Michael Moroney wrote:

>>> 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.

how can it be pretty good, when that WAS the speed of light, not 2/3 of
the speed of light. It was very bad, not pretty good. Amazing with this
morony.

Dong Vassilikos <saox@cowrpsho.rb> wrote:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> >>> 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.
>
> how can it be pretty good, when that WAS the speed of light, not 2/3 of
> the speed of light. It was very bad, not pretty good. Amazing with this
> morony.

No matter how you recon it,
it was a great improvement on 'infinite',

Jan

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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.

They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not constant in the opposite directions.
> >
> >>> 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 Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-4, 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 lie is that no such measurement ever been made. They measured the one-way speed of neutrino in the opposite directions. Why they refuse to measure one-way light speed in the opposite directions between two mountain tops using the same GPS procedure? The answer: Because the one-way light speed in the opposite directions is not constant.
>
> > 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.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>
> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
> constant in the opposite directions.

Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARES whether a retired
chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
convince him.

It’s still true that OWLS has been measured many, many times, and you’ve
been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
repeat the lie that it’s 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.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 4/25/2022 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-4, 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 lie is that no such measurement ever been made.

No, the lie is from YOU. You assert no such measurement has been made,
despite you being told that it has, many times. But you have forgotten
being told, because you are apparently senile.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> >
> > They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
> > can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
> > OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
> > constant in the opposite directions.
> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
> convince him.
>
Physicists are a bunch of liars.......they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
>
> It’s still true that OWLS has been measured many, many times,
That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?
>
>and you’ve
> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
> >>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
> >>>>> One-way l ocal 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:20:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-4, 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 lie is that no such measurement ever been made.
> No, the lie is from YOU. You assert no such measurement has been made,
> despite you being told that it has, many times. But you have forgotten
> being told, because you are apparently senile.

Stupid moron Mike.....where are the results of those tests? Why they refuse to test the OWLS in the opposite directions using the GPS synched clocks (between two mountain tops of course).

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>>>
>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
>> convince him.
>>
> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......

Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.

> they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks
> is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
>>
>> It’s still true that OWLS has been measured many, many times,
> That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?

You’ve been told. And then you forget everything you’re told. And then you
repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.

It’s not useful to try to teach anything to anyone with advancing senility.

>>
>> and you’ve
>> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
>>>>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
>>>>>>> One-way l ocal 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 4/25/2022 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>> That's an assertion.
>>> Stupid Ken, actual measurements are never assertions.
>> The lie is that no such measurement ever been made.
>
> No, the lie is from YOU. You assert no such measurement has been made,
> despite you being told that it has, many times. But you have forgotten
> being told, because you are apparently senile.

agree. He can't remember the two disastrous atomic bombs detonated on his
country.

Putin promises ‘lightning’ response to strategic threats
President warns that Russia won’t hesitate to use ‘weapons that no other
country’ possesses to defend itself.
https://www.rt.com/russia/554619-putin-strategic-threat/

“If someone decides to intervene in the ongoing events from the outside
and create unacceptable strategic threats to us, they should know that our
response to those oncoming blows will be swift, lightning-fast,” he
explained.

“We have all the tools to do this. Tools that no one except us can brag
about. But we’re not going to brag. We’ll use them if such a need arises,”
the president added, without specifying which tools could be deployed.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
> >>>
> >>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
> >>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
> >>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
> >>> constant in the opposite directions.
> >> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
> >> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
> >> convince him.
> >>
> > Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
>
I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
>
> > they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks
> > is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
> >> d the
> >> It’s still true that OWLS has been yet they measured many, many times,
> > That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?
> You’ve been told. And then you forget everything you’re told. And then you
> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> It’s not useful to try to teach anythinvalue is constant c.g to anyone with advancing senility.
> >>
> >> and you’ve
> >> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
> >> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> > clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
> >>>>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
> >>>>>>> One-way l ocal 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
>>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
>>>> convince him.
>>>>
>>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
>> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
>> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
>>
> I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
> you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
> Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
> have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
> them to produce the results measurements, they refused.

It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
library research about experimental results for you.

It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
explain things to you because you refuse to pick up a book.

It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to fund
you for an experiment, when you have not submitted a grant proposal to a
funding agency.

It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
perform an experiment that you’d like to see performed, just because you
say that’s the one experiment that would personally convince you.

It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
finish work you start by taking your ideas and adding the required
mathematical structure and doing calculations, just because you are unable
to do that yourself.

