On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@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.d

ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory and Einstein's theory as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you excluded my theory not a law of physics?
It appears that you are full of shit.....right?

> > 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

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 10:09:40 AM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@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.d
>
> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton you n's theory and Einstein's theory as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you excluded my theory not a law of physics?
> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
BTW, this show that you don't know what covariance means
>
> > > 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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@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.d
>
> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory

No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
knows this.

> and Einstein's theory

Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
that is.

> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
> excluded my theory not a law of physics?

For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
incapable of quantitative prediction.

> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
>
>>> 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
>

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

On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@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.d
> >
> > ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> knows this.
>
> > and Einstein's theory
>
> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> that is.
How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so? Do you know what covariance mean? It is not a postulated concept. In any case it is not able to refute a theory. So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?

> > as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
> > excluded my theory not a law of physics?
> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
> incapable of quantitative prediction.
> > It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
> >
> >>> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@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.d
>>>
>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>> knows this.
>>
>>> and Einstein's theory
>>
>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>> that is.
> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?

Nope.

> Do you know what covariance mean?

Yes.

> It is not a postulated concept.

That’s right, it’s not.

> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.

Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.

> So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?
>
>>> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
>>> excluded my theory not a law of physics?
>> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
>> incapable of quantitative prediction.
>>> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@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.d
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >> knows this.
> >>
> >>> and Einstein's theory
> >>
> >> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >> that is.
> > How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> Nope.
> > Do you know what covariance mean?
> Yes.

No you don't know. That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
> > It is not a postulated concept.
> That’s right, it’s not.

But you inferred that. Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
> > In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.

So how is my theory violate the laws of nature? You don't know.....you just throw out bull shits as your argument.
> > So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?
> >
> >>> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
> >>> excluded my theory not a law of physics?
> >> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
> >> incapable of quantitative prediction.
> >>> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
> >>>
> >>>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@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.d
> >>>
> >>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >> knows this.
> >>
> >>> and Einstein's theory
> >>
> >> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >> that is.
> > How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> Nope.
> > Do you know what covariance mean?
> Yes.
> > It is not a postulated concept.
> That’s right, it’s not.
> > In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.

Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
halfbrain.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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.d
>>>>>
>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>> knows this.
>>>>
>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>> that is.
>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>> Nope.
>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>> Yes.
>
> No you don't know.

Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?

> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>> That’s right, it’s not.
>
> But you inferred that.

No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.

> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????

First you have to learn what it means.

It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
textbook?

>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>
> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?

It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.

> You don't know.....you just throw out bull shits as your argument.
>>> So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?
>>>
>>>>> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
>>>>> excluded my theory not a law of physics?
>>>> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
>>>> incapable of quantitative prediction.
>>>>> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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:

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.d
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>>> that is.
>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>>> Nope.
>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>>> Yes.
>>
>> No you don't know.
>
> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
>
>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>>> That’s right, it’s not.
>>
>> But you inferred that.
>
> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
>
>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
>
> First you have to learn what it means.
>
> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
> textbook?
>
>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>
>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
>
> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.

hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
it to him... Seto, look it up!

Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
....
>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>
>
> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> halfbrain.

"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
as such.

On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 21:46:42 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >
> >
> > Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > halfbrain.
> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot

Oh, stinker Python is opening its muzzle again,
and trying to pretend he knows something.
Tell me, poor stinker, what is your definition of
a "theory" in the terms of Peano arithmetic?
See: if a theorem is going to be a part of a theory,
it has to be formulable in the language of the
theory. Do you get it? Or are you too stupid even for
that, poor stinker?

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 2:19:25 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> kenseto <set...@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.d
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >>>> knows this.
> >>>>
> >>>>> and Einstein's theory
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >>>> that is.
> >>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> >> Nope.
> >>> Do you know what covariance mean?
> >> Yes.
> >
> > No you don't know.
> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
> > That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
> >>> It is not a postulated concept.
> >> That’s right, it’s not.
> >
> > But you inferred that.
> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
You said you did. In fact you claimed to be an expert in these NG.
> > Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
> First you have to learn what it means.

