The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.

1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.

2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.

3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of the interacting objects.

4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.

5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.

6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>
> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>
> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>
> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> the interacting objects.
>
> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>
> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>
> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>

Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
stick — not one stick — of physics.

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

On 4/19/2022 6:33 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.

No, Stupid Ken. Disbelieving assertions is nothing like denying your
mother.
>
> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.

Assertion, so worthless to science.
>
> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.

Also an assertion.
>
> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of the interacting objects.

Assertion.
>
> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.

Assertion.
>
> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.

Assertion.
>
> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> http://www.mоdelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Link doesn't work.

Ken Seto wrote:
> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.

Well, quite the opposite actually. This is one of most important
breakthrough in human knowledge. It took some time (from Aristotle
to Galileo) to admit that only relative motion makes sense to begin
with, that without such a principle acting the very concept of a
stable, predictable reality cannot stand (so no particles, matter,
stars, planets, life, you).

> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.

It's not, not at all. Anyway the woman who gave you birth could actually
not be your genetic mother.

Le 20/04/2022 à 00:52, Python a écrit :

> Anyway the woman who gave you birth could actually
> not be your genetic mother.

T'as trouvé ça tout seul?

Par ailleurs, il n'a pas dit ça.

Il a dit la mère qui t'as donné la vie.

T'es sûr que tu ne souffres pas d'un problème d'agressivité?

Nan, je déconne.

R.H.

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 00:52:58 UTC+2, Python wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
> > The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> Well, quite the opposite actually. This is one of most important

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 Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> > It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
> >
> > 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> > interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
> >
> > 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> > interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> > E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> > direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> > interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
> >
> > 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> > the interacting objects.
> >
> > 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> > "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
> >
> > 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
> >
> > 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >
> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
> stick — not one stick — of physics.

Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto wrote:

>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not
>> learned a stick — not one stick — of physics.
>
> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> physics.....not a stick. <sad>

To make talk shorter, math relationships are shown about the physics. You
are so stupid, all you do is talk. Like the fool you are. Stop talking and
show logical relationships, which are NEW, as you say. You lying bitch.
They bombed your shithole country with two nuclear bombs.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>
>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>>>
>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>
>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>> the interacting objects.
>>>
>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>
>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>
>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>
>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>
> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> physics.....not a stick. <sad>

Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
real physics is.

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

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

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>>
>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>>>>
>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>>
>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>>> the interacting objects.
>>>>
>>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>>
>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>>
>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>>
>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>>
>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>
> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> real physics is.

I once coached junior league soccer and there was one parent that always
caused grief. He was an assistant manager at a Wendy’s burger joint, and
everyone knew it, but he always made up stories about his “successful
business ventures” that made him “tons of bucks” and “well known
nationally”, like his coin collecting and precious metals trading, like his
trading Pokémon cards on the international market, like the restaurants he
built from the ground up. Ask him details about these successes and he’d
get angry. Ask him how they failed, and he would always have someone else
to blame. He never once — not once — owned up to any failure on anything.
It was always someone pulling him down or persecuting him or failing to see
the value of what he was doing. He lied to his wife, he lied to his kids,
he taught his kids to brag and lie. He was, frankly, one of the most dismal
human beings I’ve ever personally had to deal with.

Sound familiar, Ken?

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

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

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 22:42:12 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> real physics is.

And real time is what real clocks indicate - t'=t. Not what
some insane crazie has gedanken.

On Wednesday, 20 April 2022 at 22:56:29 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions..
> >>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> >>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> >>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> >>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> >>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> >>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> >>>> the interacting objects.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> >>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
> >>>>
> >>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> >>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >>>>
> >>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
> >>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
> >>
> >> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> >> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> >> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
> >
> > Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> > 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> > real physics is.
> I once coached junior league soccer and there was one parent that always
> caused grief. He was an assistant manager at a Wendy’s burger joint, and
> everyone knew it, but he always made up stories about his “successful
> business ventures” that made him “tons of bucks” and “well known
> nationally”, like his coin collecting and precious metals trading, like his
> trading Pokémon cards on the international market, like the restaurants he
> built from the ground up. Ask him details about these successes and he’d
> get angry. Ask him how they failed, and he would always have someone else
> to blame. He never once — not once — owned up to any failure on anything.
> It was always someone pulling him down or persecuting him or failing to see
> the value of what he was doing. He lied to his wife, he lied to his kids,
> he taught his kids to brag and lie. He was, frankly, one of the most dismal
> human beings I’ve ever personally had to deal with.

