then the patent is worthless, a
>>>>>>>>>> non-accomplishment. It’s only if someone else finds value in the idea and
>>>>>>>>>> wants to use it that the patent is worth anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Consider the fact that NOBODY considers your ideas about physics as worth
>>>>>>>>>> anything. It is then not an accomplishment. Same goes with putting the book
>>>>>>>>>> in the Library of Congress. Anybody can put a book in the Library of
>>>>>>>>>> Congress. It’s as straightforward as purchasing a car. If nobody finds the
>>>>>>>>>> book valuable, it’s not an accomplishment.ink you are truly stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If it’s so easy why don’’t you put something in there? I really think
>>>>>>>>> that you are stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not need a new car. I do not need to buy a car for you to prove that
>>>>>>>> buying a car is easy and not an accomplishment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A fact that may be of interest is that each and every working day, the
>>>>>>>> Library of Congress receives 15,000 items for addition, and it adds 10,000
>>>>>>>> of them to the collection. That means that 2 out of every 3 submissions is
>>>>>>>> accepted to the collection — it is not a high bar. It also means that,
>>>>>>>> since there are 261 working days per year, then 2.6 MILLION items get added
>>>>>>>> each and every year to the Library of Congress. So your book being added to
>>>>>>>> the Library of Congress is something that 2.6 MILLION other people did, and
>>>>>>>> just in that one year. For scale, this is about half the number of homes
>>>>>>>> that were purchased each year. Now, if you think that purchasing a home is
>>>>>>>> not a particularly special accomplishment, then getting something in the
>>>>>>>> Library of Congress is not a particularly special accomplishment either.
>>>>>>> hy
>>>>>>> The Library of Congress has reviewers and uneducated broke like you will
>>>>>>> never get your work in.
>>>>>> The reviews that let 2 out of every 3 submissions in? The ones that let 2.6
>>>>>> million submissions in every year?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still think publishing to the Library of Congress is an elite club?
>>>>>
>>>>> Better than those like you who has nothing in it.
>>>> LOL. I have a house, two cars, enough money to retire, and lots of custom
>>>> furniture that people have purchased from me and will be in their families
>>>> for generations. You still want to try to have a pissing contest?
>>>
>>> I have those too and I gave it up and spent my money to develop new physics
>> You gave those things up and spent your money to promote yourself and to
>> try to make a more lasting name for yourself, and that has tanked. And what
>> have you got to show for it in the estimation of others? Of OTHERS, not
>> from yourself.
> MM is not tanked.

It has, as of this date, shown no success.

It’s like patents. If you patent an invention and nobody cares about the
invention for the rest of your remaining life, it makes no sense to say
“But the patent is still valuable in case someone 250 years from now wants
to use the invention!” That is officially living in a dreamworld.

> If it is correct it will live forever and it is worth all the money I
> spent. So live with it.
>>> and MM is the result so live with it.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know why you feel it’s important to inflate yourself above others.
>>>> Why is that so important to you that you? Especially when you just end up
>>>> looking like an old fool.
>>>
>>> Moron I didn’t inflate myself above others.
>> Bullshit, Ken. You’ve said you’re the only person whose ever lived who was
>> able to revolutionize a whole field without being trained in it, because
>> you are “gifted”. That’s not elevating yourself above the WHOLE HUMAN RACE?
>>> I presented MM in the internet and you are the one who feel threatened.
>
> Yes I am gifted because no body has been able to come up with a unified theory.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
>>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>>>
>>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
>>>
>>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
>>> then develop the math based on this physical model.
>> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.
>
> But developing the physical model then the math is such easier.

But both are still required before you even have a physics theory. Not just
the first one.

The goal is produce a legitimate physics theory, not just do the easy part
you think you can do. A legitimate physics theory always includes both. You
don’t have both. So you don’t have a legitimate physics theory.

> The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
>>> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
>>> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
>>> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
>>> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
>>> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
>> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
>> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
>> side of it is more important.
>>> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
>> And that tanked, didn’t it?
>>> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
>>>>
>>>> Pretty pictures, words,
>>>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
>>>>
>>>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
>>>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
>>>>
>>>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
> >>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
> >>>
> >>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
> >>>
> >>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
> >>> then develop the math based on this physical model.
> >> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.
> >
> > But developing the physical model then the math is such easier.
> But both are still required before you even have a physics theory. Not just
> the first one.

