Who hacked Ken's presentation?
blackhead
http://webmeeting.dimdim.com/portal/MeetingJoin.jsp
The talk is disappointing because Ken just reads straight from the
slides. He also pronounces clock as cock and second as sucking which
is alarming when a page contains 5 instances of "clock second".
15 minutes into the talk, he seemed to be crossing out some of his
text and drew what appeared to be a penis in the top right of a slide,
which i put down to him saying "clock second" so many times. Then
appeared text: "Ken is a moron", "Ken is a crank", "CRACKPOT", "10
years and still a moron".
I have to admit, it was hilarious and only someone from this newsgroup
could have done it.
So come on, spill the beans, who was it?
Dirk Van de moortel
610dd3c5-c8d4-4b5d...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com
I missed the presentation.
Did someone capture this?
Dirk Vdm
YBM
> I missed the presentation.
It was hilarious and pathetic, as expected...
> Did someone capture this?
It will be on line soon in the NPA Web site.
Anyway, here is a screenshot taken at the last second of
the "conference" :
rotchm
There was a "joker" drawing/writing slanders on the slides. Obviously
this "joker" has a maturity mental problem and is to weak to control
them, unlike the others who may disagree with Seto's stuff but can
refrain from slanders.
But I blame the presentation system since it is trivial to block
"whiteboard" sharing and giving access only to the presenter.
YBM
> I watched it for a few minutes... The usual Seto Rubbish.
With visual and sound illustrating how mentally sick he is...
> There was a "joker" drawing/writing slanders on the slides. Obviously
> this "joker" has a maturity mental problem and is to weak to control
> them, unlike the others who may disagree with Seto's stuff but can
> refrain from slanders.
You're right. Anyway it should have been obvious to anyone, even
to the rednecks who organized this "conference" that Seto was
unable to answer to any question. Especially not mine (= Ben
Taylor) about closing velocity, coordinates and absolute rest.
> But I blame the presentation system since it is trivial to block
> "whiteboard" sharing and giving access only to the presenter.
These guys from NPA are nuts in computing as well as in science.
shuba
> So come on, spill the beans, who was it?
I'd love to think it was Ken himself who did it. If the whole
invention of the Seto persona throughout the years was an
elabolate hoax, it would clearly rate as one of the best trolls
ever. Either way, David de Sheister and the NPA look like total
buffoons, so it's hard to not to see the production as a
resounding success. Thanks, Ken!
~
---Tim Shuba---
Dono.
Ken Shito and the NPA buffoons at their best! This is one for
posterity (or for the posterior?) :-)
Dirk Van de moortel
4a901496$0$30837$426a...@news.free.fr
HA!
I featured in it :-))
Way to go!
( actually.... poor Ken... )
Dirk Vdm
Sue...
>
> http://webmeeting.dimdim.com/portal/MeetingJoin.jsp
>
> The talk is disappointing because Ken just reads straight from the
> slides. He also pronounces clock as cock and second as sucking which
> is alarming when a page contains 5 instances of "clock second".
>
> 15 minutes into the talk, he seemed to be crossing out some of his
> text and drew what appeared to be a penis in the top right of a slide,
> which i put down to him saying "clock second" so many times. Then
> appeared text: "Ken is a moron", "Ken is a crank", "CRACKPOT", "10
> years and still a moron".
>
==========
> I have to admit, it was hilarious and only someone from this newsgroup
> could have done it.
>
> So come on, spill the beans, who was it?
It was one of the people you saw celebrating the
Lockerbie bomber at his homecoming.
Sue...
eric gisse
[...]
If I knew there'd be an open whiteboard I would have suffered through the
presentation.
I will forever imagine his voice whenever I read something he writes, which
makes it hilarious instead of just pathetic.
YBM
You are right. His real voice is not hilarious, it's pathetic. This guy
is deeply sick, both mentally and physically.
It was painfull to see him almost unable to read his own slides (what he
basically did all the conference long). Not to speak about the way he
handled questions. Even nuts from NPA have noticed how a poor fool he
is.
Robert Higgins
>
> http://webmeeting.dimdim.com/portal/MeetingJoin.jsp
>
> The talk is disappointing becauseKenjust reads straight from the
> slides. He also pronounces clock as cock and second as sucking which
> is alarming when a page contains 5 instances of "clock second".
>
> 15 minutes into the talk, he seemed to be crossing out some of his
> text and drew what appeared to be a penis in the top right of a slide,
> which i put down to him saying "clock second" so many times. Then
Robert Higgins
>
> http://webmeeting.dimdim.com/portal/MeetingJoin.jsp
>
> The talk is disappointing becauseKenjust reads straight from the
> slides. He also pronounces clock as cock and second as sucking which
> is alarming when a page contains 5 instances of "clock second".
