On May 11, 5:39*pm, kenseto wrote:
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.

PhD's in what subject? From which institution?
Just curious.

If you've got people willing to do work without compensation, Ken,
then bully for you. At least your pension fund won't be depleted.

Good luck and let me know where the experimental publication appears.


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 11, 7:32*pm, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
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.

ROTFLOL.....another runt of the SRians pops up. PD is a runt of the
SRians like you. I would be an idiot to hire an runt like him to set
up my experiments. Besides I have lined up two local physicists who
are welling to participate (for the sake of advancement in science) at
no cost to me.

kenseto wrote in message

On May 11, 7:32 pm, none ""doug\"@(none)" wrote:
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.

ROTFLOL.....another runt of the SRians pops up. PD is a runt of the
SRians like you. I would be an idiot to hire an runt like him to set
up my experiments. Besides I have lined up two local physicists who
are welling to participate (for the sake of advancement in science) at
no cost to me.

James DeMeo and Reg Cahill?

Dirk Vdm

On May 11, 7:42Â*pm, xxein wrote:
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: Â*For once you accidentally got something correct. Â*There is no
distance contraction in SR. Â*It is length contraction of a physical
body of matter in the direction of travel. Â*Now think deepely. Â*What
is a direction of travel without a rest frame? Â*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. Â*In GR, there IS distance biased to the direction of gravity
that is measured by lightspeed. Â*It is confusing to all and is still
dominated by an infantile understanding of the physic. Â*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.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, a third frame of reference is a good idea, but scientists will
not discuss a third frame of reference. Anyway, the mathematics is
probably too difficult for people who use the Lorentz equations for
all of their thinking. In any event, the distance contraction that
appears in the Lorentz equations is not an imagined factor. It is a
crushing of distances to satisfy a wrong equation.
Robert B. Winn

On May 12, 1:36�am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dr. Dirk,
What are the Doctors going to do when nobody talks to them?
Robert B. Winn

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
kenseto wrote in message
....
ROTFLOL.....another runt of the SRians pops up. PD is a runt of the
SRians like you. I would be an idiot to hire an runt like him to set
up my experiments. Besides I have lined up two local physicists who
are welling to participate (for the sake of advancement in science) at
no cost to me.

James DeMeo and Reg Cahill?

Igor & Grichka Bogdanoff ?

"YBM" wrote in message ...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
kenseto wrote in message
...
ROTFLOL.....another runt of the SRians pops up. PD is a runt of the
SRians like you. I would be an idiot to hire an runt like him to set
up my experiments. Besides I have lined up two local physicists who
are welling to participate (for the sake of advancement in science) at
no cost to me.

James DeMeo and Reg Cahill?

Igor & Grichka Bogdanoff ?

Tom Van Flandern and Henri Wilson?

Dirk Vdm

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.


--
--Bryan

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.

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.

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

On May 13, 12:37*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.

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.

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?

Actually, after doing some basic background checking on Mr. Seto, I
wrote to withdraw my offer to him. Mr. Seto did not take kindly to my
performing this check, which at some point produced some concern among
those are connected to him. My background check was more thorough than
this contact that he's aware of.

Mr. Seto is woefully underprepared on all measures for this
experiment. If his so-called PhDs are at all competent, they will
quickly discern this for themselves. It may be that they don't care --
one can imagine all sorts of reasons why.

For the record, if the background check had come out otherwise, then I
would have been happy to provide my services to the utmost of my
professional ability. I have no vested interest in protecting
relativity. This is true for any physicist here. Seto makes a
fundamental error in thinking that scientists do not like surprises,
want to preserve the status quo, and do not want to see new theories
turn out to be promising. That isn't the case at all. Surprises are
the life's blood of physics. However, there is a standard of *quality*
of work, regardless whether it is revolutionary. Half-baked is half-
baked. Even if the recipe sounds really good to the chef, it's not a
good idea to pull it out of the oven and serve it to patrons before it
is completely cooked.

Seto knows his limitations here, but would rather blame the
"establishment" for beating him down and not ensuring him of more
success. He thinks somehow he is entitled to help that others do not
get, and that others should pick up the ball where he can no longer
hang onto it.

PD


--
--Bryan