A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf

This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).

kenseto wrote:
> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation.pdf
>
> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).

The link does not work.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>
> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we
> have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>

The one equation in there is obviously not manifestly covariant, and so it
is dead in the water. All theories known to be correct exhibit manifest
covariance.

The author of the paper above has no idea what “manifestly covariant”
means. But then again, he doesn’t know what “event” or “reference frame” or
“acceleration” or a large number of other physics terms mean, either.

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

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:04:40 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> > http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation.pdf
> >
> > This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> The link does not work.
Moron you changed the link. What are you afraid of anyway?
ROTFLOL....Are you afraid of that my theory will refute Einstein's shit?

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
> >
> > This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> > other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we
> > have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> > possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >
> The one equation in there is obviously not manifestly covariant, and so it
> is dead in the water. All theories known to be correct exhibit manifest
> covariance.

It is obvious that you don't know what covariance mean.
>
> The author of the paper above has no idea what “manifestly covariant”
> means. But then again, he doesn’t know what “event” or “reference frame” or
> “acceleration” or a large number of other physics terms mean, either.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:04:40 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> kenseto wrote:
>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation.pdf
>>>
>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>> we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>> The link does not work.
>
> Moron you changed the link. What are you afraid of anyway?
> ROTFLOL....Are you afraid of that my theory will refute Einstein's shit?
>

How do you think refutation of a scientific theory happens, Ken?

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

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:04:40 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> kenseto wrote:
> >>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> >>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation..pdf
> >>>
> >>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> >>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
> >>> we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> >>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >> The link does not work.
> >
> > Moron you changed the link. What are you afraid of anyway?
> > ROTFLOL....Are you afraid of that my theory will refute Einstein's shit?
> >
> How do you think refutation of a scientific theory happens, Ken?

Answer a question with a question means that you don't understand what covariance mean.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>>
>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we
>>> have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>
>> The one equation in there is obviously not manifestly covariant, and so it
>> is dead in the water. All theories known to be correct exhibit manifest
>> covariance.
>
> It is obvious that you don't know what covariance mean.

I know this game of yours, Seto.

You don’t even know what acceleration means. You’re not going to know what
covariance means.

>>
>> The author of the paper above has no idea what “manifestly covariant”
>> means. But then again, he doesn’t know what “event” or “reference frame” or
>> “acceleration” or a large number of other physics terms mean, either.
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:04:40 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>>>> we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>> The link does not work.
>>>
>>> Moron you changed the link. What are you afraid of anyway?
>>> ROTFLOL....Are you afraid of that my theory will refute Einstein's shit?
>>>
>> How do you think refutation of a scientific theory happens, Ken?
>
> Answer a question with a question means that you don't understand what covariance mean.

You claim your theory will refute relativity. How do you think relativity
(or any scientific theory) can be refuted?

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

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

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:29:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:04:40 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>> kenseto wrote:
> >>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> >>>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> >>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
> >>>>> we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> >>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >>>> The link does not work.
> >>>
> >>> Moron you changed the link. What are you afraid of anyway?
> >>> ROTFLOL....Are you afraid of that my theory will refute Einstein's shit?
> >>>
> >> How do you think refutation of a scientific theory happens, Ken?
> >
> > Answer a question with a question means that you don't understand what covariance mean.
> You claim your theory will refute relativity. How do you think relativity
> (or any scientific theory) can be refuted?

I said that my theory can replace replace GRT in all applications.

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
> >>>
> >>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> >>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we
> >>> have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> >>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >>>
> >> The one equation in there is obviously not manifestly covariant, and so it
> >> is dead in the water. All theories known to be correct exhibit manifest
> >> covariance.
> >
> > It is obvious that you don't know what covariance mean.
> I know this game of yours, Seto.
>
> You don’t even know what acceleration means. You’re not going to know what
> covariance means.

In the contrary, it is you guys don't know what acceleration means,
Changing direction of an object requires the application of a force.
> >>
> >> The author of the paper above has no idea what “manifestly covariant”
> >> means. But then again, he doesn’t know what “event” or “reference frame” or
> >> “acceleration” or a large number of other physics terms mean, either.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:29:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:36:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:04:40 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>>>>> http:∕∕www.modelmechanics.org∕gravityequation.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>>>>>> we have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>>>> The link does not work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moron you changed the link. What are you afraid of anyway?
>>>>> ROTFLOL....Are you afraid of that my theory will refute Einstein's shit?
>>>>>
>>>> How do you think refutation of a scientific theory happens, Ken?
>>>
>>> Answer a question with a question means that you don't understand what covariance mean.
>> You claim your theory will refute relativity. How do you think relativity
>> (or any scientific theory) can be refuted?
>
> I said that my theory can replace replace GRT in all applications.
>
>

That is not refutation.

But speaking of replacement, can you calculate your with your theory what
the clock rescaling factor should be for the James Webb telescope. GR can.
So show yours can replace it.

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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 5:23:21 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we
>>>>> have a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>>>
>>>> The one equation in there is obviously not manifestly covariant, and so it
>>>> is dead in the water. All theories known to be correct exhibit manifest
>>>> covariance.
>>>
>>> It is obvious that you don't know what covariance mean.
>> I know this game of yours, Seto.
>>
>> You don’t even know what acceleration means. You’re not going to know what
>> covariance means.
>
> In the contrary, it is you guys don't know what acceleration means,

That’s a delusion.

> Changing direction of an object requires the application of a force.

Nonsequitur.

>>>>
>>>> The author of the paper above has no idea what “manifestly covariant”
>>>> means. But then again, he doesn’t know what “event” or “reference frame” or
>>>> “acceleration” or a large number of other physics terms mean, either.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>
> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).

ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away from this thread. How come??

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>
>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>
> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
> from this thread. How come??
>

I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.

Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
in general.

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

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> >> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
> >>
> >> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> >> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
> >> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> >> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >
> > ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
> > from this thread. How come??
> >
> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.

You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
>
> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
> in general.

My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of nature......that is a waste of time?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>>>
>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
>>> from this thread. How come??
>>>
>> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.
>
> You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
>>
>> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
>> in general.
>
> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
> nature......that is a waste of time?

No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
in the water.

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

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

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> >>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
> >>>>
> >>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> >>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
> >>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> >>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
> >>> from this thread. How come??
> >>>
> >> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.
> >
> > You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
> >>
> >> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
> >> in general.
> >
> > My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
> > nature......that is a waste of time?
> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
> in the water.

Yes it is. Besides the false concept of covariant is derive from Einsteins false postulate.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>>>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
>>>>> from this thread. How come??
>>>>>
>>>> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.
>>>
>>> You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
>>>>
>>>> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
>>>> in general.
>>>
>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
>> in the water.
>
> Yes it is.

No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.

> Besides the false concept of covariant is derive from Einsteins false postulate.

Nope.

>
>

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

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
> >>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
> >>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
> >>>>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
> >>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
> >>>>> from this thread. How come??
> >>>>>
> >>>> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.
> >>>
> >>> You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
> >>>>
> >>>> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
> >>>> in general.
> >>>
> >>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
> >>> nature......that is a waste of time?
> >> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
> >> in the water.
> >
> > Yes it is.
> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.

If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations are not covariance.
It is appears you don't know what the word means.
> > Besides the false concept of covariant is derive from Einsteins false postulate.
> Nope.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>>>>>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
>>>>>>> from this thread. How come??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
>>>>>> in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
>>>> in the water.
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.
>
> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations are not covariance.

All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.

> It is appears you don't know what the word means.

3rd ground playground behavior, Ken.

>>> Besides the false concept of covariant is derive from Einsteins false postulate.
>> Nope.
>
>

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

Le 02/04/2022 à 02:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.

Do you know, dear Odd Bodkin, that the theory of relativity is a superb
theory, and that one of its beauties is its principle of covariance?

Of course you do, you know that.

Because you're not stupid.

But there's one thing that's going to confuse you, because with that, I'm
confusing the whole universe, and
that like a little David the stone that I place in the middle of the
forehead of the entire scientific community, makes them all mad and dumb.

Listen to me carefully.

Listen to me honestly.

"The notion of covariance is so strong and so beautiful in Hachel, that
even in apparent speeds (this is what the two protagonists see in their
super-telescopes) remain perfectly covariant".

This is not the case with relativists, whatever they say.

I have always challenged them to show me how they manage to obtain a point
of view covariance as precise and beautiful as mine.

I have always heard the sweet song of the cicadas.

Between insults, defamation, threats, and harassment.

Life-size human bullshit on usenet.

I assure you it's true.

Immediate proof: if you want to drive a relativist crazy, ask him to
explain how a proper time of 9 years can correspond, with respect to an
apparent speed of 4c, to something other than a distance of 36
light-years.

The guy is going crazy.

Going mad, he becomes mean, insulting, and grotesque.

R.H.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 02/04/2022 à 02:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.
>
> Do you know, dear Odd Bodkin, that the theory of relativity is a superb
> theory, and that one of its beauties is its principle of covariance?
>
> Of course you do, you know that.
>
> Because you're not stupid.

Stupidity has nothing to do with it. Having read a number of things in
books has a lot to do with it. When are you going to try that?

>
> But there's one thing that's going to confuse you, because with that, I'm
> confusing the whole universe, and
> that like a little David the stone that I place in the middle of the
> forehead of the entire scientific community, makes them all mad and dumb.

Don’t flatter yourself.

>
> Listen to me carefully.
>
> Listen to me honestly.
>
> "The notion of covariance is so strong and so beautiful in Hachel, that
> even in apparent speeds (this is what the two protagonists see in their
> super-telescopes) remain perfectly covariant".

So you don’t know what the word means either.

>
> This is not the case with relativists, whatever they say.
>
> I have always challenged them to show me how they manage to obtain a point
> of view covariance as precise and beautiful as mine.
>
> I have always heard the sweet song of the cicadas.
>
> Between insults, defamation, threats, and harassment.
>
> Life-size human bullshit on usenet.
>
> I assure you it's true.
>
> Immediate proof: if you want to drive a relativist crazy, ask him to
> explain how a proper time of 9 years can correspond, with respect to an
> apparent speed of 4c, to something other than a distance of 36
> light-years.
>
> The guy is going crazy.
>
> Going mad, he becomes mean, insulting, and grotesque.
>
> R.H.
>

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

On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 03:09:34 UTC+2, Richard Hachel wrote:
> Le 02/04/2022 à 02:18, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
> > All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.
> Do you know, dear Odd Bodkin, that the theory of relativity is a superb
> theory, and that one of its beauties is its principle of covariance?

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by it, ugly TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious
clocks always did.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link:
>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the
>>>>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally
>>>>>>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the
>>>>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away
>>>>>>> from this thread. How come??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time
>>>>>> in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
>>>> in the water.
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.
>
> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations are not covariance.

Newton’s is not. That’s one of the reasons it got replaced.
Einstein’s is.
Yours is not.

> It is appears you don't know what the word means.
>>> Besides the false concept of covariant is derive from Einsteins false postulate.
>> Nope.
>
>

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