>
> 15 minutes into the talk, he seemed to be crossing out some of his
> text and drew what appeared to be a penis in the top right of a slide,
> which i put down to him saying "clock second" so many times. Then
> years and still a moron".
>
> I have to admit, it was hilarious and only someone from this newsgroup
> could have done it.
>
> So come on, spill the beans, who was it?
Sorry about that...
"I am Spartacus!"
I am one of at least four different individuals who "participated" in
Ken's fine presentation. Someone (not me) first posted a link to
Dirk's immortal fumbles, and then started doodling on the screen.
At that point, I noticed the drawing tools on the right of the
screen, and tried them out. I had only just awoken, and remembered
that Ken's presentation was at 10 AM (EST). I noticed right away that
Ken reads (very badly) off his own slides, a mortal sin for even a
freshman in college.
The science Ken presented was his usual "IRT is a subset of SRT"
nonsense. A relative of mine was responsible for some of the drawings
on the slides, and such words as "SEX" and "BOOBS". I drew the
rectangles, triangles, and the words "Tully loves me."(A Sesame Street
reference)
However, we didn't write "Eric Gisse rules" (way to go, Eric!) or
the many comments about "Cock seconds", though I wish I had.
I got kicked off twice; apparently, the moderator thought that
there was ONE hacker, when there were actually several.
I almost felt bad for the moderator, as you could see the sweat
pouring from his brow, as he tried to maintain control of a situation
spiralling violently out of control. Ken tried, at several points, to
answer questions by referring to slides that had been severely
defaced, so severely that, he could barely find his own work amongst
the graffitti.
The moderator confessed to not "being a tech guru", which was the
understatement of the year, since all the "hacking" merely used tools
that were publicly available on that site.
I do feel some small pangs of regret for ruining Ken's big
moment, so, for anyone who might have been offended, I SINCERELY
apologize, and promise never to do it again.
Dirk Van de moortel
0e212d8a-50b1-4db4...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
And I missed all this :-((
I notice that the "video" is available at
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=More&tab1=Media&tab2=Display&id=189
but it's only sound and slides... no heads & online drawings.
Didn't anyone run a screen video snag of the entire thing?
Dirk Vdm
Robert Higgins
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 0e212d8a-50b1-4db4-ae86-e46b3e4d5...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
> but it's only sound and slides... no heads & online drawings.
>
> Didn't anyone run a screen video snag of the entire thing?
>
> Dirk Vdm
Sorry, I didn't. I didn't realize that the presentation would be that
entertaining until the middle. Hearing Ken's voice live was a treat,
too. I'll never be able to read one of his posts again without the
sound going through my head (like those old movies where you see a
letter on the screen, and hear the words spoken by the writer...)
Ken's knowledge of physics is only barely exceeded by his facility
with the English language.
student
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> 0e212d8a-50b1-4db4-ae86-e46b3e4d5...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> but it's only sound and slides... no heads & online drawings.
>
> Didn't anyone run a screen video snag of the entire thing?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've posted a Youtube clip of part of the presentation, but wasn't
expecting the strange comments and drawings on the slides after 0:50:
Genius over turns 100 years of Relativity theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyg8ZoEfcp0
Dirk Van de moortel
18797d85-9835-4fb8...@o32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
Got it.
Pity it's so short.
But thanks.
Still can't decide whether I should feel sorry for or amused over
Ken ... (:(
Dirk Vdm
Dono.
Man, Ken Shito is as stupid in real life as in this NG :-)
Juan R.
It has the signature of a well-known troll exposed both here and in
Wikipedia.
Congrats xxxx you did me laugh :-D
ken...@erinet.com
ROTFLOL....the runts of the SRians in these NGs came out in force to
destroy the slides of my presentation. This is clearly an act of
desperation....they failed to give a convincing arguement at the
internet about the flaws of SR so they resort to disrupt my
presentation.
BTW the defintion for a runt of the SRians is as follows:
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 SR
experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like gourmet puppy
chow. An asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR.
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:70e9e19f-1fdb-4431...@r42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
Glad I'm not one of those then
Dirk Van de moortel
70e9e19f-1fdb-4431...@r42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
So I guess I can decide now not to have to feel sorry for Ken :-)
Thanks, Ken - you're a real sport!
Dirk Vdm
ken...@erinet.com
> <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
Yes indeed....you are a runt of the SRians because you claimed that
there are different closing velocities between the bomb and the light
fronts from A and B. This violates the isotropy of the speed of light
in the ship.