>>
>>> they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks
>>> is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
>>>> d the
>>>> It’s still true that OWLS has been yet they measured many, many times,
>>> That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?
>> You’ve been told. And then you forget everything you’re told. And then you
>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
>> It’s not useful to try to teach anythinvalue is constant c.g to anyone
>> with advancing senility.
>>>>
>>>> and you’ve
>>>> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
>>>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
>>> clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
>>>>>>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
>>>>>>>>> One-way l ocal 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks........I
> >>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
> >>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
> >>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
> >>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
> >>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
> >>>> convince him.
> >>>>
> >>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
> >> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
> >> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
> >>
> > I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
> > you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
> > Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
> > have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
> > them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
> library research about experimental results for you.
>
You made the claims.....it is up to you to support them.
>e
> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
> explain things to you because you refuse to pick up a book.
>
> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to fund
> you for an experiment, when you have not submitted a grant proposal to a
> funding agency.
>
> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
> perform an experiment that you’d like to see performed, just because you
> say that’s the one experiment that would personally convince you.
>
> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
> finish work you start by taking your ideas and adding the required
> mathematical structure and doing calculations, just because you are unable
> to do that yourself.
> >>
> >>> they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks
> >>> is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
> >>>> d the
> >>>> It’s still true that OWLS has been yet they measured many, many times,
> >>> That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?
> >> You’ve been told. And then you forget everything you’re told. And then you
> >> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> >> It’s not useful to try to teach anythinvalue is constant c.g to anyone
> >> with advancing senility.
> >>>>
> >>>> and you’ve
> >>>> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
> >>>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> >>> clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
> >>>>>>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
> >>>>>>>>> One-way l ocal 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>>>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>>>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>>>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>>>>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
>>>>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
>>>>>> convince him.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
>>>> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
>>>> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
>>>>
>>> I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
>>> you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
>>> Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
>>> have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
>>> them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
>> library research about experimental results for you.
>>
> You made the claims.....it is up to you to support them.

That’s not true. It’s no one’s obligation to defend facts to you, just
because you’re ignorant of them.

As I said, it is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this
newsgroup to do library research about experimental results for you.

If you’re unaware of these things, or you don’t believe them, or you need
to see them for yourself, then it is YOUR choice and ONLY YOUR choice to
take action to look things up.

Nobody gets to come into a newsgroup and say, “Hey, I don’t believe that -6
times -2 is a positive number. You need to prove it to me, so that I’m
convinced.” Anybody who does that deserves both rebukes and getting the
demand ignored.

>> e
>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
>> explain things to you because you refuse to pick up a book.
>>
>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to fund
>> you for an experiment, when you have not submitted a grant proposal to a
>> funding agency.
>>
>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
>> perform an experiment that you’d like to see performed, just because you
>> say that’s the one experiment that would personally convince you.
>>
>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
>> finish work you start by taking your ideas and adding the required
>> mathematical structure and doing calculations, just because you are unable
>> to do that yourself.
>>>>
>>>>> they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks
>>>>> is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
>>>>>> d the
>>>>>> It’s still true that OWLS has been yet they measured many, many times,
>>>>> That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?
>>>> You’ve been told. And then you forget everything you’re told. And then you
>>>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
>>>> It’s not useful to try to teach anythinvalue is constant c.g to anyone
>>>> with advancing senility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and you’ve
>>>>>> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
>>>>>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
>>>>> clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
>>>>>>>>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
>>>>>>>>>>> One-way l ocal 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 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 4/27/2022 11:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:20:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/25/2022 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-4, 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:

>>>>>>> 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 lie is that no such measurement ever been made.
>> No, the lie is from YOU. You assert no such measurement has been made,
>> despite you being told that it has, many times. But you have forgotten
>> being told, because you are apparently senile.
>
> Stupid moron Mike.....where are the results of those tests? Why they refuse to test the OWLS in the opposite directions using the GPS synched clocks (between two mountain tops of course).

The results of those tests have been given to you MANY TIMES. You
ignore them, then (because you're senile) you forget your question has
been answered (again), and then you claim it has never been answered.

If you would actually READ books, you'd come across the answers rather
quickly.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>>>>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>>>>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>>>>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>>>>>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
>>>>>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
>>>>>>> convince him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
>>>>> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
>>>>> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
>>>>>
>>>> I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
>>>> you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
>>>> Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
>>>> have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
>>>> them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
>>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
>>> library research about experimental results for you.
>>>
>> You made the claims.....it is up to you to support them.
>
> That’s not true. It’s no one’s obligation to defend facts to you, just
> because you’re ignorant of them.
>
> As I said, it is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this
> newsgroup to do library research about experimental results for you.
>
> If you’re unaware of these things, or you don’t believe them, or you need
> to see them for yourself, then it is YOUR choice and ONLY YOUR choice to
> take action to look things up.
>
> Nobody gets to come into a newsgroup and say, “Hey, I don’t believe that -6
> times -2 is a positive number. You need to prove it to me, so that I’m
> convinced.” Anybody who does that deserves both rebukes and getting the
> demand ignored.