If you did the math first, if could lead you to a sea of non-existing abstract mathematical objects that, in turn, will lead to more non-existing mathematical objects. This process goes on without reaching the final goal of a valid TOE.
Whereas, I did the physical model first. The math based on this physical model followed, I was able to come up with a valid TOE easily. The best thing about my approach is that there is no unlimited abstract mathematical objects because the physical model set a boundary on which the math can extend.
>
> The goal is produce a legitimate physics theory, not just do the easy part
> you think you can do. A legitimate physics theory always includes both. You
> don’t have both. So you don’t have a legitimate physics theory.

So why physicists can’t find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying? Explanation: the math is so complex that they were not able to deal with reality.
>
> > The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
> >>> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
> >>> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
> >>> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
> >>> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> >>> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
> >> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
> >> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
> >> side of it is more important.
> >>> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
> >> And that tanked, didn’t it?
> >>> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
> >>>>
> >>>> Pretty pictures, words,
> >>>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
> >>>>
> >>>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
> >>>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
> >>>>
> >>>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 12-Aug-21 10:09 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>>>
>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>
>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
>
> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then develop the math based on this physical model. MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.

Until you have the math to back that up, it's just speculation, and your
belief that it's more than that is a delusion.

Sylvia.

On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 14:10:53 UTC+2, Sylvia Else wrote:

> Until you have the math to back that up

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that You
had to deny its oldest part, as it didn't want to fit Your
Holiest Postulate.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
>>>>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
>>>>>
>>>>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
>>>>> then develop the math based on this physical model.
>>>> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.
>>>
>>> But developing the physical model then the math is such easier.
>> But both are still required before you even have a physics theory. Not just
>> the first one.
>
> If you did the math first, if could lead you to a sea of non-existing
> abstract mathematical objects that, in turn, will lead to more
> non-existing mathematical objects. This process goes on without reaching
> the final goal of a valid TOE.

No, Ken, this is an excuse. You are looking for excuses to avoid
mathematics, simply because you don’t know how to do it. People like you
without math skills use all sorts of excuses, like math is not reality,
math produces abstractions, math can be used to justify anything, math is
just calculation detail best left to technicians while great thinkers do
the concepts. All of those are bullshit. Just excuses.

> Whereas, I did the physical model first. The math based on this physical model followed,

Except that it DID NOT follow. You derived NO MATH from the physical model.
You didn’t do any derivations because you don’t know how to.

ANY physical theory requires BOTH the elaboration of physical concepts AND
the derivation of the math from them. You can’t just do the first, call it
a physical theory, and hoot that someone else will do the math. Then it’s
not a physics theory.

> I was able to come up with a valid TOE easily. The best thing about my
> approach is that there is no unlimited abstract mathematical objects
> because the physical model set a boundary on which the math can extend.
>>
>> The goal is produce a legitimate physics theory, not just do the easy part
>> you think you can do. A legitimate physics theory always includes both. You
>> don’t have both. So you don’t have a legitimate physics theory.
>
> So why physicists can’t find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying?
> Explanation: the math is so complex that they were not able to deal with reality.

Ken, I’ve elaborated for you many times that physics is hard, and you have
your facts wrong.

The search for a unified field theory did not start in 1905. Special
relativity was not an attempt to unify the forces of nature. Neither was GR
in 1915. Both those were well before anyone even understood that there were
strong and weak nuclear forces to be included in any unification. The first
successful steps to unifying field theories did not happen until the 1960s.
So it is NOT TRUE that people have been trying to find a TOE for 110 years.
You simply have that wrong.

But secondly, it took CENTURIES to get a decent description of just ONE
force — electromagnetism. It also took CENTURIES to get a decent
description of just ONE OTHER force — gravity.

I have no idea why you think physics should be easy and all done in a few
months. Physics is not chemical engineering where you just work on
something for a few months and BINGO, you’ve got a new invention. It never
has been. That doesn’t make physics a failure. It just means it’s harder
than what you’re used to.

>>
>>> The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
>>>>> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
>>>>> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
>>>>> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
>>>>> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
>>>>> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
>>>> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
>>>> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
>>>> side of it is more important.
>>>>> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
>>>> And that tanked, didn’t it?
>>>>> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pretty pictures, words,
>>>>>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
>>>>>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
> >>>>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
> >>>>> then develop the math based on this physical model.
> >>>> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.
> >>>
> >>> But developing the physical model then the math is such easier.
> >> But both are still required before you even have a physics theory. Not just
> >> the first one.
> >
> > If you did the math first, if could lead you to a sea of non-existing
> > abstract mathematical objects that, in turn, will lead to more
> > non-existing mathematical objects. This process goes on without reaching
> > the final goal of a valid TOE.
> No, Ken, this is an excuse. You are looking for excuses to avoid
> mathematics, simply because you don’t know how to do it. People like you
> without math skills use all sorts of excuses, like math is not reality,
> math produces abstractions, math can be used to justify anything, math is
> just calculation detail best left to technicians while great thinkers do
> the concepts. All of those are bullshit. Just excuses.