Ken Seto
eric gisse
[...]
>
> ROTFLOL....the runts of the SRians in these NGs came out in force to
> destroy the slides of my presentation. This is clearly an act of
> desperation....they failed to give a convincing arguement at the
> internet about the flaws of SR so they resort to disrupt my
> presentation.
> BTW the defintion for a runt of the SRians is as follows:
> 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 SR
> experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like gourmet puppy
> chow. An asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR.
Could you PLEASE record yourself saying this?
It would complete me to witness that.
>
> Ken Seto
guskz
Alaska.
http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
Psycoptath fat head loser stuffed with junk food.
Never seen anyone who looks so pathetic.
Juan R.
> On Aug 22, 10:53 am, blackhead <larryhar...@softhome.net> wrote:
>> It's now 7-50am US Pacific time with over an hour of Ken's talk left:
>>
>> http://webmeeting.dimdim.com/portal/MeetingJoin.jsp
>>
>> The talk is disappointing because Ken just reads straight from the
>> slides. He also pronounces clock as cock and second as sucking which is
>> alarming when a page contains 5 instances of "clock second".
>>
>> 15 minutes into the talk, he seemed to be crossing out some of his text
>> and drew what appeared to be a penis in the top right of a slide, which
>> i put down to him saying "clock second" so many times. Then appeared
>> text: "Ken is a moron", "Ken is a crank", "CRACKPOT", "10 years and
>> still a moron".
>>
>> I have to admit, it was hilarious and only someone from this newsgroup
>> could have done it.
>>
>> So come on, spill the beans, who was it?
>
> ROTFLOL....the runts of the SRians in these NGs came out in force to
> destroy the slides of my presentation. This is clearly an act of
> desperation....they failed to give a convincing arguement at the
> internet about the flaws of SR so they resort to disrupt my
> presentation.
If it was only half true... Your mistakes are archived in Internet
togheter the corrections and arguments to your nonsenses :-D
It is clear they were merely bored by your "presentation" and this
message from you show your "desperation".
student
Really worrying... I had ken down as someone bright and fesity, able
to think for himself quick on his feet. Then after seeing his
presentation, I see him as an ageing old man lacking the vitality to
pick up a relativity book and study it for a few years and THEN
creating his own theory. Now I've seen erics picture: I had him down
as a bright graduate, maybe in the middle of a PhD and into all things
worldly. After looking at his pic, he really does look like a sad,
lonely virgin loser with no friends, with only his physics books and
burgers to give him comfort.
Thank FUCK you don't know what I look like cos anonymity is fantastic
for some :-)
eric gisse
[...]
I'm not sure what's more pathetic. Is it guskz who has decided to stalk me
and respond to many of my posts with my facebook profile, or is it the other
pseudonymous people who are making value judgements based on appearance?
ken...@erinet.com
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> kens...@erinet.com <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> 70e9e19f-1fdb-4431-a14b-764692b25...@r42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
I don't need you to feel sorry for me. You never did anyway.
Ken Seto
>
> Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
ken...@erinet.com
<juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
It is fully true....there is no mistake in what I said in the
internet.
Specifically....the SR concept of relativity of simultaneity violates
the SR postulate of isotropy of the speed of light.
Dirk Van de moortel
<ken...@erinet.com> schreef in bericht
news:a5ba89a8-3a19-4af1...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 24, 11:13 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > kens...@erinet.com <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
> > 70e9e19f-1fdb-4431-a14b-764692b25...@r42g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
[snip]
> > > ROTFLOL....the runts of the SRians in these NGs came out in force to
> > > destroy the slides of my presentation. This is clearly an act of
> > > desperation....they failed to give a convincing arguement at the
> > > internet about the flaws of SR so they resort to disrupt my
> > > presentation.
> > > BTW the defintion for a runt of the SRians is as follows:
> > > 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 SR
> > > experts around like a puppy and eats up their shit like gourmet puppy
> > > chow. An asshole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR.
> >
> > > Ken Seto
> >
> > So I guess I can decide now not to have to feel sorry for Ken :-)
> > Thanks, Ken - you're a real sport!
>
> I don't need you to feel sorry for me.
So much is clear.
> You never did anyway.
Well yes, I honestly did - until you produced that disgusting rant
above.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@erinet.com
wrote:
Fucking idiot....SRT is a subset of IRT. You are so fucking stupid.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
<ken...@erinet.com> schreef in bericht
news:1b6ea33a-a245-47ca...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> Sorry about that...
>> "I am Spartacus!"
>> I am one of at least four different individuals who "participated" in
>> Ken's fine presentation. Someone (not me) first posted a link to
>> Dirk's immortal fumbles, and then started doodling on the screen.
