Ken Seto and material contraction

[Odd Bodkin]

"I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."
Seto: "What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."

"No sir, I don't believe so."
Seto: "You just told me my neighbor poisoned my dog."

"No sir, I did not. I said your dog is dead."
Seto: "Yes, that means the same thing."

"No sir. Your dog ran out into the road and was struck by a truck that
couldn't stop in time. The truck kept going, and I saw it."
Seto: "Are you saying my dog ran out into the road because he was
poisoned by my neighbor?"

"No sir, I'm not saying that at all. Nobody said your dog was poisoned
at all. There are many ways your dog could have died."
Seto: "There is no other way. The only way the dog could be dead is if
it were poisoned by my neighbor. That's what dead means: neighbor-poisoned."

"Mr. Seto, nobody said anything about poison except you."
Seto: "You only say that because you want me to believe that the dog was
poisoned by my neighbor and also hit by a truck. But these are
contradictory. Your explanation involves a paradox."

"Mr. Seto, I'm trying to explain to you how your dog died."
Seto: "You're trying to get me to believe nonsense like the dog died but
not from poisoning by my neighbor. The public is fascinated with
neighbors who poison dogs, and you want me to believe both this and that
the dog was hit by a truck. You want me to believe in paradoxes, and I'm
not going to do that."

"Mr. Seto, do you want to come look at your dog in the road?"
Seto: "I'm not going to embark on a wild goose chase to look at a
poison-dead dog in the road. I know more than you about how dogs die
because I wrote a book about how dogs die. It explains the universe. You
know nothing about dead dogs."

"I suppose you just want me to leave the dog in the road, then."
Seto: "You can do whatever you want. It's your loss. I already know how
the dog died."


--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[rotchm]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> "I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."
> Seto: "What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."

Btw ken, thats just a *story*, a comedy that Odd is presenting. It is NOT true. No one poisoned your dog, and in fact, YOU DONT HAVE A DOG. So dont go calling the FBI to report that your imaginary dog has been poisoned by a phantom truck!

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu środa, 16 sierpnia 2017 20:19:55 UTC+2 użytkownik rotchm napisał:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > "I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."
> > Seto: "What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."
>
>
> Btw ken, thats just a *story*, a comedy that Odd is presenting. It is NOT true.

As if poor idiot Odd has ever wrote something true.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> "I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."
> Seto: "What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."
>
> "No sir, I don't believe so."
> Seto: "You just told me my neighbor poisoned my dog."
>
> "No sir, I did not. I said your dog is dead."
> Seto: "Yes, that means the same thing."

> […]

That sums up the crackpots’ closed mindsets nicely.

Thanks :)

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

Everything you said is untrue. First of all I don’t have a dog. So when you said that my dog was dead....hit by a truck you have no credibility. I suppose that you are referring to my postings the two alternatives for length contraction and you said that there is a third alternative and you refuse to tell me what is the third alternative and you merely tell me to read a book to find out. This proved that you are a lying sack of shit.

[rotchm]

On Friday, August 18, 2017 at 6:44:11 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 16, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> > "I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead." <SNIP>

>
> Everything you said is untrue.

Ken, do you have a dog, or had one recently?

> ... This proved that you are a lying sack of shit.

...is that you dono? Sure sounds like it.

[Dono,]

Nah, but there are quite a few people that know you for what you are. Stephane.

[Odd Bodkin]

Whooosh, right over his head. I'm talking with a smoked turkey breast.

[Lofty Goat]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 11:29:01 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>"I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."
>Seto: "What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."
>
>"No sir, I don't believe so."
>Seto: "You just told me my neighbor poisoned my dog."
>
>"No sir, I did not. I said your dog is dead."
>Seto: "Yes, that means the same thing."
>

>....

What makes this even funnier, and it is genuinely hilarious, is that Ken
is probably rubbing his hands, beaming beatifically, knowing that his
entire career as a troll, dedicated to eliciting this very sort of
response - fifteen years, hasn't it been? - is finally fulfilled.

Ken, good job. Well done.

--
Goat

[kenseto]

On Sun, August 20, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> "I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."

> Bodkin: “What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."

>
> "No sir, I don't believe so."

> Bodkin: "You just told me my neighbor poisoned my dog."

>
> "No sir, I did not. I said your dog is dead."

> Bodkin: "Yes, that means the same thing."

