A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
and steps forward. Possibly not the ones you were aiming for, but you took
them anyway. Specifically, you’ve now learned:

1. Words matter. There are terms used in physics that don’t mean what you
thought they mean. It’s usually impossible to accurately guess what they
mean, either, even if the guess makes so much sense to you. An example was
“inertial motion” or “inertial reference frame”. And the only way to know
what these terms mean is to read what physicists say it means to them.
Finally, the meaning of the words has to be tackled FIRST, because any
discussion of more advanced topics is going to use those terms and is going
to be useless without a shared understanding of what they mean.

2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.

3. Don’t trust your own head and your own intuition. There are a zillion
very plausible and sensible ideas that turn out to be simply wrong, and
this doesn’t imply faulty logic. It just signifies that not everything
that seems to make sense is right. This is especially true for people new
to a subject area, as they make have a wide collection of wrong
assumptions. You learned this when you found out that inertial motion has
nothing to do with whether the body is being propelled or whether there is
the presence of a propulsive force. It has to do with the net sum of all
forces on the body, aside from the little ones that can be safely ignored
if the context warrants it. You learned that a propelled body can very much
be in inertial motion, even though your instinct said the opposite.

4. Start with the basics. Advanced topics like relativity and quantum
mechanics are fun, but you can’t hope to contribute anything sensible to
those topics without understanding prerequisite concepts. You’ve learned
this with the idea of relative speed between two objects, rather than the
speed of both objects relative to the ground. You’ve learned this about
reference frames, which are actually discussed in physics textbooks about
10% of the way into the book, compared to relativity which is discussed 90%
of the way into the book. You’ve learned there is no shortcut and there is
the NECESSITY of plowing through the first part of the book before you dive
into the last chapters.

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

On Wednesday, 17 November 2021 at 15:29:28 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
> and steps forward. Possibly not the ones you were aiming for, but you took
> them anyway. Specifically, you’ve now learned:
>
> 1. Words matter. There are terms used in physics that don’t mean what you
> thought they mean.

Sorry, Bod, to disappoint you; they still mean what they always
meant. Your bunch of idiots has tried to change them, sure. But
you simply aren't important enough, you only dream about
the power you have.

> 3. Don’t trust your own head and your own intuition.

Stop thinking! Only Gurus are allowed. Well, and some
woodworkers too, of course. Just listen to and obey them.
Their wisdom and knowledge and skill and beauty is
unmatched.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

To Ed Lake: Some words of warning about a woodworker advising you.

> 1. Words matter. There are terms used in physics that don’t mean what you
> thought they mean. It’s usually impossible to accurately guess what they
> mean, either, even if the guess makes so much sense to you. An example was
> “inertial motion” or “inertial reference frame”. And the only way to know
> what these terms mean is to read what physicists say it means to them.
> Finally, the meaning of the words has to be tackled FIRST, because any
> discussion of more advanced topics is going to use those terms and is going
> to be useless without a shared understanding of what they mean.

Words matter, depending on who is using them to makes assessments. For instance, if Bodkin worded something,
a red flashing light should turn on into your head. Bodkin is a failing sophist, who fill lack of experience and knowledge
with carefully written text which occult deception like bobby traps.
> 2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
> carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
> better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
> entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
> off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
> it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
> it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
> internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
> wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
> inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
> discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
> can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.

Textbooks MAY BE valuable, partially. It depends on the credentials of the author and the publishing house.
Textbooks never CAN BE EFFICIENT. It's impossible for any author/editor to cover everything about given topics.
Also editors dispute the ways authors have conducted to express an assertion or a doubt.
With some authors, editors have to be flexible. There are agenda of the publishing house to follow.
If the book is not printed and put to sell, no money comes in.
Finally, it's to the reader to decide what to accept or not.
Would you trust entirely on the advice of you physician and also take those meds?
People have died or worsened their illness for blindly following what the M..D. said and gave to them.
Wise people gather two or three different opinions and base their final decision on a RATIONAL analysis, by their own.
If you are not willing to blindly trust the treatment on your body by an MD, WHY would you trust blindly on treatments on YOUR MIND?
Follow your instincts. Nature gave them to you in order to help you surviving in the wild (eternally).
> 3. Don’t trust your own head and your own intuition. There are a zillion
> very plausible and sensible ideas that turn out to be simply wrong, and
> this doesn’t imply faulty logic. It just signifies that not everything
> that seems to make sense is right. This is especially true for people new
> to a subject area, as they make have a wide collection of wrong
> assumptions. You learned this when you found out that inertial motion has
> nothing to do with whether the body is being propelled or whether there is
> the presence of a propulsive force. It has to do with the net sum of all
> forces on the body, aside from the little ones that can be safely ignored
> if the context warrants it. You learned that a propelled body can very much
> be in inertial motion, even though your instinct said the opposite.