Just to put a fine point on it, you’ve said lately that you no longer have
the time, ability, or skills to do these things for yourself.

You can’t go to the library. You can’t look things up yourself. You can’t
do a calculation to save your life, even on simple things. You can’t write
a grant proposal. You can’t read a book. You can’t this, you can’t that.
You’re 86 and you no longer can.

On 4/28/2022 5:13 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>>>>>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>>>>>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>>>>>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>>>>>>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
>>>>>>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
>>>>>>>> convince him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
>>>>>> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
>>>>> you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
>>>>> Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
>>>>> have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
>>>>> them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
>>>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
>>>> library research about experimental results for you.
>>>>
>>> You made the claims.....it is up to you to support them.
>>
>> That’s not true. It’s no one’s obligation to defend facts to you, just
>> because you’re ignorant of them.
>>
>> As I said, it is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this
>> newsgroup to do library research about experimental results for you.
>>
>> If you’re unaware of these things, or you don’t believe them, or you need
>> to see them for yourself, then it is YOUR choice and ONLY YOUR choice to
>> take action to look things up.
>>
>> Nobody gets to come into a newsgroup and say, “Hey, I don’t believe that -6
>> times -2 is a positive number. You need to prove it to me, so that I’m
>> convinced.” Anybody who does that deserves both rebukes and getting the
>> demand ignored.
>
> Just to put a fine point on it, you’ve said lately that you no longer have
> the time, ability, or skills to do these things for yourself.
>
> You can’t go to the library. You can’t look things up yourself. You can’t
> do a calculation to save your life, even on simple things. You can’t write
> a grant proposal. You can’t read a book. You can’t this, you can’t that.
> You’re 86 and you no longer can.
>
> OK, so if that’s your fact of life, then you’re done. If there’s nothing
> more you can do on your own, then you’re done and it’s time to hang it up
> and pay attention to things you CAN do, what little of those there are.
>
> I have a great aunt who has lived in a home for the aged for ten years.
> She’s now very good at “working the system”, which means playing little
> games to get people to do things for her. Ringing the Help button to get
> the aid to bring her hot chocolate, things like that. She gets indulged,
> but you see, she PAYS (or her Medicaid pays) for those people to indulge
> her whims. She thinks she can manipulate others too, but others see
> straight through her. She’s done too.

On 4/27/2022 11:04 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:30:04 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
>> convince him.
>>
> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.

If that were so, you could easily provide proof of that. Alas, all you
have are your assertions.

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:42:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks........I
> >>>>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
> >>>>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
> >>>>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
> >>>>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES whether a retired
> >>>>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not or CARES what experiment would
> >>>>>> convince him.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
> >>>> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
> >>>> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
> >>>>
> >>> I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
> >>> you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
> >>> Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
> >>> have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
> >>> them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
> >> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
> >> library research about experimental results for you.
> >>
> > You made the claims.....it is up to you to support them.
> That’s not true. It’s no one’s obligation to defend facts to you, just
> because you’re ignorant of them.
>
> As I said, it is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this
> newsgroup to do library research about experimental results for you.
> If you’re unaware of these things, or you don’t believe them, or you need
> to see them for yourself, then it is YOUR choice and ONLY YOUR choice to
> take action to look things up.

Liar, you made the assertion that OWLS in the opposite directions is isotropic c. It is up tp you to support your claim.
>
> Nobody gets to come into a newsgroup and say, “Hey, I don’t believe that -6
> times -2 is a positive number. You need to prove it to me, so that I’m
> convinced.” Anybody who does that deserves both rebukes and getting the
> demand ignored.
> >> e
> >> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
> >> explain things to you because you refuse to pick up a book.
> >>
> >> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to fund
> >> you for an experiment, when you have not submitted a grant proposal to a
> >> funding agency.
> >>
> >> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
> >> perform an experiment that you’d like to see performed, just because you
> >> say that’s the one experiment that would personally convince you.
> >>
> >> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to
> >> finish work you start by taking your ideas and adding the required
> >> mathematical structure and doing calculations, just because you are unable
> >> to do that yourself.
> >>>>
> >>>>> they knew that OWLS in the opposite directions using GPS synched clocks
> >>>>> is not constant......so they refuse to test that to avoid embarrassement.
> >>>>>> d the
> >>>>>> It’s still true that OWLS has been yet they measured many, many times,
> >>>>> That's a lie......Where are the results of those tests?
> >>>> You’ve been told. And then you forget everything you’re told. And then you
> >>>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> >>>> It’s not useful to try to teach anythinvalue is constant c.g to anyone
> >>>> with advancing senility.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> and you’ve
> >>>>>> been told about it, and you forget everything you’re told, and then you
> >>>>>> repeat the lie that it’s never been measured.
> >>>>> clocks That's a lie. OWLS never been measured using two GPS synch
> >>>>>>>>> shed clocks between mountain tops.
> >>>>>>>>>>> One-way l ocal 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
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> 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 Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/27/2022 11:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 3:20:15 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2022 1:28 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:31 PM UTC-4, 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:
>
> >>>>>>> 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 lie is that no such measurement ever been made.
> >> No, the lie is from YOU. You assert no such measurement has been made,
> >> despite you being told that it has, many times. But you have forgotten
> >> being told, because you are apparently senile.
> >
> > Stupid moron Mike.....where are the results of those tests? Why they refuse to test the OWLS in the opposite directions using the GPS synched clocks (between two mountain tops of course).
> The results of those tests have been given to you MANY TIMES. You
> ignore them, then (because you're senile) you forget your question has
> been answered (again), and then you claim it has never been answered.