What you said is bullshit. Physical model sets the boundary within which the math operates. The current development of physics is based on math alone and that’s why physicists failed to arrive at a valid TOE after 110 years of trying. The math based on the physical model of MM can easily lead to a valid TOE quickly.

> > Whereas, I did the physical model first. The math based on this physical model followed,
> Except that it DID NOT follow. You derived NO MATH from the physical model.
> You didn’t do any derivations because you don’t know how to.
Yes it did follow. That’s how I derived the MM theory of gravity. There is math in MM theory of gravity.
>
> ANY physical theory requires BOTH the elaboration of physical concepts AND
> the derivation of the math from them.

Yes but if you start off on math first you will never be able to arrive at a valid TOE.

>You can’t just do the first, call it
> a physical theory,
MM is a physical theory.....live with it.

>and hoot that someone else will do the math. Then it’s
> not a physics theory.

> > I was able to come up with a valid TOE easily. The best thing about my
> > approach is that there is no unlimited abstract mathematical objects
> > because the physical model set a boundary on which the math can extend.
> >>
> >> The goal is produce a legitimate physics theory, not just do the easy part
> >> you think you can do. A legitimate physics theory always includes both.. You
> >> don’t have both. So you don’t have a legitimate physics theory.
> >
> > So why physicists can’t find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying?
> > Explanation: the math is so complex that they were not able to deal with reality.
> Ken, I’ve elaborated for you many times that physics is hard, and you have
> your facts wrong.
>
> The search for a unified field theory did not start in 1905. Special
> relativity was not an attempt to unify the forces of nature. Neither was GR
> in 1915. Both those were well before anyone even understood that there were
> strong and weak nuclear forces to be included in any unification. The first
> successful steps to unifying field theories did not happen until the 1960s.
> So it is NOT TRUE that people have been trying to find a TOE for 110 years.
> You simply have that wrong.
>
> But secondly, it took CENTURIES to get a decent description of just ONE
> force — electromagnetism. It also took CENTURIES to get a decent
> description of just ONE OTHER force — gravity.
>
> I have no idea why you think physics should be easy and all done in a few
> months. Physics is not chemical engineering where you just work on
> something for a few months and BINGO, you’ve got a new invention. It never
> has been. That doesn’t make physics a failure. It just means it’s harder
> than what you’re used to.
> >>
> >>> The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
> >>>>> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
> >>>>> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
> >>>>> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
> >>>>> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> >>>>> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
> >>>> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
> >>>> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
> >>>> side of it is more important.
> >>>>> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
> >>>> And that tanked, didn’t it?
> >>>>> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Pretty pictures, words,
> >>>>>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
> >>>>>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> 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 Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 12-Aug-21 10:09 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >>>
> >> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
> >
> >> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
> >
> > The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then develop the math based on this physical model. MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> Until you have the math to back that up, it's just speculation, and your
> belief that it's more than that is a delusion.

MM has a valid theory of gravity with math.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
>>>>>>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
>>>>>>> then develop the math based on this physical model.
>>>>>> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.
>>>>>
>>>>> But developing the physical model then the math is such easier.
>>>> But both are still required before you even have a physics theory. Not just
>>>> the first one.
>>>
>>> If you did the math first, if could lead you to a sea of non-existing
>>> abstract mathematical objects that, in turn, will lead to more
>>> non-existing mathematical objects. This process goes on without reaching
>>> the final goal of a valid TOE.
>> No, Ken, this is an excuse. You are looking for excuses to avoid
>> mathematics, simply because you don’t know how to do it. People like you
>> without math skills use all sorts of excuses, like math is not reality,
>> math produces abstractions, math can be used to justify anything, math is
>> just calculation detail best left to technicians while great thinkers do
>> the concepts. All of those are bullshit. Just excuses.
>
> What you said is bullshit. Physical model sets the boundary within which
> the math operates. The current development of physics is based on math
> alone and that’s why physicists failed to arrive at a valid TOE after 110
> years of trying. The math based on the physical model of MM can easily
> lead to a valid TOE quickly.

No, Ken, this is your FANTASY about what physics is like.
And the current development is NOT based on math first, it is based on
physical models first. But the math DERIVATION is always included. Yours
does not.

>
>>> Whereas, I did the physical model first. The math based on this physical model followed,
>> Except that it DID NOT follow. You derived NO MATH from the physical model.
>> You didn’t do any derivations because you don’t know how to.
>
> Yes it did follow. That’s how I derived the MM theory of gravity. There
> is math in MM theory of gravity.

