On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 10:27:18 -0500, kenseto wrote:


"John Anderson" wrote in message
...


Titan Point wrote:

Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.

Actually, if you added several more of the same lines, the posting
wouldn'teven begin to describe Seto.

Andersen and Titan Point are RUNTS of the learned SRians.
Definition for a RUNT of the learned SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the learned SRians around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR.

Ken Seto

Ah yes, the great scientific mind at work.

SR is not a religion, but it does take discipline to understand.
Scientific discipline does not come easily.

As for the limitations of SR, they are clear from the outset in the
postulates made by Einstein.

Despite your esteemed efforts the phrase "higher state of absolute motion"
does not make any sense. Absolute motion implies a framework which all
observers agree on - perhaps a stationary ether. Either way, an ether is
not required to explain the results of experiment, nor does it make
logical sense to add it.

I still have no idea from your ramblings what "higher state" of absolute
motion means, other than it is a device to bamboozle.

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 09:55:19 -0500, kenseto wrote:


"Jim Roberts" wrote in message
...

"Titan Point" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:48:07 -0500, John Anderson wrote:



Titan Point wrote:

Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.
Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank. Crank.

Actually, if you added several more of the same lines, the posting
wouldn'teven begin to describe Seto.

John Anderson

Yes, it's difficult to express Seto in normal words. Certainly not
mathematics.

I'd still like to know what "higher state of absolute motion" means....

If you have two identical rods A and B and if A has a higher state of
absolute motion in the stationary and structured aether than B then
A's light path length is longer than B's light path length.

If you have two identical clocks A and B and if A has a higher state of
absolute motion in the stationary and structured aether than B then A's
clock second will contain a higher amount of absolute time than B's
clock second. This means that A's clock is running slower than B's
clock. This means that SR's assertion of mutual time dilation is bogus.


So what exactly is he trying to accomplish with that whole constant math
ratio bit?
'C is not a constant, but a constant math ratio'? What's he trying to
prove?

I said the speed of light is not a universal constant as asserted by SR. It
is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the absolute time content
for a clock second co-moving with the rod.
The differences between a universal contant and a constant math ratio are
as follows:
1. When the speed of light is defined as a universal constant then a clock
second is defined as an interval of universal time (absolute time).

No such thing as absolute time. You've defined it but nowhere proved it
even exists. Ditto with the "clock second"

Then he goes on and on about clock seconds and yadda yadda yadda. I just
don't get it.

If you don't get it you ask questions instead of trying to ridicule me.

We're not trying - we are ridiculing you - and for good reason, because you
keep spamming this NG with illogical crap.