Read the above comments.
Inertial motion is something that a child can understand, because almost experience it physically
on the ice sky arena, being 8 years old. I tell a child that inertial motion is motion without changes in velocity
and the child understand, specially if I make an example by pushing or stopping him/her while skying.
> 4. Start with the basics. Advanced topics like relativity and quantum
> mechanics are fun, but you can’t hope to contribute anything sensible to
> those topics without understanding prerequisite concepts. You’ve learned
> this with the idea of relative speed between two objects, rather than the
> speed of both objects relative to the ground. You’ve learned this about
> reference frames, which are actually discussed in physics textbooks about
> 10% of the way into the book, compared to relativity which is discussed 90%
> of the way into the book. You’ve learned there is no shortcut and there is
> the NECESSITY of plowing through the first part of the book before you dive
> into the last chapters.

Start wherever you want, at your own risk and your method to gain knowledge..

Most people are linear followers, because they are afraid to skip an "important" middle term concept.

Few others, fearless and knowing how spiraled is the development of knowledge, can extract FUNDAMENTALS
from the book, in a random way to explore it.

Then, by recursive methods going back and forth developing layers of knowledge, they
can GAIN a much better understanding by putting in order the FUNDAMENTALS extracted.

Only one word of caution about this: Don't make public what you "LEARNED" until you are sure that you made
enough loops to polish what you PILE UP, by gaining understanding and confidence with successive feedback loops.

