Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
>

Because you haven’t DERIVED the equation. DERIVING the equation is doing
the math.

As you have already confessed, this is not something you know how to do.
You don’t have math skills. You can’t do arithmetic, you can’t do algebra,
you don’t know what various symbols mean, you can’t derive equations.

Writing equations down is NOT DOING THE MATH.

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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,

Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
not. Yours is not a physics model because of that.

> except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
> exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.

Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
“virtual particles bosons” means.

“I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?

>>>
>>>>> 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
>

On 8/15/2021 6:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 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

Wrong. It is based on the physical observations and experimental
results. But the math is necessary in physics. Ken, since you are
limited by your third grade math ability, why do you bother with a
physics group?

> and that’s why physicists failed to arrive at a valid TOE after 110 years of trying.

Umm, no.

> The math based on the physical model of MM can easily lead to a valid TOE quickly.

There is no math in your Muddle Mechanics! Except a couple of equations
blindly copied.
>
>>> 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.

There is no math in your Muddle Mechanics!

Copying a couple of equations which you don't even understand isn't
"math". You don't have ANY derivations!

>>
>> 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.

And if you have no math at all (like your Muddle Mechanics) you won't
have a theory.
>
>> You can’t just do the first, call it
>> a physical theory,
> MM is a physical theory.....live with it.

It's not even a theory, it has no math derivations or anything.

On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 18:24:54 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/15/2021 6:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> 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
> Wrong. It is based on the physical observations and experimental
> results.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie;
it's based on some delusional postulates of your idiot
guru, of course.

> But the math is necessary in physics. Ken

Is that why you've rejected it when your idiot guru said
his postulates are better?

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:47:24 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, 16 August 2021 at 18:24:54 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 8/15/2021 6:04 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 15, 2021 at 2:49:44 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >>> 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
> > Wrong. It is based on the physical observations and experimental
> > results.
> Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie;
> it's based on some delusional postulates of your idiot
> guru, of course.
> > But the math is necessary in physics. Ken
> Is that why you've rejected it when your idiot guru said

Light EM waves are a double force in the Unified field.

On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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,
> Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
> not.
In that case current physics is not physics because it failed to derive the math for a unified theory physics
>
> > except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
> > exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
> Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
> “virtual particles bosons” means.
But that’s what you said about my model when you don’t know how my model works.
>
> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?

Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
> >>>
> >>>>> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 8/17/2021 8:39 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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,
>> Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
>> not.
> In that case current physics is not physics because it failed to derive the math for a unified theory physics

Nope. Modern physics doesn't claim to have a theory uniting gravitation
with the other forces. If it did claim to have a real theory without
the math (like your Muddle Mechanics) that would be correct. That's why
your Muddle Mechanics isn't physics.
>>
>>> except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
>>> exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
>> Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
>> “virtual particles bosons” means.
> But that’s what you said about my model when you don’t know how my model works.
>>
>> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
>> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
>
> Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?

Since there are no observations or evidence of your EMatrix and S
Particle, it really *is* nonsense.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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,
>> Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
>> not.
> In that case current physics is not physics because it failed to derive
> the math for a unified theory physics

You say physics has failed because it hasn’t finished, tidied everything
up, found the answers for everything. You think that a successful field
should be able to say that it has finished everything.

>>
>>> except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
>>> exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
>> Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
>> “virtual particles bosons” means.
> But that’s what you said about my model when you don’t know how my model works.

Ken, this is stupid. You acknowledge that you do not know anything about
the physics that physicists the world over recognize.

The only thing you know about is the thing you invented that you call “new
physics”, which no physicist would ever call physics at all, and that you
can’t get anyone to pay any attention to.

This somehow means to you that you are on an even-keel stalemate. You don’t
know physics, and no one knows the stuff you made up.

You are flat out insane.

>>
>> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
>> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
>
> Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is
> nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 3:09:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/17/2021 8:39 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 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,
> >> Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
> >> not.
> > In that case current physics is not physics because it failed to derive the math for a unified theory physics
> Nope. Modern physics doesn't claim to have a theory uniting gravitation
> with the other forces. If it did claim to have a real theory without
> the math (like your Muddle Mechanics) that would be correct. That's why
> your Muddle Mechanics isn't physics.
> >>
> >>> except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
> >>> exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
> >> Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
> >> “virtual particles bosons” means.
> > But that’s what you said about my model when you don’t know how my model works.
> >>
> >> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
> >> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
> >
> > Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
> Since there are no observations or evidence of your EMatrix and S
> Particle, it really *is* nonsense.

