On May 13, 1:37*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
none wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
So, Ken, let's recap your position for a moment.
Lets capture your position: Apparently you are so desperate that you
tried to swindle $22,000 from me!!!!!
You tell not the truth, Ken Seto.
I speakest the truth.

*From here it looks like you are afraid of the truth and are not
looking for honest help. PD offered that and you showed you were
looking for someone to cook the data for you. *That is not
science. *This works in the court system but not in science.

My take is different. I do not think Ken has any plan to fake
experimental data. My diagnosis, as serious though amateur
kookologist, is that Ken is legitimately deluded: he believes
the theories that he made up.

Why am I delusional??? I discovered a theory (IRT) that is an
improvement over SRT. I came up with proposed experiments that can
refute IRT. I asked for recomendations for the suppliers of the
required equipment to do these experiments. Seems to me that's the
standard scientific procedure.



There is an element of intellectual dishonestly, or at least
irresponsibility plus narcissism, in zealously espousing one's
own theory without even bothering to understand what so many
others have worked so long and so hard to establish. That's
par for the course on sci.physics.relativity.

The point is that I understand the true meaning of SR more than any
runts in these NGs.....including you.

Ken Seto

It's another thing for Ken to accuse PD of trying to swindle
him, based on what he *imagines* PD would do. I've heard that
called "false witness".

I was not entirely comfortable withe PD's offer to work on
Ken's experiment. I think I see where PD was going, but of
course Ken would and should reject the offer. What purpose
was served?

--
--Bryan