Finally, NEVER EVER GIVE UP. EVER!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> To Ed Lake: Some words of warning about a woodworker advising you.
>
>
>> 1. Words matter. There are terms used in physics that don’t mean what you
>> thought they mean. It’s usually impossible to accurately guess what they
>> mean, either, even if the guess makes so much sense to you. An example was
>> “inertial motion” or “inertial reference frame”. And the only way to know
>> what these terms mean is to read what physicists say it means to them.
>> Finally, the meaning of the words has to be tackled FIRST, because any
>> discussion of more advanced topics is going to use those terms and is going
>> to be useless without a shared understanding of what they mean.
>
> Words matter, depending on who is using them to makes assessments. For
> instance, if Bodkin worded something,
> a red flashing light should turn on into your head. Bodkin is a failing
> sophist, who fill lack of experience and knowledge
> with carefully written text which occult deception like bobby traps.
>
>> 2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
>> carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
>> better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
>> entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
>> off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
>> it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
>> it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
>> internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
>> wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
>> inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
>> discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
>> can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.
>
> Textbooks MAY BE valuable, partially. It depends on the credentials of
> the author and the publishing house.
> Textbooks never CAN BE EFFICIENT. It's impossible for any author/editor
> to cover everything about given topics.
> Also editors dispute the ways authors have conducted to express an assertion or a doubt.
> With some authors, editors have to be flexible. There are agenda of the
> publishing house to follow.
> If the book is not printed and put to sell, no money comes in.
> Finally, it's to the reader to decide what to accept or not.
> Would you trust entirely on the advice of you physician and also take those meds?
> People have died or worsened their illness for blindly following what the
> M.D. said and gave to them.
> Wise people gather two or three different opinions and base their final
> decision on a RATIONAL analysis, by their own.
> If you are not willing to blindly trust the treatment on your body by an
> MD, WHY would you trust blindly on treatments on YOUR MIND?
> Follow your instincts. Nature gave them to you in order to help you
> surviving in the wild (eternally).
>
>> 3. Don’t trust your own head and your own intuition. There are a zillion
>> very plausible and sensible ideas that turn out to be simply wrong, and
>> this doesn’t imply faulty logic. It just signifies that not everything
>> that seems to make sense is right. This is especially true for people new
>> to a subject area, as they make have a wide collection of wrong
>> assumptions. You learned this when you found out that inertial motion has
>> nothing to do with whether the body is being propelled or whether there is
>> the presence of a propulsive force. It has to do with the net sum of all
>> forces on the body, aside from the little ones that can be safely ignored
>> if the context warrants it. You learned that a propelled body can very much
>> be in inertial motion, even though your instinct said the opposite.
>
> Read the above comments.
> Inertial motion is something that a child can understand, because almost
> experience it physically
> on the ice sky arena, being 8 years old. I tell a child that inertial
> motion is motion without changes in velocity
> and the child understand, specially if I make an example by pushing or
> stopping him/her while skying.
>
>> 4. Start with the basics. Advanced topics like relativity and quantum
>> mechanics are fun, but you can’t hope to contribute anything sensible to
>> those topics without understanding prerequisite concepts. You’ve learned
>> this with the idea of relative speed between two objects, rather than the
>> speed of both objects relative to the ground. You’ve learned this about
>> reference frames, which are actually discussed in physics textbooks about
>> 10% of the way into the book, compared to relativity which is discussed 90%
>> of the way into the book. You’ve learned there is no shortcut and there is
>> the NECESSITY of plowing through the first part of the book before you dive
>> into the last chapters.
>
> Start wherever you want, at your own risk and your method to gain knowledge.
>
> Most people are linear followers, because they are afraid to skip an
> "important" middle term concept.
>
> Few others, fearless and knowing how spiraled is the development of
> knowledge, can extract FUNDAMENTALS
> from the book, in a random way to explore it.
>
> Then, by recursive methods going back and forth developing layers of knowledge, they
> can GAIN a much better understanding by putting in order the FUNDAMENTALS extracted.
>
> Only one word of caution about this: Don't make public what you "LEARNED"
> until you are sure that you made
> enough loops to polish what you PILE UP, by gaining understanding and
> confidence with successive feedback loops.
>
> Finally, NEVER EVER GIVE UP. EVER!
>

This is a fine example of how a rather poor engineer, for the sake of being
contrarian, is willing to say some particularly stupid things.

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

Op 17-nov.-2021 om 16:43 schreef Richard Hertz:

>
> Finally, NEVER EVER GIVE UP. EVER!

Right, just like the black knight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
and like that other trump:
https://www.amazon.com/Trump-Never-Give-Up-Challenges/dp/0470190841

Dirk Vdm

Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
> and steps forward.

Forget it.
Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
Just wait and see.
And duck.
And cover.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
>> and steps forward.
>
> Forget it.
> Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
> Just wait and see.
> And duck.
> And cover.
>
> Dirk Vdm
>

Well, that may be. But it’s possibly worth it to highlight to him
explicitly positive behaviors, and not just hit him over the head about his
less productive ones.

My youngest apprentice often made the same mistake six times after being
corrected the first time, but at least he could remind himself the last
five times that he knew better.

