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