Unlike Odd Bodkin, who is always pretending to have
some incredible knowledge, but always admits his
failures when asked about its details.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> >>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
> >>>
> >>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> >>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
> >>>
> >>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> >>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> >>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> >>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> >>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
> >>>
> >>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> >>> the interacting objects.
> >>>
> >>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> >>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
> >>>
> >>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
> >>>
> >>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> >>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >>>
> >> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
> >> stick — not one stick — of physics.
> >
> > Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> > light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> > physics.....not a stick. <sad>
> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> real physics is.

No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>>>> the interacting objects.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>>>
>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
>> real physics is.
>
> No it isn't.

You have no say in that.

> Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical
> model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
>

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

On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>>>> the interacting objects.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>>>
>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>>>
>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>>>
>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
>> real physics is.
>
> No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.

Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
physics is.

The atom can move behind light. That relationship makes it an absolute.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> >>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> >>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> >>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> >>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> >>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> >>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> >>>>> the interacting objects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> >>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> >>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
> >>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
> >>>
> >>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> >>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> >>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
> >> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> >> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> >> real physics is.
> >
> > No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
> Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
> definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
> physics is.

All speeds (including the speed of light) are observer dependent.
One-way local speed of light is defined as as constant c.
But OWLS is not measurable . That's why it is defined.

On 4/22/2022 6:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>>>>>> the interacting objects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4. Absolute orbiting motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>>>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
>>>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
>>>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>>>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
>>>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
>>>> real physics is.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
>> Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
>> definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
>> physics is.
>
> All speeds (including the speed of light) are observer dependent.

Your assertion is not evidence. Besides, it is already known (measured)
that the speed of light is constant.

> One-way local speed of light is defined as as constant c.

It was originally measured as a constant c.

> But OWLS is not measurable . That's why it is defined.

No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light has been measured.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 6:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> >>>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> >>>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> >>>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> >>>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> >>>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> >>>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> >>>>>>> the interacting objects.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 4. Absolute motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> >>>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> >>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
> >>>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> >>>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> >>>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
> >>>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> >>>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> >>>> real physics is.
> >>>
> >>> No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
> >> Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
> >> definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
> >> physics is.
> >
> > All speeds (including the speed of light) are observer dependent.
> Your assertion is not evidence. Besides, it is already known (measured)
> that the speed of light is constant.

That's an assertion.The OWLS never been measured.

> > One-way local speed of light is defined as as constant c.
> It was originally measured as a constant c.

That's a lie.

> > But OWLS is not measurable . That's why it is defined.
> No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light has been measured.

No stupid morn, it was never been measured.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 6:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>>>>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>>>>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions
>>>>>>>>> along line joining them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>>>>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>>>>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>>>>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>>>>>>>> the interacting objects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. Absolute motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>>>>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>>>>>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
>>>>>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
>>>>>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>>>>>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
>>>>>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
>>>>>> real physics is.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on
>>>>> real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
>>>> Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
>>>> definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
>>>> physics is.
>>>
>>> All speeds (including the speed of light) are observer dependent.
>> Your assertion is not evidence. Besides, it is already known (measured)
>> that the speed of light is constant.
>
> That's an assertion.The OWLS never been measured.

Untrue. You’ve been told dozens of times. You cannot remember.

>
>>> One-way local speed of light is defined as as constant c.
>> It was originally measured as a constant c.
>
> That's a lie.
>
>>> But OWLS is not measurable . That's why it is defined.
>> No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light has been measured.
>
> No stupid morn, it was never been measured.
>

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

On 4/23/2022 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 6:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
>>>>>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
>>>>>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
>>>>>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
>>>>>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
>>>>>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
>>>>>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
>>>>>>>>> the interacting objects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4. Absolute motions of a fundamental particle, called the
>>>>>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
>>>>>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
>>>>>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
>>>>>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
>>>>>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
>>>>>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
>>>>>> real physics is.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
>>>> Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
>>>> definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
>>>> physics is.
>>>
>>> All speeds (including the speed of light) are observer dependent.
>> Your assertion is not evidence. Besides, it is already known (measured)
>> that the speed of light is constant.
>
> That's an assertion.

Stupid Ken, actual measurements are never assertions.

> The OWLS never been measured.

Stupid Ken, even the *very first* measurement of the speed of light (by
Rømer) was a one way measurement!
>
>>> One-way local speed of light is defined as as constant c.
>> It was originally measured as a constant c.
>
> That's a lie.

Actual measurements are not lies.
>
>>> But OWLS is not measurable . That's why it is defined.
>> No, Stupid Ken. The one way speed of light has been measured.
>
> No stupid morn, it was never been measured.