>> At that point, I noticed the drawing tools on the right of the
>> screen, and tried them out. I had only just awoken, and remembered
>> that Ken's presentation was at 10 AM (EST). I noticed right away that
>> Ken reads (very badly) off his own slides, a mortal sin for even a
>> freshman in college.
>> The science Ken presented was his usual "IRT is a subset of SRT"
>> nonsense.
>
> Fucking idiot....SRT is a subset of IRT. You are so fucking stupid.
You say
| "Specifically....the SR concept of relativity of simultaneity
| violates the SR postulate of isotropy of the speed of light."
So, your IRT contains a subset in which the postulates are
violated by its own concepts.
Doesn't that hurt, Ken?
Dirk Vdm
PD
But people do feel sorry for you, Ken, whether you want it or not.
Dirk Van de moortel
"PD" <thedrap...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:fdf22bca-fcdc-4c13...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 8:10 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 24, 11:13 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
[snip]
>> > So I guess I can decide now not to have to feel sorry for Ken :-)
>> > Thanks, Ken - you're a real sport!
>>
>> I don't need you to feel sorry for me. You never did anyway.
>
> But people do feel sorry for you, Ken, whether you want it or not.
... and sometimes even whether *they* want it or not :-|
Dirk Vdm
ken...@erinet.com
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> <kens...@erinet.com> schreef in berichtnews:1b6ea33a-a245-47ca...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
SRT...that's what I mean SRT is a subset of IRT. The bogus concept of
relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
of SRT. Why? Because IRT says that there is no physical length
contraction and no absolute time dilation.....the GPS uses absolute
time to synch the satellite clock with the ground clock....the GPS
clock second is set to have 4.15 periods more period of Cs radiation
than the ground clock second. This redefinition of the GPS second is
designed to make the GPS second to contain the same amount of absolute
time as the ground clock second.
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
<ken...@erinet.com> schreef in bericht
news:04e19f39-cc61-483a...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 25, 9:26 am, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> <kens...@erinet.com> schreef in
>> berichtnews:1b6ea33a-a245-47ca...@c2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
>> > Fucking idiot....SRT is a subset of IRT. You are so fucking stupid.
>>
>> You say
>> | "Specifically....the SR concept of relativity of simultaneity
>> | violates the SR postulate of isotropy of the speed of light."
>> So, your IRT contains a subset in which the postulates are
>> violated by its own concepts.
>
> IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
> SRT...that's what I mean SRT is a subset of IRT. The bogus concept of
> relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> of SRT.
So IRT contains a subset with a bogus concept.
And it still doesn't hurt.
Remarkable.
Dirk Vdm
ken...@erinet.com
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> <kens...@erinet.com> schreef in berichtnews:04e19f39-cc61-483a...@z31g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Why should it hurt???? SRT is based on false assertions and IRT
eliminates these false assertions.
Ken Seto
>
> Dirk Vdm
ken...@erinet.com
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> <kens...@erinet.com> schreef in berichtnews:a5ba89a8-3a19-4af1...@c14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
No you didn't....look at the posts you made before today.
PD
Can't. If it contains SRT as a subset, then it HAS to contain those
assertions. Then by claiming that the assertions are false, IRT
automatically becomes self-contradictory.
There, that was easy.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
>
Dono.
wrote:
> snip<
Ken Shito,
You need to come clean, did you hack your own presentation?
Come on, dr. Shito, tell the truth!
PD
Ken, feeling sorry for you does not mean abstaining from criticism of
you. Criticism is sometimes the kindest thing one can do to somebody
seriously off track.
PD
blackhead
According to your theory, if A moves with velocity v in B's frame,
then B doesn't move with velocity -v in A's frame whereas SRT depends
upon B moving with velocity -v in A's frame as a fundamental
postulate.
>The bogus concept of
> relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> of SRT. Why? Because IRT says that there is no physical length
> contraction and no absolute time dilation.....the GPS uses absolute
> time to synch the satellite clock with the ground clock....the GPS
> clock second is set to have 4.15 periods more period of Cs radiation
> than the ground clock second. This redefinition of the GPS second is
> designed to make the GPS second to contain the same amount of absolute
> time as the ground clock second.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Doesn't that hurt, Ken?
>
> > Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ken...@erinet.com
A's clock second has different duration than B's clock second.
Therefore they will not measure the same v wrt each other. Besides the
sign in front of -v for A is arbituary assigned by B. From A's point
of view B moves with -V_a.
BTW when B asserts that A moves at -v is an assertion....not a
postulate as you asserted.