Liar !!!!
>
> If you would actually READ books, you'd come across the answers rather
> quickly.
t me to waste time to read book to support your false claim?
So you want me to read books that support your false claim? I don't think so.

On 4/29/2022 4:03 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

>> If you would actually READ books, you'd come across the answers rather
>> quickly.

> t me to waste time to read book to support your false claim?
> So you want me to read books that support your false claim? I don't think so.

I guess you have no appreciation for how stupid that sounds.

Ken Seto wrote:

> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> The results of those tests have been given to you MANY TIMES. You
>> ignore them, then (because you're senile) you forget your question has
>> been answered (again), and then you claim it has never been answered.
>
> Liar !!!!

so true. Watching old Einstine, trying to explain some theories, he thinks
he understand, it is like seeing you, with your "theory_of_everything",
forgetting they detonated two disastrous atomic bombs over your country.
So much indeed.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 5:42:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 4:50:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 1:57:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 2:45:39 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 2:59:00 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@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 P M 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They measured the speed of neutrino using two GPS synch clocks.......I
>>>>>>>>> can be convinced if they do that with two GPS synched clock to measure
>>>>>>>>> OWLS in the opposite directions.They don't do that because OWLS is not
>>>>>>>>> constant in the opposite directions.
>>>>>>>> Well, there’s the small problem that no physicist CARbarrasementES
>>>>>>>> whether a retired
>>>>>>>> chemical engineer is convinced or not
>>>>>>>> or CARES what experiment would
>>>>>>>> convince him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Physicists are a bunch of liars.......
>>>>>> Well, Ken, you’re certainly not going to get the attention of physicists,
>>>>>> now or in the future, by ranting that they’re all liars.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize to all the real physicists in forum. I didn't mean to call
>>>>> you guys liars. I meant to call failed physicists such as Bodkin and
>>>>> Morony as liars. They claimed that the OWLS in the opposite directions
>>>>> have been measured many times and the result is always c. When I asked
>>>>> them to produce the results measurements, they refused.
>>>> It is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this newsgroup to do
>>>> library research about experimental results for you.
>>>>
>>> You made the claims.....it is up to you to support them.
>> That’s not true. It’s no one’s obligation to defend facts to you, just
>> because you’re ignorant of them.
>>
>> As I said, it is not the obligation of physicists or anyone on this
>> newsgroup to do library research about experimental results for you.
>> If you’re unaware of these things, or you don’t believe them, or you need
>> to see them for yourself, then it is YOUR choice and ONLY YOUR choice to
>> take action to look things up.
>
> Liar, you made the assertion that OWLS in the opposite directions is isotropic c.

whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 4:03 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> If you would actually READ books, you'd come across the answers rather
>>> quickly.
>
>> t me to waste time to read book to support your false claim?
>> So you want me to read books that support your false claim? I don't think so.
>
> I guess you have no appreciation for how stupid that sounds.
>

It made me smile. “That’s Ken all right!”

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

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 4/27/2022 11:08 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> Stupid moron Mike.....where are the results of those tests? Why they
>> refuse to test the OWLS in the opposite directions using the GPS
>> synched clocks (between two mountain tops of course).
>
> The results of those tests have been given to you MANY TIMES. You
> ignore them, then (because you're senile) you forget your question has
> been answered (again), and then you claim it has never been answered.
> If you would actually READ books, you'd come across the answers rather
> quickly.

Ukraine is being used as a FOOL - South African politician truth bomb
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BiPh52uQC0pj/

Training The Next Generations Of Ukrainian NAZIs
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ge6z7aatj3Pn/