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

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 6:29:28 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
You rushed. Same cretinisms, see his latest post.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 12:54:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:29:28 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > To Ed Lake: Some words of warning about a woodworker advising you.
> >
> >
> >> 1. Words matter. There are terms used in physics that don’t mean what you
> >> thought they mean. It’s usually impossible to accurately guess what they
> >> mean, either, even if the guess makes so much sense to you. An example was
> >> “inertial motion” or “inertial reference frame”. And the only way to know
> >> what these terms mean is to read what physicists say it means to them.
> >> Finally, the meaning of the words has to be tackled FIRST, because any
> >> discussion of more advanced topics is going to use those terms and is going
> >> to be useless without a shared understanding of what they mean.
> >
> > Words matter, depending on who is using them to makes assessments. For
> > instance, if Bodkin worded something,
> > a red flashing light should turn on into your head. Bodkin is a failing
> > sophist, who fill lack of experience and knowledge
> > with carefully written text which occult deception like bobby traps.
> >
> >> 2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
> >> carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
> >> better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
> >> entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
> >> off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
> >> it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
> >> it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
> >> internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
> >> wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
> >> inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
> >> discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
> >> can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.
> >
> > Textbooks MAY BE valuable, partially. It depends on the credentials of
> > the author and the publishing house.
> > Textbooks never CAN BE EFFICIENT. It's impossible for any author/editor
> > to cover everything about given topics.
> > Also editors dispute the ways authors have conducted to express an assertion or a doubt.
> > With some authors, editors have to be flexible. There are agenda of the
> > publishing house to follow.
> > If the book is not printed and put to sell, no money comes in.
> > Finally, it's to the reader to decide what to accept or not.
> > Would you trust entirely on the advice of you physician and also take those meds?
> > People have died or worsened their illness for blindly following what the
> > M.D. said and gave to them.
> > Wise people gather two or three different opinions and base their final
> > decision on a RATIONAL analysis, by their own.
> > If you are not willing to blindly trust the treatment on your body by an
> > MD, WHY would you trust blindly on treatments on YOUR MIND?
> > Follow your instincts. Nature gave them to you in order to help you
> > surviving in the wild (eternally).
> >
> >> 3. Don’t trust your own head and your own intuition. There are a zillion
> >> very plausible and sensible ideas that turn out to be simply wrong, and
> >> this doesn’t imply faulty logic. It just signifies that not everything
> >> that seems to make sense is right. This is especially true for people new
> >> to a subject area, as they make have a wide collection of wrong
> >> assumptions. You learned this when you found out that inertial motion has
> >> nothing to do with whether the body is being propelled or whether there is
> >> the presence of a propulsive force. It has to do with the net sum of all
> >> forces on the body, aside from the little ones that can be safely ignored
> >> if the context warrants it. You learned that a propelled body can very much
> >> be in inertial motion, even though your instinct said the opposite.
> >
> > Read the above comments.
> > Inertial motion is something that a child can understand, because almost
> > experience it physically
> > on the ice sky arena, being 8 years old. I tell a child that inertial
> > motion is motion without changes in velocity
> > and the child understand, specially if I make an example by pushing or
> > stopping him/her while skying.
> >
> >> 4. Start with the basics. Advanced topics like relativity and quantum
> >> mechanics are fun, but you can’t hope to contribute anything sensible to
> >> those topics without understanding prerequisite concepts. You’ve learned
> >> this with the idea of relative speed between two objects, rather than the
> >> speed of both objects relative to the ground. You’ve learned this about
> >> reference frames, which are actually discussed in physics textbooks about
> >> 10% of the way into the book, compared to relativity which is discussed 90%
> >> of the way into the book. You’ve learned there is no shortcut and there is
> >> the NECESSITY of plowing through the first part of the book before you dive
> >> into the last chapters.
> >
> > Start wherever you want, at your own risk and your method to gain knowledge.
> >
> > Most people are linear followers, because they are afraid to skip an
> > "important" middle term concept.
> >
> > Few others, fearless and knowing how spiraled is the development of
> > knowledge, can extract FUNDAMENTALS
> > from the book, in a random way to explore it.
> >
> > Then, by recursive methods going back and forth developing layers of knowledge, they
> > can GAIN a much better understanding by putting in order the FUNDAMENTALS extracted.
> >
> > Only one word of caution about this: Don't make public what you "LEARNED"
> > until you are sure that you made
> > enough loops to polish what you PILE UP, by gaining understanding and
> > confidence with successive feedback loops.
> >
> > Finally, NEVER EVER GIVE UP. EVER!
> >
> This is a fine example of how a rather poor engineer, for the sake of being
> contrarian, is willing to say some particularly stupid things.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You don't have a fucking idea of what "recursive refinement" is.

For you, Einstein and relativists is how to plagiarize from a better source, once you tell such
source about your idea, for instance.

Then you take that output and feed another smart victim with it, so you get a new output.

You do such thing recursively, until some degree of rationality has been distilled by many in the loop.

Now, you use the final product as if you was the original source (like the parasite Einstein did all his life).

