Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: General Gravity Equation
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2022 16:51:33 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <t2cjal$18on$1@gioia.aioe.org>
References: <42abfba5-7d17-42d4-a2db-cc2a27165110n@googlegroups.com>
 <c934769a-bfdd-4522-b936-8b2e23e710f1n@googlegroups.com>
 <t257u5$3ru$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <1a7b518c-657d-4c14-acbe-0472a9d6dd56n@googlegroups.com>
 <t26t16$1opr$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <9b309a08-bbb6-45f0-a977-6ca5d7b66ac3n@googlegroups.com>
 <t2758s$1v5d$2@gioia.aioe.org>
 <395acb76-dff6-436d-923b-e3570b479384n@googlegroups.com>
 <t284oa$14e4$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <ff828325-78ee-417e-870c-dd6ccff9f0a8n@googlegroups.com>
 <t29r8o$1h06$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <d2d5db2b-0c6c-4267-a597-a5fcad2cf1a1n@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="41751"; posting-host="Of0kprfJVVw2aVQefhvR6Q.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cbWO/pjbh7UvYgedOKr1sq7A7Go=
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Bytes: 4993
Lines: 93

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: 
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: 
>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: 
>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: 
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:54:19 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, March 28, 2022 at 4:02:22 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote: 
>>>>>>>>>>>> A new general gravity equation is discovered in the following link: 
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/gravityequation.pdf 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> This new equation is valid to replace GRT and it is compatible with the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> other forces: electromagnetic, nuclear strong and weak forces. Finally 
>>>>>>>>>>>> we ha ve a way to unify all the forces of nature. This leads to the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibility of a theory of everything (TOE). 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL.....all the relativistic math genius in this NG are stay away 
>>>>>>>>>>> from this thread. How come?? 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I responded. You didn’t understand the words used. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> You are not a relativistic math genius......go back to school. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Other people are not likely to bother with you, as you’re a waste of time 
>>>>>>>>>> in general. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of 
>>>>>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time? 
>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead 
>>>>>>>> in the water. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Yes it is. 
>>>>>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then 
>>>>>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations are not covariance. 
>>>> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.d 
>>> 
>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone 
>> knows this. 
>> 
>>> and Einstein's theory 
>> 
>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what 
>> that is.
> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so? 

Nope.

> Do you know what covariance mean? 

Yes. 

> It is not a postulated concept. 

That’s right, it’s not. 

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

Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant. 

> So why are you throwing out these bull shits as your argument?
> 
>>> as the laws of physics and that's why they are covariance? Why did you 
>>> excluded my theory not a law of physics?
>> For several reasons. It’s experimentally wrong. It’s not covariant. It is 
>> incapable of quantitative prediction.
>>> It appears that you are full of shit.....right? 
>>> 
>>>>> It is appears you don't know what the word means. 
>>>> 3rd ground playground behavior, Ken. 
>>>>>>> Besides the false concept of covariant is derive from Einsteins false postulate. 
>>>>>> Nope. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 



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