On 11 mayo, 09:49, kenseto wrote:
On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?

Hey idiot it is you who don't understand what isotropy of light means.
You said: What's transit time over an equal distance got to do with
isotorpy of light?


I rest my case.

Miguel Rios

On May 9, 8:53*pm, PD wrote:
On May 9, 8:40*am, kenseto wrote:





On May 8, 8:08*pm, PD wrote:

On May 8, 9:32*am, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 4:20*pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 2:44*pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 10:17*am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:16*am, kenseto wrote:

ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
argument so he back paddled.

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!!!!!

I don't need your money, Ken, so desperation has nothing to do with
it.

Sure it has everything to do with it. You tried to swindle money from
me

How did I try to swindle you, Ken? I gave you a fee estimate for my
services. How is that a swindle. If you take your car to the shop, and
they tell you what it's going to cost to fix it, and the number is
more than you thought it was going to be, is that a swindle?

and at the same time gains the opportunity to sabotage my
experiment.

I'd gain nothing by sabotaging your experiments. If you thought they
were sabotaged, you could always repeat them with someone else's help.

The point is: It would be too late...you already got my money.

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.

You need to perform the experiments to test your theory.
You don't have the expertise to perform the experiments.
You need some outside help to provide this expertise to perform the
experiments.
You don't trust anyone to provide you this help without sabotaging
your experiment.
Sounds like a nice little hole you've dug yourself in.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 10, 10:39Â*am, PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On May 8, 8:08�pm, PD wrote:
On May 8, 9:32�am, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 4:20�pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 2:44�pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 10:17�am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:16�am, kenseto wrote:

ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
argument so he back paddled.

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!!!!!

I don't need your money, Ken, so desperation has nothing to do with
it.

Sure it has everything to do with it. You tried to swindle money from
me

How did I try to swindle you, Ken? I gave you a fee estimate for my
services. How is that a swindle. If you take your car to the shop, and
they tell you what it's going to cost to fix it, and the number is
more than you thought it was going to be, is that a swindle?

and at the same time gains the opportunity to sabotage my
experiment.

I'd gain nothing by sabotaging your experiments. If you thought they
were sabotaged, you could always repeat them with someone else's help.

The point is: It would be too late...you already got my money.

It's not your money, remember? It's the money of a private supporter.

So what? That doesn't mean that I can speend their money without
making sure that it is being spent wisely.

Your supporter gives you money on the condition that you spend it
wisely on the skillful execution of your experiments -- and for that
you need an expert.

Right...and I have lined up two PhDs for that at no cost.

Ken Seto

On May 10, 12:21Â*pm, PD wrote:
On May 10, 11:01Â*am, Mike wrote:





On May 10, 10:39Â*am, PD wrote:

kenseto wrote:
On May 8, 8:08�pm, PD wrote:
On May 8, 9:32�am, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 4:20�pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 2:44�pm, kenseto wrote:

On May 7, 10:17�am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 8:16�am, kenseto wrote:

ROTFLOL...this runt of the SRians failed to come up with a valid
argument so he back paddled.

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!!!!!

I don't need your money, Ken, so desperation has nothing to do with
it.

Sure it has everything to do with it. You tried to swindle money from
me

How did I try to swindle you, Ken? I gave you a fee estimate for my
services. How is that a swindle. If you take your car to the shop, and
they tell you what it's going to cost to fix it, and the number is
more than you thought it was going to be, is that a swindle?

and at the same time gains the opportunity to sabotage my
experiment.

I'd gain nothing by sabotaging your experiments. If you thought they
were sabotaged, you could always repeat them with someone else's help.

The point is: It would be too late...you already got my money.

It's not your money, remember? It's the money of a private supporter.
Your supporter gives you money on the condition that you spend it
wisely on the skillful execution of your experiments -- and for that
you need an expert.

The first requirement a expert must fullfil is not to be prejudiced.

Mike

That's exactly right. I've already told Seto that I have no interest
in sabotaging his experiment, and it would serve me in absolutely no
positive way to do so.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you are hoping that my
experiments will failed. So I would be an idiot to hire you as the
expert to set up my experiments.