>
> "No sir. Your dog ran out into the road and was struck by a truck that
> couldn't stop in time. The truck kept going, and I saw it."
> Seto: "Are you saying my dog ran out into the road because he was
> poisoned by my neighbor?"
>
> "No sir, I'm not saying that at all. Nobody said your dog was poisoned
> at all. There are many ways your dog could have died."

> Bodkin: "There is no other way. The only way the dog could be dead is if

> it were poisoned by my neighbor. That's what dead means: neighbor-poisoned."
>

> "Mr. Bodkin, nobody said anything about poison except you."
> Bodkin: "You only say that because you want me to believe that the dog was

> poisoned by my neighbor and also hit by a truck. But these are
> contradictory. Your explanation involves a paradox."
>

> "Mr. Bodkin, I'm trying to explain to you how your dog died."
> Bodkin: "You're trying to get me to believe nonsense like the dog died but

> not from poisoning by my neighbor. The public is fascinated with
> neighbors who poison dogs, and you want me to believe both this and that
> the dog was hit by a truck. You want me to believe in paradoxes, and I'm
> not going to do that."
>

> "Mr. Bodkin, do you want to come look at your dog in the road?"
> Bodkin: "I'm not going to embark on a wild goose chase to look at a

> poison-dead dog in the road. I know more than you about how dogs die
> because I wrote a book about how dogs die. It explains the universe. You
> know nothing about dead dogs."
>
> "I suppose you just want me to leave the dog in the road, then."

> Bodkin: "You can do whatever you want. It's your loss. I already know how
> the dog died."

Since you (Bodkin) own a dog it is more believable the comedy script is modified as above.

Also in the same vein, you believe in Einstein’s shit on length contraction so you, the woodworker, believe anything that physicists invent to explain the length contraction equation.... even after I pointed out to you that length contraction is not material but that the projection of the pole becomes shorter by a factor of 1/gamma and thus can fit into the shorter barn nicely. But you were so ingrained into Einstein’s shit you refused to accept my explanation.
Also I pointed out to you that IRT has similar explanation. The light-path length of the moving pole is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. It is this foreshortened light-path length can be fit into the barn with both doors closed simultaneously. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of an identical pole in the rest frame of the barn is its material length.
Bodkin my advice to you: go back to woodworking......physics is a little too deep for you and you don’t have the mental capacity to handle it.

[rotchm]

On Sunday, August 20, 2017 at 11:50:44 PM UTC-4, kenseto wrote:
> On Sun, August 20, 2017 at 12:29:08 PM UTC-4, Ken Seto wrote:
> > "I'm sorry, sir, your dog is dead."
> > Bodkin: “What?? My neighbor poisoned my dog."
> >
> > "No sir, I don't believe so."
> > Bodkin: "You just told me my neighbor poisoned my dog."

<Plagiarism snipped>

> Since you (Bodkin) own a dog it is more believable the comedy
> script is modified as above.

Idiot ke, just as your IRT, you plagiarize other people's work.
Yours is not funny because that story was already done. You need to *invent* your own. But just like you just plagiarized someones work, you plagiarized your IRT.

> even after I pointed out to you that length contraction is not
> material

No idiot ken. It is YOU that has been arguing that "length contraction" is "material length contraction." You forget your own words now!?

> but that the projection of the pole becomes shorter by a

> factor of 1/gamma and thus...

Idiot ken, you are once more plagiarizing someone else's description
of length contraction. Why do you keep copying other people's stuff and declaring them as your own? That makes you a liar & a fraud. Have a little respect !

[Odd Bodkin]

I don't own a dog.

>
> Also in the same vein, you believe in Einstein’s shit on length contraction so you, the woodworker, believe anything that physicists invent to explain the length contraction equation.... even after I pointed out to you that length contraction is not material but that the projection of the pole becomes shorter by a factor of 1/gamma and thus can fit into the shorter barn nicely. But you were so ingrained into Einstein’s shit you refused to accept my explanation.
> Also I pointed out to you that IRT has similar explanation. The light-path length of the moving pole is foreshortened by a factor of 1/gamma. It is this foreshortened light-path length can be fit into the barn with both doors closed simultaneously. This prediction is based on the assumption that the light-path length of an identical pole in the rest frame of the barn is its material length.
> Bodkin my advice to you: go back to woodworking......physics is a little too deep for you and you don’t have the mental capacity to handle it.
>

[Y]

Hahaga

-y