Ken Seto
Robert Higgins
I was typing quickly, so I reversed the order - sue me. It is
difficult to care about writing about nonsense properly. On the other
hand, what I wrote is actually accurate (within your world view).
Though you insist that SRT is a subset of IRT (making IRT a superset
of SRT), in reality, since you deny one of the two fundamental
postulates of SRT (as best I can follow), IRT would have to be a
subset of SRT. (Draw Venn diagrams if you have trouble following
this). This means that itwould not necessary have the same
predictions, and you can't automatically use SRT's experimental
results as a support for IRT.
BTW, great talk - next time try not to read off your slides word for
word.
On the other hand, as Dirk, PD, and others have tried to explain to
you, if SRT is a subset of IRT, and SRT is fundamentally
contradictory, the failures of SRT AUTOMATICALLY undermine IRT.
ken...@erinet.com
No idiot.....IRT includes the predictions of SRT and more and that's
why IRT is a superset of SRT. The equations of IRT are valid in all
environments including gravity. IRT gives different interpretations
for time dilation and length contraction and that's why IRT does not
rely on making contradictory assertion to explain the paradoxes of SR.
This is similar that SR math is based on LET math but SR give
different interpretations than LET.
Ken Seto
blackhead
It's a postulate as in being recognised as an assumption that may be
false, whereas an assertion is simply stating something to be true.
The speed of light being the same in all frames is a postulate in SRT,
not an assertion, for example.
rotchm
> IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
> SRT...
That is well know. However, many of the math you do in your own theory
is wrong.. you make many math calculations but some are correct.
> The bogus concept of
> relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> of SRT.
That to is well known. Even Einstein claimed that. Some prefer to use
SR, some dont.
>Why? Because IRT says that there is no physical length
> contraction and no absolute time dilation.....
Again, Ken, you misunderstand or mis-calculate in your own theory. IRT
does say that there is "physical" length contraction and time
dilation.
ken...@erinet.com
Right when you said that from B's point of view A moves at -v is an
assertion....not a postulate.
Ken Seto.
ken...@erinet.com
> Tempted to put my word here...
>
> > IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
> > SRT...
>
> That is well know. However, many of the math you do in your own theory
> is wrong.. you make many math calculations but some are correct.
>
> > The bogus concept of
> > relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> > of SRT.
>
> That to is well known. Even Einstein claimed that. Some prefer to use
> SR, some dont.
No this is not well known. The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS
to resolve. In IRT there is no paradox.....the pole does not fit into
the barn no matter how fast it moves.
>
> >Why? Because IRT says that there is no physical length
> > contraction and no absolute time dilation.....
>
> Again, Ken, you misunderstand or mis-calculate in your own theory. IRT
> does say that there is "physical" length contraction and time
> dilation.
You are wrong....IRT says that the physical length of a meter stick
remains the same in all frames. What is changed according to the IRT
observer is that the light path length of a meter stick moving wrt the
IRT observer.
Ken Seto.
blackhead
Look above. I said:
"According to your theory, if A moves with velocity v in B's frame,
then B doesn't move with velocity -v in A's frame whereas SRT
depends
upon B moving with velocity -v in A's frame as a fundamental
postulate."
Can you see where it says postulate?
Juan R.
Inertial
>
>> I'm not sure what's more pathetic. Is it guskz who has decided to stalk
>> me and respond to many of my posts with my facebook profile, or is it
>> the other pseudonymous people who are making value judgements based on
>> appearance?
Yeup .. I agree, those posts based on your appearance are just low.
I may not agree with you when you're wrong, but that does not mean such
personal attacks are at all justified.
PD
> On Aug 25, 1:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Tempted to put my word here...
>
> > > IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
> > > SRT...
>
> > That is well know. However, many of the math you do in your own theory
> > is wrong.. you make many math calculations but some are correct.
>
> > > The bogus concept of
> > > relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> > > of SRT.
>
> > That to is well known. Even Einstein claimed that. Some prefer to use
> > SR, some dont.
>
> No this is not well known. The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS
> to resolve. In IRT there is no paradox.....the pole does not fit into
> the barn no matter how fast it moves.
There seems to be a problem here.
You say IRT contains SR as a subset. SR definitely asserts that the
pole does fit in the barn (and equivalent experiments have been done).
Therefore IRT contains the statement that the pole fits in the barn.
Yet IRT also contains the statement that the pole does not fit into
the barn, according to what you just said. Therefore, IRT is self-
contradictory.
Even a 3rd-grader can see that.
ken...@erinet.com
> On Aug 25, 5:10 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 1:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Tempted to put my word here...
>
> > > > IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
> > > > SRT...