Rømer measured the one way speed of light in 1676, Stupid Ken.

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 21:03:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/23/2022 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2022 6:43 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2022 1:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:42:12 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:39:16 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> The tragic consequences of denying the existence of absolute motions.
> >>>>>>>>> It's like denying the woman who gave you birth is not your mother.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 1. Absolute motion is the only motion exists. Relative motion between two
> >>>>>>>>> interacting objects is the vector difference of their motions along line joining them.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 2. All the forces of nature are the results of absolute motions of the
> >>>>>>>>> interacting objects in a structured and elastic aether called the
> >>>>>>>>> E-Matrix. Absolute motion of the interacting objects in the same
> >>>>>>>>> direction give rise to an attractive force. Absolute motions of
> >>>>>>>>> interacting objects in the opposite directions give rise to a repulsive force.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 3. All the processes of nature are the results of the absolute motion of
> >>>>>>>>> the interacting objects.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 4. Absolute motions of a fundamental particle, called the
> >>>>>>>>> "S-Particle" formed all the elementary particles such as the electron and quarks.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 5 Absolute motions of interacting objects give rise to a valid TOE.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 6. I invite everybody to read my book in the following link:
> >>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Please recall that this is a book written by someone who has not learned a
> >>>>>>>> stick — not one stick — of physics.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Compare to your knowledge of obsolete Einstein physics ........I am
> >>>>>>> light years ahead of you in real physics. You refuse to learn real
> >>>>>>> physics.....not a stick. <sad>
> >>>>>> Real physics is what physicists say is real physics. Not what some wannabe
> >>>>>> 86-year-old retired CE who has Walter Mitty fantasies about himself says
> >>>>>> real physics is.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No it isn't. Physicists failed to see that real physics is based on real physical model.,,,,,not the abstract mathematical model.
> >>>> Sorry ken, but a nobody such as yourself doesn't get to change the
> >>>> definition of physics. Only actual physicists get to define what
> >>>> physics is.
> >>>
> >>> All speeds (including the speed of light) are observer dependent.
> >> Your assertion is not evidence. Besides, it is already known (measured)
> >> that the speed of light is constant.
> >
> > That's an assertion.
> Stupid Ken, actual measurements are never assertions.
>
> > The OWLS never been measured.
>
> Stupid Ken, even the *very first* measurement of the speed of light (by
> Rømer) was a one way measurement!
> >
> >>> One-way local speed of light is defined as as constant c.
> >> It was originally measured as a constant c.
> >
> > That's a lie.
> Actual measurements are not lies.

But your lies are lies. Very stupid lies of a very
stupid Mike.

> > No stupid morn, it was never been measured.
> Rømer measured the one way speed of light in 1676, Stupid Ken.

As constant c, of course, didn't he, stupid Mike? Well, his
result was about 2/3 c.

On 4/23/2022 3:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 21:03:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/23/2022 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

>>> No stupid morn, it was never been measured.
>> Rømer measured the one way speed of light in 1676, Stupid Ken.
>
> As constant c, of course, didn't he, stupid Mike? Well, his
> result was about 2/3 c.

Which is pretty good for the VERY FIRST attempt to measure light speed,
given the inaccuracy of his clocks and (especially) errors in estimates
of the radii of both Earth's and Jupiter's orbits.

On Sunday, 24 April 2022 at 05:49:24 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/23/2022 3:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 21:03:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2022 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> No stupid morn, it was never been measured.
> >> Rømer measured the one way speed of light in 1676, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > As constant c, of course, didn't he, stupid Mike? Well, his
> > result was about 2/3 c.
> Which is pretty good for the VERY FIRST attempt to measure light speed,

And the result was c, because while it was ~2/3 c - stupid Mike just
knows what it truly was.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 4/23/2022 3:21 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 21:03:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/23/2022 1:02 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >>> No stupid morn, it was never been measured.
> >> Rømer measured the one way speed of light in 1676, Stupid Ken.
> >
> > As constant c, of course, didn't he, stupid Mike? Well, his
> > result was about 2/3 c.
>
> Which is pretty good for the VERY FIRST attempt to measure light speed,
> given the inaccuracy of his clocks and (especially) errors in estimates
> of the radii of both Earth's and Jupiter's orbits.

The ratio of the radii of the orbits was known to much better accuracy.

With some refinements, and correcting some errors,
Roemer's successors did get the timing of the Jovian satellites
right to some tenths of a second.
(and hence the value of the AU in lightseconds)

It was an important test case for Newtonian mechanics at the time,
and a practical tool for establishing the longitude of observatories,
(but not ships)

Jan