Since there are no observations or evidence of your spacetime virtual particles, fields, strings..... it really is nonsense.

rvatonalOn Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> 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,
> >> Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
> >> not.
> > In that case current physics is not physics because it failed to derive
> > the math for a unified theory physics
> You say physics has failed because it hasn’t finished, tidied everything
> up, found the answers for everything. You think that a successful field
> should be able to say that it has finished everything.
> >>
> >>> except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
> >>> exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
> >> Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
> >> “virtual particles bosons” means.
> > But that’s what you said about my model when you don’t know how my model works.
> Ken, this is stupid. You acknowledge that you do not know anything about
> the physics that physicists the world over recognize.
>
> The only thing you know about is the thing you invented that you call “new
> physics”, which no physicist would ever call physics at all, and that you
> can’t get anyone to pay any attention to.

Maybe physicists are stupid? Or maybe they are embarrassed?
>
> This somehow means to you that you are on an even-keel stalemate. You don’t
> know physics, and no one knows the stuff you made up.

No, I am ahead of physicists. I was able to come up with a valid TOE. Live with it.
>
> You are flat out insane.
> >>
> >> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
> >> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
> >
> > Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is
> > nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> rvatonalOn Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 12:16:06 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 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,
>>>> Good, you agree that the math DERIVATION is always included and yours does
>>>> not.
>>> In that case current physics is not physics because it failed to derive
>>> the math for a unified theory physics
>> You say physics has failed because it hasn’t finished, tidied everything
>> up, found the answers for everything. You think that a successful field
>> should be able to say that it has finished everything.
>>>>
>>>>> except that the faulty physical model (forces are transmitted by the
>>>>> exchanging of virtual particles bosons) they invented to do the math is false.
>>>> Ken, it’s stupid to say something is false when you don’t even know what
>>>> “virtual particles bosons” means.
>>> But that’s what you said about my model when you don’t know how my model works.
>> Ken, this is stupid. You acknowledge that you do not know anything about
>> the physics that physicists the world over recognize.
>>
>> The only thing you know about is the thing you invented that you call “new
>> physics”, which no physicist would ever call physics at all, and that you
>> can’t get anyone to pay any attention to.
>
> Maybe physicists are stupid? Or maybe they are embarrassed?
>>
>> This somehow means to you that you are on an even-keel stalemate. You don’t
>> know physics, and no one knows the stuff you made up.
>
> No, I am ahead of physicists. I was able to come up with a valid TOE. Live with it.
>>
>> You are flat out insane.

As I said, you’re flat out insane.

>>>>
>>>> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
>>>> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
>>>
>>> Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is
>>> nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On 8/18/2021 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 3:09:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/17/2021 8:39 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
>>>> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
>>>
>>> Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
>> Since there are no observations or evidence of your EMatrix and S
>> Particle, it really *is* nonsense.
>
> Since there are no observations or evidence of your spacetime virtual particles, fields, strings..... it really is nonsense.
>
Stupid Ken, unlike your Muddle Mechanics, the standard model has
mathematical equations which predict what will happen in certain cases
by solving the equations for the specific data. And when this is done,
the predictions DO match what is observed and measured. THIS is the
observations and evidence of the models you mentioned. As to your
Muddle Mechanics, it has no math so no way to predict what happens in
particular situations, so no way to get ANY observations or evidence
from your failed Muddle Mechanics.

As to string theory, apparently the observations and evidence don't
match predictions so that theory will be discarded. And there's nothing
wrong with that.

On Thursday, 19 August 2021 at 05:28:08 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/18/2021 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 3:09:37 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/17/2021 8:39 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Monday, August 16, 2021 at 10:31:51 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>> “I don’t know what a virtual particle is or what a boson is, so it’s
> >>>> nonsense to me. That means it’s false!” Are you NUTS?
> >>>
> >>> Your don’t know what the E-Matrix is and what the S-Particle is so it is nonsense for you to claim my model is false. Are you NUTS?
> >> Since there are no observations or evidence of your EMatrix and S
> >> Particle, it really *is* nonsense.
> >
> > Since there are no observations or evidence of your spacetime virtual particles, fields, strings..... it really is nonsense.
> >
> Stupid Ken, unlike your Muddle Mechanics, the standard model has
> mathematical equations

Speaking of math, it's always good to remind that you had to
deny its oldest part, as it didn't want to fit the madness of
your idiot guru.