wrote:
PD wrote:
kenseto wrote:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

I don't believe it's appropriate to advertise a commercial site on a
sci.physics newsgroup. If you want to refer people to your theory, then
a link to the peer-reviewed journal containing your publication should
be sufficient. What you are doing is spam and usenet abuse, isn't it?

PD

Report the SOB. I did.

I did, as well.

PD

"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

ROTFLOL......the runts of the SR experts are coming out of the wood-works to
attack my theory without realizing that my theory IRT includes SRT as a
subset. Go figure!!!
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

ROTFLOL......the runts of the SR experts are coming out of the wood-works to
attack my theory without realizing that my theory IRT includes SRT as a
subset. Go figure!!!
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto



SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.

SR make a prediction for the delay in decay time for muon resulting from
cosmic ray showers. That time dilation is precisely confirmed by observation.
Because your IRT includes SR as a subset, it also has to make the same
prediction.

If you claim time dilation does not exist, then you can't claim SR as a
subset of your IRT.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:IHEJg.162628$1i1.98909@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

ROTFLOL......the runts of the SR experts are coming out of the
wood-works to
attack my theory without realizing that my theory IRT includes SRT as a
subset. Go figure!!!
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto



SR is a subset of "your model" according to you, Seto, and it
definitely
predicts time dilation, which has been confirmed in countless
experiments
and observations, including satellite based navigation systems.

Hey idiot runt.....IRT also has clock time dilation but it also has clock
time expansion.

SR predicts that time and space are malleable. In fact, there has
never
been a prediction of SR that was contradicted by an observation.

Sure there is......SR is not valid in a gravity enviroment. SR has a limited
domain of applicability and IRT has an unlimited domain of applicability.

SR make a prediction for the delay in decay time for muon resulting
from
cosmic ray showers. That time dilation is precisely confirmed by
observation.
Because your IRT includes SR as a subset, it also has to make the same
prediction.

Hey idiot....IRT makes the same predictions so what is your point?

If you claim time dilation does not exist, then you can't claim SR as
a
subset of your IRT.

You make this up. IRT says that an observed clock can run slow or fast
compared to the observer's clock. SR says that the observed clcok can only
run slow compared to the observer's clock. That's the reason why SR is
incomplete and that's why SR is only a subset of IRT.

Ken Seto

kenseto wrote:
"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

ROTFLOL......the runts of the SR experts are coming out of the wood-works to
attack my theory without realizing that my theory IRT includes SRT as a
subset. Go figure!!!

It's easy to figure. You don't understand SRT, and so you incorrectly
believe that your theory has anything to do with SRT.

You might as well say that yours is a theory that says 2+3=7, and
because it has a plus sign and an equal sign, it includes everything in
standard arithmetic.

Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
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 real experts around like a puppy and eats up their **** like
gourmet puppy chow. An Asshole who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR

Ken Seto