This, of course, is by using social ENGINEERING. If it comes to physical outputs, then you literally plagiarize.

"Recursive refinement" is one of the most powerful tools for development in most branches of engineering.

But what a woodworker would know? Keep advising as Supreme Thinker, and maybe you can dethrone the other asshole, Dirk.
What a pair!

Dono. <eggy20011951@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 6:29:28 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
> You rushed. Same cretinisms, see his latest post.
>

It was still worth trying, even if he’s not able to learn from it.

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

Op 17-nov.-2021 om 17:25 schreef Odd Bodkin:
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
>>> and steps forward.
>>
>> Forget it.
>> Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
>> Just wait and see.
>> And duck.
>> And cover.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>>
>
> Well, that may be. But it’s possibly worth it to highlight to him
> explicitly positive behaviors, and not just hit him over the head about his
> less productive ones.

He just said elsewhere:

" I didn't realize that your NONSENSICAL BELIEFS
" about inertial systems were also in physics textbooks.
" ...
" But now I see you also believe the entire truck is inertial IF
" it is not accelerating. Hilarious!!!!

There you go. Told you so ;-P

>
> My youngest apprentice often made the same mistake six times after being
> corrected the first time, but at least he could remind himself the last
> five times that he knew better.
>

I hope you don't really look at Ed Lake as an apprentice :-)

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 17:25 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
>>>> and steps forward.
>>>
>>> Forget it.
>>> Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
>>> Just wait and see.
>>> And duck.
>>> And cover.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>
>> Well, that may be. But it’s possibly worth it to highlight to him
>> explicitly positive behaviors, and not just hit him over the head about his
>> less productive ones.
>
> He just said elsewhere:
>
> " I didn't realize that your NONSENSICAL BELIEFS
> " about inertial systems were also in physics textbooks.
> " ...
> " But now I see you also believe the entire truck is inertial IF
> " it is not accelerating. Hilarious!!!!
>
> There you go. Told you so ;-P

Yes, you did. Still felt it was worth saying. Even if outcome didn’t
change.

>
>>
>> My youngest apprentice often made the same mistake six times after being
>> corrected the first time, but at least he could remind himself the last
>> five times that he knew better.
>>
>
> I hope you don't really look at Ed Lake as an apprentice :-)

Nah, he’d be fired by now.

>
> Dirk Vdm
>

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

On 11/17/2021 2:31 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 17:25 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important
>>>> realizations
>>>> and steps forward.
>>>
>>> Forget it.
>>> Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
>>> Just wait and see.
>>> And duck.
>>> And cover.
>>>
>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>
>>
>> Well, that may be. But it’s possibly worth it to highlight to him
>> explicitly positive behaviors, and not just hit him over the head
>> about his
>> less productive ones.
>
> He just said elsewhere:
>
> " I didn't realize that your NONSENSICAL BELIEFS
> " about inertial systems were also in physics textbooks.
> " ...
> " But now I see you also believe the entire truck is inertial IF
> " it is not accelerating.  Hilarious!!!!
>
> There you go. Told you so ;-P
>

So did I.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 11/17/2021 2:31 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 17:25 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important
>>>>> realizations
>>>>> and steps forward.
>>>>
>>>> Forget it.
>>>> Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
>>>> Just wait and see.
>>>> And duck.
>>>> And cover.
>>>>
>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, that may be. But it’s possibly worth it to highlight to him
>>> explicitly positive behaviors, and not just hit him over the head
>>> about his
>>> less productive ones.
>>
>> He just said elsewhere:
>>
>> " I didn't realize that your NONSENSICAL BELIEFS
>> " about inertial systems were also in physics textbooks.
>> " ...
>> " But now I see you also believe the entire truck is inertial IF
>> " it is not accelerating.  Hilarious!!!!
>>
>> There you go. Told you so ;-P
>>
>
> So did I.
>

Yes you did.