No, Ken, you did not derive any math. Writing down a math equation is not
deriving the math.

I gather you think you did, because you don’t know what a mathematical
derivation even looks like.

>>
>> ANY physical theory requires BOTH the elaboration of physical concepts AND
>> the derivation of the math from them.
>
> Yes but if you start off on math first you will never be able to arrive at a valid TOE.
>
>> You can’t just do the first, call it
>> a physical theory,
> MM is a physical theory.....live with it.
>
>> and hoot that someone else will do the math. Then it’s
>> not a physics theory.
>
>>> I was able to come up with a valid TOE easily. The best thing about my
>>> approach is that there is no unlimited abstract mathematical objects
>>> because the physical model set a boundary on which the math can extend.
>>>>
>>>> The goal is produce a legitimate physics theory, not just do the easy part
>>>> you think you can do. A legitimate physics theory always includes both. You
>>>> don’t have both. So you don’t have a legitimate physics theory.
>>>
>>> So why physicists can’t find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying?
>>> Explanation: the math is so complex that they were not able to deal with reality.
>> Ken, I’ve elaborated for you many times that physics is hard, and you have
>> your facts wrong.
>>
>> The search for a unified field theory did not start in 1905. Special
>> relativity was not an attempt to unify the forces of nature. Neither was GR
>> in 1915. Both those were well before anyone even understood that there were
>> strong and weak nuclear forces to be included in any unification. The first
>> successful steps to unifying field theories did not happen until the 1960s.
>> So it is NOT TRUE that people have been trying to find a TOE for 110 years.
>> You simply have that wrong.
>>
>> But secondly, it took CENTURIES to get a decent description of just ONE
>> force — electromagnetism. It also took CENTURIES to get a decent
>> description of just ONE OTHER force — gravity.
>>
>> I have no idea why you think physics should be easy and all done in a few
>> months. Physics is not chemical engineering where you just work on
>> something for a few months and BINGO, you’ve got a new invention. It never
>> has been. That doesn’t make physics a failure. It just means it’s harder
>> than what you’re used to.
>>>>
>>>>> The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
>>>>>>> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
>>>>>>> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
>>>>>>> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
>>>>>>> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
>>>>>>> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
>>>>>> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
>>>>>> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
>>>>>> side of it is more important.
>>>>>>> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
>>>>>> And that tanked, didn’t it?
>>>>>>> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, words,
>>>>>>>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
>>>>>>>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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 Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 12-Aug-21 10:09 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
>>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
>>>
>>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
>>>
>>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe
>>> then develop the math based on this physical model. MM is the correct
>>> physical model because it is able to explain all the forces of nature
>>> by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the processes of
>>> nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles or
>>> S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
>> Until you have the math to back that up, it's just speculation, and your
>> belief that it's more than that is a delusion.
>
> MM has a valid theory of gravity with math.
>
>

Writing an equation down is not doing the math, Ken.

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

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 14:58:59 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> No, Ken, this is your FANTASY about what physics is like.
> And the current development is NOT based on math first

It is actually rejecting the oldest math existing, as it didn't want to
fit Giant Guru's Holy Postulates.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:59:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 8:10:53 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 12-Aug-21 10:09 pm, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
> >>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
> >>>
> >>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
> >>>
> >>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe
> >>> then develop the math based on this physical model. MM is the correct
> >>> physical model because it is able to explain all the forces of nature
> >>> by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the processes of
> >>> nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles or
> >>> S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> >> Until you have the math to back that up, it's just speculation, and your
> >> belief that it's more than that is a delusion.
> >
> > MM has a valid theory of gravity with math.
> >
> >
> Writing an equation down is not doing the math, Ken.
Why writing down an equation based on my physical model is not doing the math?