>
> > > That is well know. However, many of the math you do in your own theory
> > > is wrong.. you make many math calculations but some are correct.
>
> > > > The bogus concept of
> > > > relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> > > > of SRT.
>
> > > That to is well known. Even Einstein claimed that. Some prefer to use
> > > SR, some dont.
>
> > No this is not well known. The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS
> > to resolve. In IRT there is no paradox.....the pole does not fit into
> > the barn no matter how fast it moves.
>
> There seems to be a problem here.
I don't normally read your post. The reason is that you sent a
threatening letter to my Daughter which I turned over to the FBI. I
answer this post because you made false statement about my theory.
> You say IRT contains SR as a subset. SR definitely asserts that the
> pole does fit in the barn (and equivalent experiments have been done).
No the modern interpretation of SR on length contraction is that the
geometric projection of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
contracted.....not the physical length of the moving meter stick. This
new interpretation means that the meter stick is not physically
contracted. This new interpretation agrees with the IRT interpretation
that the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter than the
light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick.....the light path
length of IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to be the physical
length of his meter stick.
> Therefore IRT contains the statement that the pole fits in the barn.
No ....the new SR interpretation says that the physical length of the
pole does not fit into the barn.....the geometric projection will fit
into the barn.
The IRT interpretation is that the light path length of the moving
pole is predicted to be shorter than the barn and thus it is able to
fit into the barn. However, the physical length of the pole is not
able to fit into the barn.
> Yet IRT also contains the statement that the pole does not fit into
> the barn, according to what you just said. Therefore, IRT is self-
> contradictory.
The contradiction is invented by you due to your poor understanding of
SR and IRT. Any third grader can see that. Bye.
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:666f1ef6-bb37-42b2...@g31g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Wrong
> the modern interpretation of SR on length contraction is that the
> geometric projection of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
> contracted
And that fits inside the barn
> .....not the physical length of the moving meter stick.
What do you mean by 'the physical length'. If you refer to the space
physically occupied by the rod in the barn frame, then the length of that is
physically shorter. If you mean the intrinsic inherent length of the pole
(in its own frame), then it is not
> This
> new interpretation means that the meter stick is not physically
> contracted.
See above
> This new interpretation agrees with the IRT interpretation
> that the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter than the
> light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick.....the light path
> length of IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to be the physical
> length of his meter stick
There is no such interpretation in SR. SRT is not a subset of IRT
>> Therefore IRT contains the statement that the pole fits in the barn.
>
> No ....the new SR interpretation says that the physical length of the
> pole does not fit into the barn.....the geometric projection will fit
> into the barn.
So the pole fits in the barn.
> The IRT interpretation is that the light path length of the moving
> pole is predicted to be shorter than the barn and thus it is able to
> fit into the barn. However, the physical length of the pole is not
> able to fit into the barn.
So does the pole fit in the barn or not?
>> Yet IRT also contains the statement that the pole does not fit into
>> the barn, according to what you just said. Therefore, IRT is self-
>> contradictory.
>
> The contradiction is invented by you due to your poor understanding of
> SR and IRT. Any third grader can see that. Bye.
So .. does IRT say the pole fits inside the barn?
PD
> On Aug 26, 8:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 25, 5:10 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 25, 1:53 pm, rotchm <rot...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Tempted to put my word here...
>
> > > > > IRT math contains SR math and thus IRT gives the same prediction as
> > > > > SRT...
>
> > > > That is well know. However, many of the math you do in your own theory
> > > > is wrong.. you make many math calculations but some are correct.
>
> > > > > The bogus concept of
> > > > > relativity of simultaneity is not needed to explain all the paradoxes
> > > > > of SRT.
>
> > > > That to is well known. Even Einstein claimed that. Some prefer to use
> > > > SR, some dont.
>
> > > No this is not well known. The barn and the pole paradox need the RoS
> > > to resolve. In IRT there is no paradox.....the pole does not fit into
> > > the barn no matter how fast it moves.
>
> > There seems to be a problem here.
>
> I don't normally read your post. The reason is that you sent a
> threatening letter to my Daughter
I did no such thing.
> which I turned over to the FBI.
Good for you. I've not been contacted by the FBI. Did you report the
vandalism on your internet presentation to the FBI? Do you have a case
number?
> I
> answer this post because you made false statement about my theory.
>
> > You say IRT contains SR as a subset. SR definitely asserts that the
> > pole does fit in the barn (and equivalent experiments have been done).
>
> No the modern interpretation of SR on length contraction is that the
> geometric projection of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
> contracted.....not the physical length of the moving meter stick. This
> new interpretation means that the meter stick is not physically
> contracted.