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2021 2:31 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 17:25 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Op 17-nov.-2021 om 15:29 schreef Odd Bodkin:
>>>>>> A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important
>>>>>> realizations
>>>>>> and steps forward.
>>>>>
>>>>> Forget it.
>>>>> Ed is about to take a larger number of spectacular steps backward now.
>>>>> Just wait and see.
>>>>> And duck.
>>>>> And cover.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, that may be. But it’s possibly worth it to highlight to him
>>>> explicitly positive behaviors, and not just hit him over the head
>>>> about his
>>>> less productive ones.
>>>
>>> He just said elsewhere:
>>>
>>> " I didn't realize that your NONSENSICAL BELIEFS
>>> " about inertial systems were also in physics textbooks.
>>> " ...
>>> " But now I see you also believe the entire truck is inertial IF
>>> " it is not accelerating.  Hilarious!!!!
>>>
>>> There you go. Told you so ;-P
>>>
>>
>> So did I.
>>
>
> Yes you did.
>

And to your point, it does not surprise me at all that Ed would make
choices that would take him down the path to personal ruin, as mentioned by
me previously and following people like Ken Seto, “Koobee Wublee”, John
“NoEinstein” Armitrage and others. All of them published “manifestos” or
“treatises” or self-published books or unmoderated papers, some to
significant expense and all to great personal investment — and for what?

For “free-thinker” self-proclamation and swift digital decay.

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

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:29:28 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

He hasn't learned. Here are some comments he just posted on his site:

Book> In both of these frames, [ground and truck] Newton’s first law is obeyed.
Book> However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
Book> observers, is in a non-inertial frame.

ed> Wow! That is NUTS! A propelled system is inertial???? No way!

Book> Newton's First Law of Motion describes an inertial system this way:
Book> An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in
Book> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by
Book> an unbalanced force.

ed> "Remains" means it goes on forever.

[If you are reading this ed, no, "remains" does not mean "forever". It
means 'for the duration under consideration' ]

ed> A moving truck will not continue moving forever. It will only
ed> continue moving until it runs out of fuel.

Ah, and that is why it is not an inertial system!? <sigh>

ed> they [books] also include total nonsense about what
ed> constitutes an "inertial system."

Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.
Anw, reading his site is quite hilarious.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:40:37 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:29:28 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> He hasn't learned. Here are some comments he just posted on his site:
>
> Book> In both of these frames, [ground and truck] Newton’s first law is obeyed.
> Book> However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
> Book> observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
>
> ed> Wow! That is NUTS! A propelled system is inertial???? No way!
>
> Book> Newton's First Law of Motion describes an inertial system this way:
> Book> An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in
> Book> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by
> Book> an unbalanced force.
>
> ed> "Remains" means it goes on forever.
>
> [If you are reading this ed, no, "remains" does not mean "forever". It
> means 'for the duration under consideration' ]
>
> ed> A moving truck will not continue moving forever. It will only
> ed> continue moving until it runs out of fuel.
>
> Ah, and that is why it is not an inertial system!? <sigh>
>
> ed> they [books] also include total nonsense about what
> ed> constitutes an "inertial system."
>
> Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.
> Anw, reading his site is quite hilarious.

Why do you all argue with a 85 years old person, mocking him all the time?

Have some decency and let this person alone. You all are harassing him, even when he volunteer to be exposed.

Remember that karma is a bitch. Have some decency and prudence. After all, he choose to do something at his age,
after retiring 20 years ago, while most of you are probably half his age. Also, have some respect for the elders.

He doesn't inflict any damage on any of you. Why this canibalistic behavior? Remember, while you are able to, about KARMA.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:40:37 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:29:28 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> He hasn't learned. Here are some comments he just posted on his site:
>>
>>> In both of these frames, [ground and truck] Newton’s first law is obeyed.
>>> However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
>>> observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
>>
>>> Wow! That is NUTS! A propelled system is inertial???? No way!
>>
>>> Newton's First Law of Motion describes an inertial system this way:
>>> An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in
>>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by
>>> an unbalanced force.
>>
>>> "Remains" means it goes on forever.
>>
>> [If you are reading this ed, no, "remains" does not mean "forever". It
>> means 'for the duration under consideration' ]
>>
>>> A moving truck will not continue moving forever. It will only
>>> continue moving until it runs out of fuel.
>>
>> Ah, and that is why it is not an inertial system!? <sigh>
>>
>>> they [books] also include total nonsense about what
>>> constitutes an "inertial system."
>>
>> Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.
>> Anw, reading his site is quite hilarious.
>
> Why do you all argue with a 85 years old person, mocking him all the time?
>
> Have some decency and let this person alone. You all are harassing him,
> even when he volunteer to be exposed.
>
> Remember that karma is a bitch. Have some decency and prudence. After
> all, he choose to do something at his age,
> after retiring 20 years ago, while most of you are probably half his age.
> Also, have some respect for the elders.
>
> He doesn't inflict any damage on any of you. Why this canibalistic
> behavior? Remember, while you are able to, about KARMA.
>
>

Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.

And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
just about anything to increase the volume of the response.

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

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 13:49:34 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 11:40:37 PM UTC-3, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 9:29:28 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> He hasn't learned. Here are some comments he just posted on his site:
> >>
> >>> In both of these frames, [ground and truck] Newton’s first law is obeyed.
> >>> However, the airplane, which is accelerating with respect to both of these
> >>> observers, is in a non-inertial frame.
> >>
> >>> Wow! That is NUTS! A propelled system is inertial???? No way!
> >>
> >>> Newton's First Law of Motion describes an inertial system this way:
> >>> An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in
> >>> motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by
> >>> an unbalanced force.
> >>
> >>> "Remains" means it goes on forever.
> >>
> >> [If you are reading this ed, no, "remains" does not mean "forever". It
> >> means 'for the duration under consideration' ]
> >>
> >>> A moving truck will not continue moving forever. It will only
> >>> continue moving until it runs out of fuel.
> >>
> >> Ah, and that is why it is not an inertial system!? <sigh>
> >>
> >>> they [books] also include total nonsense about what
> >>> constitutes an "inertial system."
> >>
> >> Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.
> >> Anw, reading his site is quite hilarious.
> >
> > Why do you all argue with a 85 years old person, mocking him all the time?
> >
> > Have some decency and let this person alone. You all are harassing him,
> > even when he volunteer to be exposed.
> >
> > Remember that karma is a bitch. Have some decency and prudence. After
> > all, he choose to do something at his age,
> > after retiring 20 years ago, while most of you are probably half his age.
> > Also, have some respect for the elders.
> >
> > He doesn't inflict any damage on any of you. Why this canibalistic
> > behavior? Remember, while you are able to, about KARMA.
> >
> >
> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.

But, for sure, being a Shit's follower gives a license to bark, spit,
slander and mock anyone opposing The Shit. For the cause
of The Shit is right and just. And, of course, its followers
simply like to demonstrate their imagined intellectual advantages
by mocking others; that's the kind of people The Shit is attracting.

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 03:40:37 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:

> Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.

As obvious as that your bunch of idiots has refuted many of them.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 10:46:34 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Why do you all argue with a 85 years old person, mocking him all the time?

Well, I for one, and not mocking him at all. I am very polite and friendly with him, and my discussions with him make him happy.

So once again it looks like that you are a very confused person. You are just looking for and irrelevant discussion.
I am there for reporting you as spam.

On Wednesday, November 17, 2021 at 7:46:34 PM UTC-8, toxic crank Richard Hertz wrote:

> Why do you all argue with a 85 years old person, mocking him all the time?
Because Ed is a toxic crank. Just like you. Except that you are a lot more toxic.

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 03:40:37 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
>
> > Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.
> As obvious as that your bunch of idiots has refuted many of them.

Nope. These are your lies again.

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
>
> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.

Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
isn't above 20%. Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a thread, but need to "contribute"
with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.

At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP. You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.

Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life. You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college.

And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that he's creative in his own way, Also persistent as anyone with an
objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.

How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85. You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.

It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.

And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a table of regular size, for dinner?

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

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 15:02:45 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 8:28:45 AM UTC-5, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 03:40:37 UTC+1, rotchm wrote:
> >
> > > Its obvious that ed refutes all the definitions found in dictionaries.
> > As obvious as that your bunch of idiots has refuted many of them.
> Nope. These are your lies again.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
One of many examples, IMO the most important one.