Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory if Gravity (DTG)
kenseto
of Gravity (DTG)" is available in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2007IRT.pdf
IRT includes SRT as a subset. However, unlike SRT, the equations of
IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. DTG describes
gravity as a force. Gravity as descriobed by DTG is compatible with
the other forces of nature. In addition the equation of DTG explains
why the far reached regions of the universe is in a state of
accelerated expansion.
Also please visit my website to read other papers on my theory.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Dirk Van de moortel
ad556440-21c4-41db...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com
For those who are interested, I have created a concise summary
of Seto's papers. It can be found at:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/SetoPapers.jpg
Dirk Vdm
Uncle Al
>
> A paper entitled "Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory
[snip crap]
> Ken Seto
[snip rest of crap]
http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
kron...@yahoo.co.uk
I cannot understand why people toute these papers here. If they really
are as good as they claim then why not submit to a journal.
That is the acid test. We have no bias here, if it passes the test of
peer review then it will be published. Do it properly.
K.
Dirk Van de moortel
f601af17-e35d-48e7...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com
Done properly at the National Psychopathy Alliance:
http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/index.html
http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/2006NPAAbstracts32206.htm
"The Origin of Our Universe as Interpreted by Model Mechanics
Ken H. Seto (in absentia)"
Dirk Vdm
kenseto
My theory has been published in the following peer review journals:
1.Galilean Electrodynamics.
2. EPISTEME.
3. Science and Nature Volume3/Issue1,pages 1=12.
http://www.sciencepub.org/nature
Ken Seto
PD
Ken has published some of these in vanity journals like Galilean
Electrodynamics. Vanity journals are like self-publishing (like the
way that Seto has produced his book). There is no editorial
evaluation. What the author-customer wants, the author-customer gets.
It's a little like vanity Who's Who references, which don't charge you
anything for your listing, but then they hope to get you to pay for
printed copies of the reference, which more than makes up for their
cost.
Publishing doesn't prove much, unfortunately. Having a readership
does. This is what a real book publisher will do -- establish your
readership by royalty check. This is what a reputable journal will do
-- establish your readership by the number of published authors that
include your article in their references.
How many libraries pay for copies of Galilean Electrodynamics? In
fact, who besides the journal article authors pays for copies of
Galilean Electrodynamics? Which other authors have cited Ken's papers
or his book in the references to their own paper? How many libraries
have paid for a copy of Ken's book? How many people have purchased a
copy of Ken's book?
PD
Sam Wormley
Hey Seto, this http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare sums
up the collective responses to your papers. You might want to check
the review for accuracy, however.
Sam Wormley
Who are those "peers" again?
Dono
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> For those who are interested, I have created a concise summary
> of Seto's papers. It can be found at:
> http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Stuff/SetoPapers.jpg
>
> Dirk Vdm
Good synopsis, I suggest that you replace the fresh rolls with some
used ones
:-)
harry
Well put! Just to make sure: indeed our library "lacks" that journal.
Note: the suggestion that popularity proves much is erroneous, it's an
indication at best. A positive example has just been given by someone else,
and a negative example can be found here:
http://www.usal.es/~licesio/Biofisica/Winfree_JCE1984.pdf
Cheers,
Harald