Sorry, this is in no way a "modern" or "new" or "different"
interpretation of relativity, and moreover it is wrong. The statements
of relativity have not changed.
The statement of relativity is that the pole DOES fit in the barn,
regardless whether you call it a physical contraction or a geometric
projection or changes the physical length of the pole or what.
The statement of relativity is that the pole DOES fit in the barn.
IRT claims that it does not.
IRT then is buying into an internal contradiction if it includes SR as
a subset.
> This new interpretation agrees with the IRT interpretation
> that the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter than the
> light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick.....the light path
> length of IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to be the physical
> length of his meter stick.
>
> > Therefore IRT contains the statement that the pole fits in the barn.
>
> No ....the new SR interpretation says that the physical length of the
> pole does not fit into the barn.....the geometric projection will fit
> into the barn.
SR makes no such statement that the physical length of the pole does
not fit into the barn. Wherever did you get that fool idea?
guskz
> pseudonymous people who are making value judgements based > on appearance?
Now the Psycopath's crying cause his appearance is horrible.
Here's a photo of fat Erica Gisse, laying in her pajamas in Frosty
Alaska.
http://www.facebook.com/eric.gisse
Psycoptath fat head loser stuffed with junk food.
Never seen anyone who looks so pathetic.
ken...@erinet.com
> <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
ot wrong....SR says that the geometric projection of the pole will fit
into the barn....not the physical length of the pole. Tom roberts
agreed with this interpretation.
>
> > the modern interpretation of SR on length contraction is that the
> > geometric projection of a meter stick moving wrt the observer is
> > contracted
>
> And that fits inside the barn
No geometric projection is not the physical length of the pole. A long
ladder fit through the door way did not change its physical length.
>
> > .....not the physical length of the moving meter stick.
>
> What do you mean by 'the physical length'.
The physical length of a meter stick is its material length.
> If you refer to the space
> physically occupied by the rod in the barn frame, then the length of that is
> physically shorter.
No....that's geometric projection the pole is never physically
contracted (shorter) as viewed in any frame (including the barn
frame).
>If you mean the intrinsic inherent length of the pole
> (in its own frame), then it is not
Intrinsic length is physical length is material length. Material
length is invariant no matter who is looking at it.
>
> > This
> > new interpretation means that the meter stick is not physically
> > contracted.
>
> See above
See above.
>
> > This new interpretation agrees with the IRT interpretation
> > that the light path length of a moving meter stick is shorter than the
> > light path length of the IRT observer's meter stick.....the light path
> > length of IRT observer's meter stick is assumed to be the physical
> > length of his meter stick
>
> There is no such interpretation in SR. SRT is not a subset of IRT
The SR interpretation that the geometric projection of the pole is
contracted is equivalent to the the IRT interpretation that the light
path length of the pole is shorter than the barn length.
>
> >> Therefore IRT contains the statement that the pole fits in the barn.
>
> > No ....the new SR interpretation says that the physical length of the
> > pole does not fit into the barn.....the geometric projection will fit
> > into the barn.
>
> So the pole fits in the barn.
The geometric projection will fit into the barn but not the material
length. When you orient a long ladder through a shorter door way its
material length is not changed.
>
> > The IRT interpretation is that the light path length of the moving
> > pole is predicted to be shorter than the barn and thus it is able to
> > fit into the barn. However, the physical length of the pole is not
> > able to fit into the barn.
>
> So does the pole fit in the barn or not?
Can't you read? IRT says that the light path length will fit into the
barn but not its material length. The length contraction equation in
IRT predicts the light path length of the moving pole. Similarly the
length contraction in SRT predicts the geometric projection of the
pole not its material length.
>
> >> Yet IRT also contains the statement that the pole does not fit into
> >> the barn, according to what you just said. Therefore, IRT is self-
> >> contradictory.
>
> > The contradiction is invented by you due to your poor understanding of
> > SR and IRT. Any third grader can see that. Bye.
>
> So .. does IRT say the pole fits inside the barn
IRT predicts that the light path length of the pole will fit into the
barn but not its material length.
Ken Seto
?- Hide quoted text -
eric gisse
[...]
>> I don't normally read your post. The reason is that you sent a
>> threatening letter to my Daughter
>
> I did no such thing.
Do you think Ken is making this up? I remember the initial presentation of
this and found it to be most odd.
[...]
PD
No, he's not making it up. His children received a letter from a
network security somebody-or-other, but it certainly didn't come from
me. When Ken accused me of it, I contacted his family to find out if
someone was impersonating me or using my name in any way. It didn't,
and I'm not involved in any way. Ken just makes things up, as you
know, and rages.
eric gisse
I was wondering how far the 'making things up' path went.