Ken Seto

I've also told him that a proper
experimentalist attitude is *not* being convinced of the theory being
tested, and that a true test of a theory is its ability to withstand
attempts to *disprove* it experimentally. The mark of a good
experiment is one that, after being published, it can be and is
repeated by independent researchers; if the experiment was well done,
then the results of the first experiment will be verified. It would
only besmirch the name of the experimentalist and all those involved
with the experiment if no one can reproduce the results of the
experimentalist. I have no interest in besmirching my name by
producing a crappy experiment which other experimenters would be
unable to replicate.

Seto, on the other hand, wants collaborators who believe strongly in
his theory and who will then go about trying to *prove* his theory
experimentally. He is going about science in precisely the wrong
manner. Because of this and because of the paranoia that prevents him
from going about it in the right way, he is in a state of permanent
vapor lock that has prevented him from making any progress in over a
decade.

The disagreement now isn't so much about the putative truth of his
ideas as it is about his crappy approach to doing science.

PD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On May 10, 5:07*pm, 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.

On May 11, 9:57*am, " wrote:
On 11 mayo, 09:49, kenseto wrote:

On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?

Hey idiot it is you who don't understand what isotropy of light means.
You said: What's transit time over an equal distance got to do with
isotorpy of light?

I rest my case.

FDucking idiot...if the observer move wrt the light fronts then the
light fronts will take different transit times to arrive at his
location and that means that the light did not arrive at him
isotropically. You are so stupid.

kenseto wrote:
On May 10, 5:07 pm, 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.

On 11 mayo, 18:58, kenseto wrote:
On May 11, 9:57 am, " wrote:



On 11 mayo, 09:49, kenseto wrote:

On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?

Hey idiot it is you who don't understand what isotropy of light means.
You said: What's transit time over an equal distance got to do with
isotorpy of light?

I rest my case.

FDucking idiot...if the observer move wrt the light fronts then the
light fronts will take different transit times to arrive at his
location and that means that the light did not arrive at him
isotropically. You are so stupid.

You once more show your total ineptitude on this subject. You ignore
completely the meaning of light, light fronts, isotropy of light,
location of observers and relativity. You also know close to nothing
of mathematics, physics and of course English, which for sure is not
your native language. Why are you writing here is a mistery, but also
it is quite clear that everybody thinks you are a joke.

So keep us entertained.

Miguel Rios

On May 7, 8:11Â*pm, rbwinn wrote:
On May 7, 3:54Â*pm, " wrote:





On 7 mayo, 18:46, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 1:11 pm, PD wrote:

On May 7, 1:45 pm, rbwinn wrote:

On May 7, 10:40�am, PD wrote:

On May 7, 11:25�am, rbwinn wrote:

Well, no, if lightining strikes the front and rear of a moving train,
leaving marks on the train and the track, the marks on the track will
be the length of the train apart, which relativity of simultaneity
cannot explain.

Sure, it explains it.

Here's how:
The track observer goes back after the train has passed and notes that
the marks on the track are 400 m apart. Remember that, for the track
observer, the strikes hit simultaneously. Since the marks are also on
the train, the track observer correctly notes that the train is 400 m
long. (This is what a length measurement entails anyway: marking the
locations of the ends of an object at the same time.)

Now the train observer goes back after the strikes have hit and notes
that the marks on the train are 500 m apart. But it's also true that
this observer saw the front strike happen before the rear strike ---
the strikes are not simultaneous in this frame. So it doesn't bother
this observer at all that the track observer sees the marks 400 m
apart. That's exactly what you'd expect if you marked the location of
the front of a moving object before you marked the location of the
rear of the moving object -- and that's exactly what the train
observer is sure happened.

The length of the train is frame-dependent. Whether the marks at the
end of the train were made at the same time, is also frame-dependent.

Does this help you understand?

The train has an actual length.

No, actually, it does not. Length is a frame-dependent quantity. The
value in one frame is no more "actual" than the value in another
frame. Now, there is a "rest length" which is the length measured in
the frame in which the train just happens to be at rest, but there is
nothing preferential about this frame.

Well, no, length is not a frame dependent quantity. Â*Length is
length. Â*There is no distance contraction.
Robert B. Winn

Says who?
And what does that have to do with relativity of simultaneity?
Einstein is quite specific in describing the situation in his book:

"Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are
simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also
simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the
answer must be in the negative."

