On May 14, 4:18*am, Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
Bryan Olson wrote:
kenseto wrote:
PD wrote:
Well, then, you're stuck aren't you?
Far from it..... I have lined up a couple of PhDs who are willing to
participate, for the sake of advancement science, at no cost to me.
Who?

Ken, have you considered using the Internet to report on your
project, rather than to proclaim yourself correct before even
doing a single experiment? You could gain credibility by blogging
your step-by-step progress. You have a couple PhD's involved.
Great; introduce them.

Hey idiot I didn't proclaim anything.

You should read your own posts.

I asked for recomendations for
the suppliers of the neccessary equipment to do my proposed
experiments.

Not in this thread you didn't. You proclaimed SR wrong, your own
made-up theory right, and numerous participants idiots and/or runts.
All the while, you state naive misconceptions about SR that would
get a big red X through them in sophomore physics.

What are my misconceptions????
I posted the following contradictions of SR which of these are my
misconceptions?
1. The passage of a stay at home clock second corresponds to the
passage of less than a clock second in the traveling clock. Yet when
the traveling clcok reunites with the stay at home clock the clock
second are compared directly to reach the conclusion that the
traveling clock is younger.
2. The pole is physical longer than the barn but both ends of the pole
cn fit into the barn briefly with both doors are closed. And yet at
the same time SR claims that nothing physically is happening to the
pole.
3. Einstein's concept of relativity of simultaneity violates the
isotropy of the speed of light in the train.

Ken Seto


When the experiemnts are completed I will post the
results in my website.

You are kidding only yourself, Ken.


How am I kidding myself? I will post the results no matter how they
turn out.

Ken Seto