Inertial
news:7062fa06-c694-4382...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
[snip lots of the same]
> IRT predicts that the light path length of the pole will fit into the
> barn but not its material length.
So there are two measures of the barn .. what you call its light path length
(though you've not defined that) and its physical length (its material
length as you'd measure in its own frame of reference). One is shorter than
the barn and one not.
So does the pole fit inside the barn or not? Can you close both barn doors
at the same time with the pole wholly contained within? SR says you can.
What does IRT say?
ken...@erinet.com
> <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7062fa06-c694-4382...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> [snip lots of the same]
>
> > IRT predicts that the light path length of the pole will fit into the
> > barn but not its material length.
>
> So there are two measures of the barn .. what you call its light path length
> (though you've not defined that) and its physical length (its material
> length as you'd measure in its own frame of reference). One is shorter than
> the barn and one not.
In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal
constant....that is it remains the same length no metter how fast it
is moving.
An IRT observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
is the material length of his meter stick. He uses the IRT length
contraction and length expansion equations to predict the light path
length of a meter stick moving wrt him.
In SR the material length of a meter stick is also a universal
constant. An SR observer uses the length contraction equation to
predict the geometric projected length of the moving meter stick unto
his frame.
The material length of the pole is never able to fit into the shorter
length of the barn in both theories. However, the predicted the light
path length and the geometric projected length can be fit into the
barn.
>
> So does the pole fit inside the barn or not?
The material length of the pole does not fit into the barn. The light
path length or the geometric projected length can fit into the barn.
> Can you close both barn doors
> at the same time with the pole wholly contained within? SR says you can.
> What does IRT say?
NO....SR says that the geometric projection can fit into the barn with
the barn doors closed simultaneously. Think about it: from the pole
frame point of view the pole is never completely inside the barn with
the doors closed simultaneously....the front door open before the rear
door closes. This means that the material length of the pole is never
inside the barn with the dorrs closed simultaneously.
Ken Seto
Inertial
news:7cefec6c-7a29-4971...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 27, 10:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> <kens...@erinet.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:7062fa06-c694-4382...@a26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> [snip lots of the same]
>>
>> > IRT predicts that the light path length of the pole will fit into the
>> > barn but not its material length.
>>
>> So there are two measures of the barn .. what you call its light path
>> length
>> (though you've not defined that) and its physical length (its material
>> length as you'd measure in its own frame of reference). One is shorter
>> than
>> the barn and one not.
>
> In IRT the material length of a meter stick is a universal
> constant....that is it remains the same length no metter how fast it
> is moving.
Length as measured by whom?
> An IRT observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick
> is the material length of his meter stick.
What is 'light path length'
Why would anyone assume the light path length of something is its length
instead of its physical length?
> He uses the IRT length
> contraction and length expansion equations to predict the light path
> length of a meter stick moving wrt him.
Why would he care what the light path length is (whatever that is) if it
isn't the material length?
> In SR the material length of a meter stick is also a universal
> constant. An SR observer uses the length contraction equation to
> predict the geometric projected length of the moving meter stick unto
> his frame.
Which is the length the object occupies in the observers frame. That is
still physical. For example, a pole will fit physically within the barn
with the doors both closed for a moment accoprding to SR.
> The material length of the pole is never able to fit into the shorter
> length of the barn in both theories.
The pole does not occupy a length the sme as its physical length in the
bvarn frame, though. The pole DOES fit in the barn according to SR.
> However, the predicted the light
> path length and the geometric projected length can be fit into the
> barn.
Does the pole fit in the barn in IRT?
>> So does the pole fit inside the barn or not?
>
> The material length of the pole does not fit into the barn. The light
> path length or the geometric projected length can fit into the barn.
Does the pole fit in the barn in IRT?
>> Can you close both barn doors
>> at the same time with the pole wholly contained within? SR says you can.
>> What does IRT say?
>
> NO
Finally .. so IRT says you can't close the doors and the pole doesn't fit
SR say you CAN close the doors and the pole DOES fit.
So SR is not a subset of IRT
> ....SR says that the geometric projection can fit into the barn with
> the barn doors closed simultaneously.
It says the pole fits
> Think about it: from the pole
> frame point of view the pole is never completely inside the barn with
> the doors closed simultaneously
That's right
> ....the front door open before the rear
> door closes. This means that the material length of the pole is never
> inside the barn with the dorrs closed simultaneously.
It is in the barn frame. SR says, in the barn frame, the pole would fit
inside the barn with both doors shut simultaneously.
Are you claiming IRT says it does not?