"Kermit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
.. .

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like what
the standard for length measurement is despite having it drummed
into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you think is going
to believe you could have anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where none
exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one of the
reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you
get "no meaningful responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.

"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..

How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:22:23 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:03:13 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:


kenseto wrote:

On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:


kenseto wrote:


"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by
Model Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this
very important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact
like what the standard for length measurement is despite
having it drummed into you at least 50 times; who in the
world do you think is going to believe you could have
anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a
meter length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity
where none exists, after having it explained to you so many
times, is one of the reasons you have zero credibility, and
when you have zero credibility, you get "no meaningful
responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide quoted text
-

- Show quoted text -


Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an
indoctinated idiot.


I've spent 2 protracted sessions trying to get /you/ to understand
this 7th grade concept, Seto, but I'll pass on a third.

Learn to live without "meaningful responds".


Jem, could you fix your line lengths please?

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by not including any control characters in order to permit each reader's software to wrap the long lines however was most appropriate for viewing them. Previously, when I was posting using a fixed line length, the quoted material would frequently become a garbled mess after a few post/reply repetitions, and the unfix fix seems to have corrected that.

So, can ye tell me, Old One, how that long line looks on thy newsreader?

See above.

Take a look at this page which explains things very well.
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/margin.html

I actually set mine to seventy.

Is it a problem for anyone else?
--
Bob.

Ye Old One wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:22:23 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:


On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:03:13 -0400, jem enriched
this group when s/he wrote:



kenseto wrote:


On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as
Interpreted by Model Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on
this very important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple
fact like what the standard for length measurement is
despite having it drummed into you at least 50 times;
who in the world do you think is going to believe you
could have anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument
for a meter length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see
circularity where none exists, after having it explained
to you so many times, is one of the reasons you have zero
credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you get
"no meaningful responds" to your "very important
paper[s]".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light
speed is circular. If you don't understand that then you
are an indoctinated idiot.


I've spent 2 protracted sessions trying to get /you/ to
understand this 7th grade concept, Seto, but I'll pass on a
third.

Learn to live without "meaningful responds".


Jem, could you fix your line lengths please?

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by
not including any control characters in order to permit each
reader's software to wrap the long lines however was most
appropriate for viewing them. Previously, when I was posting
using a fixed line length, the quoted material would frequently
become a garbled mess after a few post/reply repetitions, and the
unfix fix seems to have corrected that.

So, can ye tell me, Old One, how that long line looks on thy
newsreader?


See above.

"above" looks /good/ on my newsreader - I wanted to know how it looked
on yours.

Never mind, I'll use fixed line lengths if that's the general preference.

Test:

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by not
including any control characters in order to permit each reader's
software to wrap the long lines however was most appropriate for
viewing them. Previously, when I was posting using a fixed line
length, the quoted material would frequently become a garbled mess
after a few post/reply repetitions, and the unfix fix seems to have
corrected that.

Better?


Take a look at this page which explains things very well.
http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/margin.html

I actually set mine to seventy.

Is it a problem for anyone else?

On Jun 19, 1:27 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
.. .

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like what
the standard for length measurement is despite having it drummed
into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you think is going
to believe you could have anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where none

exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one of the
reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you
get "no meaningful responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide quoted
text -



- Show quoted text -

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.

"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..



How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto

So when the meter equaled 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the
equator to the north pole through Paris and we measured the speed of
light, it was accurate? I have a wooden meter stick in my room right
now. It is made of wood, and probably not accurate to more than a few
mm. If we were to measure the speed of light using this as the
standard, would its speed in a vacuum vary (within the accuracy of the
measure)? I didn't see the experimental data where you established
that on your web page, but I confess I have not yett read all of your
paper/papers. Could you point me to a link where you do so? I
understand you must be busy in your lab, and discussing your next
experiments with the other physicists, so it's alright if you don't.