I looked it up in Wikipedia. So it seems that you need to do so as well.
>
> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
Conservation of momentum is not covariance......not on earth.

> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
> textbook?
>
You don't know that's why you are dodging it.
>
> >>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> >> Yes it is. All laws ohisese f nature are covariant.
> >
> > So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
> > You don't know.....you just throw out bull shits as your argument.
> >>> So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?
> >>>
> >>>>> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
> >>>>> excluded my theory not a law of physics?
> >>>> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
> >>>> incapable of quantitative prediction.
> >>>>> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >
> >
> > Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > halfbrain.
> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> as such.

According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance. So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.d
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >>>>> knows this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and Einstein's theory
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >>>>> that is.
> >>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> >>> Nope.
> >>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
> >>> Yes.
> >>
> >> No you don't know.
> >
> > Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
> >
> >> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
> >>>> It is not a postulated concept.
> >>> That’s right, it’s not.
> >>
> >> But you inferred that.
> >
> > No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
> >
> >> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
> >
> > First you have to learn what it means.
> >
> > It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
> > because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
> > mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
> > example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
> > textbook?
> >
> >>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> >>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>
> >> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
> >
> > It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
> it to him... Seto, look it up!
hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 2:19:25 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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.d
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>>>> that is.
>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>>>> Nope.
>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> No you don't know.
>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
>>>
>>> But you inferred that.
>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
> You said you did. In fact you claimed to be an expert in these NG.

Well, yes, as I said, I learned about covariance from textbooks.

>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
>> First you have to learn what it means.
>
> I looked it up in Wikipedia. So it seems that you need to do so as well.

Really, which covariance article did you look up in Wikipedia? There are
about 10 different ones, all about different things.

This is the problem with trying to learn things from Wikipedia rather than
from a textbook. You don’t know which is the right article to read, and if
you don’t know what the words mean in the article, then it hasn’t helped
you at all, has it?

>>
>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
> Conservation of momentum is not covariance......not on earth.

I didn’t say it was, though oddly enough it does stem from the invariance
of physical laws with spatial translation.

>
>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
>> textbook?
>>
> You don't know that's why you are dodging it.

That’s simply not true. It’s just that I don’t play your third-grade game
of “Bet you can’t do it. If you could do it, you would prove it.”

OK, so let’s see what YOU can do with the same game. Now that you’ve looked
up covariance, what does it mean for the laws of physics?

>>
>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>>>> Yes it is. All laws ohisese f nature are covariant.
>>>
>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
>>> You don't know.....you just throw out bull shits as your argument.
>>>>> So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you
>>>>>>> excluded my theory not a law of physics?
>>>>>> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is
>>>>>> incapable of quantitative prediction.
>>>>>>> It appears that you are full of shit.....right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>> halfbrain.
>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
>> as such.
>
> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.

It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
Newton’s gravitational law is not covariance is like saying “Sheep are not
lion.” It’s crappy English. Please speak English.

> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?

Newton’s law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
doesn’t get the right answers experimentally. It’s a pretty good
approximation, but only an approximation.

>

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> ...
> >>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>> halfbrain.
> >> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> >> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> >> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> >> as such.
> >
> > According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>
> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>
> > So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>
> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> approximation, but only an approximation.

And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
Newton is no longer a good approximation.
Everything you calculate with Newton only
is in direct conflict with observation,

Jan

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.d
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>>>>> that is.
>>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> No you don't know.
>>>
>>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
>>>
>>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
>>>>
>>>> But you inferred that.
>>>
>>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
>>>
>>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
>>>
>>> First you have to learn what it means.
>>>
>>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
>>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
>>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
>>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
>>> textbook?
>>>
>>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>
>>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
>>>
>>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
>> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
>> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
>> it to him... Seto, look it up!
> hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
>

Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
kinds of covariance.

Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?

Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?