So you see, he is talking there about time relations of events, not
about length contraction. And sure enough length contraction is quite
real and measurable.

No, sorry. Â*I say. Â*And I can prove it. Â*There is no relativity of
simultaneity, and there is no distance contraction. Â*The Galilean
transformation equations show that both of these concepts exist only
in the imaginations of scientists. Â*Scientists claim that they have a
clock in the frame of reference fo the train, which has a rate of

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now with regard to the Galilean transformation equations, the variable
t' is already used in the equation, t'=t. Â*So to use this value that
scientists say is the time of the clock on the train, we have to
change the variable from t' to n'.

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* n'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* t=sqrt(1-v2/c^2)n' + vx/c^2

Now, as you may recall, t'=t, so

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*x'=x-vt
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*x'= x - v[sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)n' + vx/c^2]

All you have is a clock running at a different rate than the clock in
the frame of reference of the track. Â*Other than that, the train,
bolts of lightning, and motion of the train happen the same as shown
by these equations.

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*x'=x-vt
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*y'=y
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*z'=z
Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*t'=t

The bolts of lightning strike simultaneously in both frames of
reference. Â*The flashes of lightning are seen at the same time by the
observer by the track. Â*The flashes of lightning are seen at the same
time by the observer on the train.
Â* Â* Â*The transmission of the light happens according to these
equations:

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* x=ct, in the frame of reference of the track

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*x'=cn' in the frame of reference of the train.

Â* Â*The value of n' is actually n'=t(1-v/c), not t' from the Lorentz
equations, but we were using the Lorentz equations value so that
scientists could see them used with reality for the first time in more
than 100 years. Â*A clock running at the rate of the Lorentz equation
value is running slightly faster than a clock which shows light to be
traveling at c in the frame of reference of the train.
Robert B. Winn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: For once you accidentally got something correct. There is no
distance contraction in SR. It is length contraction of a physical
body of matter in the direction of travel. Now think deepely. What
is a direction of travel without a rest frame? What if the both the
rest frame and the object were biased to each other in direction of
travel to a third FOR that could name itself 'the rest frame'?
Hardly anyone considers this and only gets a superficial
understanding.

However. In GR, there IS distance biased to the direction of gravity
that is measured by lightspeed. It is confusing to all and is still
dominated by an infantile understanding of the physic. Iow, we have a
skewed view of how this works, but readily apply a math to make it
apply for our purposes of measurement.

Quit grabbing formulas off the shelf only to satisfy a measurement and
find out the logic that must apply to provide such a physic.

wrote in message

On 11 mayo, 18:58, kenseto wrote:
On May 11, 9:57 am, " wrote:



On 11 mayo, 09:49, kenseto wrote:

On May 9, 10:35 am, " wrote:

You know ****o, it is you who is showing and proving day after day the
kind of retarded person you are.
You don't know what isotropy means, even if the meaning of the word is
provided to you. Then you are so moronic as to say that "the observer
doesn't move wrt different light fronts from the same distance in
different directions" is implied by the isotropy of light.
Do you understand the phrase "isotropy of light"? Do you see anywhere
in that phrase the word observer?

Hey idiot it is you who don't understand what isotropy of light means.
You said: What's transit time over an equal distance got to do with
isotorpy of light?

I rest my case.

FDucking idiot...if the observer move wrt the light fronts then the
light fronts will take different transit times to arrive at his
location and that means that the light did not arrive at him
isotropically. You are so stupid.

You once more show your total ineptitude on this subject. You ignore
completely the meaning of light, light fronts, isotropy of light,
location of observers and relativity. You also know close to nothing
of mathematics, physics and of course English, which for sure is not
your native language. Why are you writing here is a mistery, but also
it is quite clear that everybody thinks you are a joke.

Why he is writing here?
Because he gets feedback. He gets attention. More than
anyone else. Neglected and abused children tend to do
anything to get noticed and are prepared to even take
any kind of punishment for it.

So keep us entertained.

If nobody replies to Seto anymore, he dies.
So keep him alive.

Dirk Vdm