Kermit

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:50:39 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:

Ye Old One wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:22:23 -0400, jem enriched this
group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:


On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:03:13 -0400, jem enriched
this group when s/he wrote:



kenseto wrote:


On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:



kenseto wrote:



"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as
Interpreted by Model Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on
this very important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple
fact like what the standard for length measurement is
despite having it drummed into you at least 50 times;
who in the world do you think is going to believe you
could have anything important to say about anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument
for a meter length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see
circularity where none exists, after having it explained
to you so many times, is one of the reasons you have zero
credibility, and when you have zero credibility, you get
"no meaningful responds" to your "very important
paper[s]".- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light
speed is circular. If you don't understand that then you
are an indoctinated idiot.


I've spent 2 protracted sessions trying to get /you/ to
understand this 7th grade concept, Seto, but I'll pass on a
third.

Learn to live without "meaningful responds".


Jem, could you fix your line lengths please?

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by
not including any control characters in order to permit each
reader's software to wrap the long lines however was most
appropriate for viewing them. Previously, when I was posting
using a fixed line length, the quoted material would frequently
become a garbled mess after a few post/reply repetitions, and the
unfix fix seems to have corrected that.

So, can ye tell me, Old One, how that long line looks on thy
newsreader?


See above.

"above" looks /good/ on my newsreader - I wanted to know how it looked
on yours.

That is why I returned it, exactly as received, as one long line.

Never mind, I'll use fixed line lengths if that's the general preference.

Test:

Actually, I thought I had fixed them by unfixing them, i.e. by not
including any control characters in order to permit each reader's
software to wrap the long lines however was most appropriate for
viewing them. Previously, when I was posting using a fixed line
length, the quoted material would frequently become a garbled mess
after a few post/reply repetitions, and the unfix fix seems to have
corrected that.

Better?

Perfect

--
Bob.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto



Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a
measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that
light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is
measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed
of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto



Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two
quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

The speed of light is the same for all obervers

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.

In other words .. you're just making **** up.

"Kermit" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 19, 1:27 pm, "kenseto" wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message

ups.com...

On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 17, 8:58 am, jem wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"jem" wrote in message
...

kenseto wrote:

"kenseto" wrote in message
.. .

A paper entitled "The Origin of Life as Interpreted by Model
Mechanics"

is

available in the following website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm

Ken Seto

I am disappointed that no meaningful responds on this very
important

paper.

Seto, you haven't even been able to learn a simple fact like
what
the standard for length measurement is despite having it
drummed
into you at least 50 times; who in the world do you think is
going
to believe you could have anything important to say about
anything?

So you think that I should accept a circular argument for a
meter
length??? I don't think so.

I know, Seto. And the fact that you still see circularity where
none

exists, after having it explained to you so many times, is one of the
reasons you have zero credibility, and when you have zero credibility,
you
get "no meaningful responds" to your "very important paper[s]".- Hide
quoted
text -



- Show quoted text -

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.

"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a
measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that
light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is
measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed
of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..



How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto

So when the meter equaled 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the
equator to the north pole through Paris and we measured the speed of
light, it was accurate?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have a wooden meter stick in my room right
now. It is made of wood, and probably not accurate to more than a few
mm. If we were to measure the speed of light using this as the
standard, would its speed in a vacuum vary (within the accuracy of the
measure)?

Again I have no idea what yopu are talking about.

I didn't see the experimental data where you established
that on your web page, but I confess I have not yett read all of your
paper/papers. Could you point me to a link where you do so? I
understand you must be busy in your lab, and discussing your next
experiments with the other physicists, so it's alright if you don't.

I have proposed experiments in my website in the paper entitled "Proposed
Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion". These experiments will be able to
support my Model of the universe.

Ken Seto

On Jun 20, 6:50 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto

Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.


In other words: "I'm free to speculate anything I want about
quantities that are too small to presently measure, and convey my
complete confidence in that speculation while I'm at it."

PD

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a
measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that
light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is
measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed
of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto



Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two
quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.