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

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 22:54:27 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
> Newton is no longer a good approximation.
> Everything you calculate with Newton only
> is in direct conflict with observation,

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your moronic religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > >>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > >>> halfbrain.
> > >> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> > >> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> > >> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> > >> as such.
> > >
> > > According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >
> > It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> > Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> > lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >
> > > So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >
> > Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> > doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> > approximation, but only an approximation.
> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
> Newton is no longer a good approximation.
> Everything you calculate with Newton only
> is in direct conflict with observation, yX

That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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:
> >>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.d
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >>>>>>> knows this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >>>>>>> that is.
> >>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> >>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>>
> >>>> No you don't know.
> >>>
> >>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
> >>>
> >>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
> >>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
> >>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
> >>>>
> >>>> But you inferred that.
> >>>
> >>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
> >>>
> >>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
> >>>
> >>> First you have to learn what it means.
> >>>
> >>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
> >>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
> >>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
> >>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
> >>> textbook?
> >>>
> >>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> >>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>
> >>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
> >>>
> >>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
> >> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
> >> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
> >> it to him... Seto, look it up!
> > hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
> >
> Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
> read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
> kinds of covariance.
>
> Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
> you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?
>
> Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
> published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
> isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
> and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?

You are a moron......how do we know that your understanding of the word "covariance"
is correct? I think not. All you do is bullshit.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
>>>>> as such.
>>>>
>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>
>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>
>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>
>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
>> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
>> Newton is no longer a good approximation.
>> Everything you calculate with Newton only
>> is in direct conflict with observation, yX
>
> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>
>

That doesn’t help. Fab/Faa is a constant.

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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@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:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.d
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>>>>>>> that is.
>>>>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No you don't know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>>>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>>>>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you inferred that.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
>>>>>
>>>>> First you have to learn what it means.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
>>>>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
>>>>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
>>>>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
>>>>> textbook?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
>>>>>
>>>>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
>>>> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
>>>> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
>>>> it to him... Seto, look it up!
>>> hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
>>>
>> Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
>> read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
>> kinds of covariance.

You can’t type the first sentence in the article you looked up?

>>
>> Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
>> you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?
>>
>> Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
>> published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
>> isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
>> and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?
>
> You are a moron......how do we know that your understanding of the word "covariance"
> is correct?

You’ll NEVER know, because you’ve never read a textbook about it, so you
have no idea what the right answer is, even if it’s expressed to you.

This is your standard third-grade game to try to pump people on a newsgroup
for information. “Bet you can’t.” “How do I know your understanding is
correct?” “Tell us this secret you know.”

When you decide to grow up and read textbooks rather than making excuses,
you’ll learn something. Not before.

> I think not. All you do is bullshit.
>
>

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:01 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>>>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> >>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology.. An
> >>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> >>>>> as such.
> >>>>
> >>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >>>
> >>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> >>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> >>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >>>
> >>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >>>
> >>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> >>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> >>> approximation, but only an approximation.
> >> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
> >> Newton is no longer a good approximation.
> >> Everything you calculate with Newton only
> >> is in direct conflict with observation, yX
> >
> > That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> >
> >
> That doesn’t help. Fab/Faa is a constant.
..
Moron, the moon is moving wrt the earth means that at different time "A" will measure a different {Fab).
Gee you are so stupid and yet tried to claim that you know everything

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:01 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
>>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
>>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
>>>>>>> as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
>>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
>>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
>>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
>>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
>>>> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
>>>> Newton is no longer a good approximation.
>>>> Everything you calculate with Newton only
>>>> is in direct conflict with observation, yX
>>>
>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>>>
>>>
>> That doesn’t help. Fab/Faa is a constant.
> .
> Moron, the moon is moving wrt the earth means that at different time "A"
> will measure a different {Fab).
> Gee you are so stupid and yet tried to claim that you know everything
>
>

Ken, for the record, I have never once claimed that I know everything. I
have never once claimed that I’m the foremost expert on physics in this
newsgroup.

But there is a wide spectrum between knowing nothing and knowing
everything. And I am certain that I know much, much, much more physics than
you do. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of three people who post on
this newsgroup who know less physics than you do. And you have said so
yourself. You’ve said that other people know a lot more physics than you
do, but you call it all “obsolete” physics, and that your ridiculous
oatmeal is “new” physics. The quality of physics is determined by other
people, not by you.

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