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 8:58:59 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, August 13, 2021 at 11:32:00 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:44:38 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:47:09 PM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 04-Aug-21 4:07 am, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The paper in the following link shows how the concept of absolute
> >>>>>>>>> motion is capable of unifying all the forces (including gravity) of nature.
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2019unification.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You seem to lack any understanding of what a unification looks like.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Unification have to have both physical model and math.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The correct procedure is to develop the physical model of our universe then the math
> >>>>>>> then develop the math based on this physical model.
> >>>>>> And both are required in physics. BOTH. Not just the first one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But developing the physical model then the math is such easier.
> >>>> But both are still required before you even have a physics theory. Not just
> >>>> the first one.
> >>>
> >>> If you did the math first, if could lead you to a sea of non-existing
> >>> abstract mathematical objects that, in turn, will lead to more
> >>> non-existing mathematical objects. This process goes on without reaching
> >>> the final goal of a valid TOE.
> >> No, Ken, this is an excuse. You are looking for excuses to avoid
> >> mathematics, simply because you don’t know how to do it. People like you
> >> without math skills use all sorts of excuses, like math is not reality,
> >> math produces abstractions, math can be used to justify anything, math is
> >> just calculation detail best left to technicians while great thinkers do
> >> the concepts. All of those are bullshit. Just excuses.
> >
> > What you said is bullshit. Physical model sets the boundary within which
> > the math operates. The current development of physics is based on math
> > alone and that’s why physicists failed to arrive at a valid TOE after 110
> > years of trying. The math based on the physical model of MM can easily
> > lead to a valid TOE quickly.
> No, Ken, this is your FANTASY about what physics is like.
> And the ce macurrent development is NOT based on math first, it is based on
> physical models first. But the math DERIVATION is always included. Yours
> does not.

ROTFLOL, I agree, except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
> >
> >>> Whereas, I did the physical model first. The math based on this physical model followed,
> >> Except that it DID NOT follow. You derived NO MATH from the physical model.
> >> You didn’t do any derivations because you don’t know how to.
> >
> > Yes it did follow. That’s how I derived the MM theory of gravity. There
> > is math in MM theory of gravity.
> No, Ken, you did not derive any math. Writing down a math equation is not
> deriving the math.
>
> I gather you think you did, because you don’t know what a mathematical
> derivation even looks like.
> >>
> >> ANY physical theory requires BOTH the elaboration of physical concepts AND
> >> the derivation of the math from them.
> >
> > Yes but if you start off on math first you will never be able to arrive at a valid TOE.
> >
> >> You can’t just do the first, call it
> >> a physical theory,
> > MM is a physical theory.....live with it.
> >
> >> and hoot that someone else will do the math. Then it’s
> >> not a physics theory.
> >
> >>> I was able to come up with a valid TOE easily. The best thing about my
> >>> approach is that there is no unlimited abstract mathematical objects
> >>> because the physical model set a boundary on which the math can extend.
> >>>>
> >>>> The goal is produce a legitimate physics theory, not just do the easy part
> >>>> you think you can do. A legitimate physics theory always includes both. You
> >>>> don’t have both. So you don’t have a legitimate physics theory.
> >>>
> >>> So why physicists can’t find a valid TOE after 110 years of trying?
> >>> Explanation: the math is so complex that they were not able to deal with reality.
> >> Ken, I’ve elaborated for you many times that physics is hard, and you have
> >> your facts wrong.
> >>
> >> The search for a unified field theory did not start in 1905. Special
> >> relativity was not an attempt to unify the forces of nature. Neither was GR
> >> in 1915. Both those were well before anyone even understood that there were
> >> strong and weak nuclear forces to be included in any unification. The first
> >> successful steps to unifying field theories did not happen until the 1960s.
> >> So it is NOT TRUE that people have been trying to find a TOE for 110 years.
> >> You simply have that wrong.
> >>
> >> But secondly, it took CENTURIES to get a decent description of just ONE
> >> force — electromagnetism. It also took CENTURIES to get a decent
> >> description of just ONE OTHER force — gravity.
> >>
> >> I have no idea why you think physics should be easy and all done in a few
> >> months. Physics is not chemical engineering where you just work on
> >> something for a few months and BINGO, you’ve got a new invention. It never
> >> has been. That doesn’t make physics a failure. It just means it’s harder
> >> than what you’re used to.
> >>>>
> >>>>> The current model based on mathematical objects will lead to dead ends.
> >>>>>>> MM is the correct physical model because it is able to explain all the
> >>>>>>> forces of nature by the simple postulate that: All the forces and all the
> >>>>>>> processes of nature are the result of absolute motions of the S-Particles
> >>>>>>> or S-Particles systems in the E-Matrix.
> >>>>>>> I didn’t claim that I am capable of develop the math with MM.
> >>>>>> And because you are not capable, what you have produced doesn’t meet the
> >>>>>> bar of a physics model, where both are required. In fact, the mathematical
> >>>>>> side of it is more important.
> >>>>>>> I was hoping that some bright physicists without predacious will do so.
> >>>>>> And that tanked, didn’t it?
> >>>>>>> After all develop a correct TOE is all of our goal.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Pretty pictures, words,
> >>>>>>>> and hand-waving do not a unified theory make.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You need math. Lots of it. And you need to show how the existing
> >>>>>>>> mathematical descriptions come from your unified theory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Without that, all you have is self-delusion.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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