| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
05 Nov 2007 08:26:19 AM |
| Object: |
Unfication of Physics |
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "Kettle Fish" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 10:15:43 PM |
|
|
More google crap from another boring stupid troll.
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:1194272779.981220.266460@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
06 Nov 2007 04:12:32 PM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Never mind the discussion of the contents... the REAL question here
is: who did the cover art? Not a bad job. Is it your doing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
07 Nov 2007 07:54:25 AM |
|
|
"Rock Brentwood" <markwh04@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194387152.006519.306080@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Never mind the discussion of the contents... the REAL question here
is: who did the cover art? Not a bad job. Is it your doing?
Why not discuss the content? Do you have comprehension problem or are you a
runt of the SRians who will dismiss any new idea that disagree with SR??
The cover was designed by a commercial artist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rock Brentwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
08 Nov 2007 03:28:17 AM |
|
|
On Nov 7, 7:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
Why not discuss the content? Do you have comprehension problem or are you a
runt of the SRians who will dismiss any new idea that disagree with SR??
The cover was designed by a commercial artist.
There is no such thing as an "SRian". That's just a category you made
up to lump everything and everyone that disagrees with you on whatever
pronouncement of the day you may issue (and, as seen here, even when
nobody's disagreed with anything), as you continue to thump your chest
like the testosterone-poisoned degenerate atativists that all too many
males of your species have degenerated into.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
08 Nov 2007 07:20:03 AM |
|
|
On Nov 8, 4:28 am, Rock Brentwood <markw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 7:54 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
Why not discuss the content? Do you have comprehension problem or are you a
runt of the SRians who will dismiss any new idea that disagree with SR??
The cover was designed by a commercial artist.
There is no such thing as an "SRian".
Yes there is ....you are one of the SRians.
That's just a category you made
up to lump everything and everyone that disagrees with you on whatever
pronouncement of the day you may issue (and, as seen here, even when
nobody's disagreed with anything), as you continue to thump your chest
like the testosterone-poisoned degenerate atativists that all too many
males of your species have degenerated into.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dono" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
08 Nov 2007 10:13:24 AM |
|
|
On Nov 8, 5:20 am, "kens...@erinet.com"
<>
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/0/02/Character_of_the_donkey_from_Shrek_2.JPG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 09:05:28 AM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 01:41:53 PM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction. Go figure!!!!!!
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 02:17:55 PM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified. The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative velocity
data.
Go figure!!!!!!
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
06 Nov 2007 08:04:24 AM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified. The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Ken Seto
Go figure!!!!!!
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
06 Nov 2007 08:33:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Ken Seto
As has been point out, your additional postulates contradict the first
two. Furthermore, simple analysis show that your arguments don't hold
in the general case. And the fact remains that....
IRT cannot:
A. predict the correct perihelion precession of Mercury
IRT cannot
B. predict the correct relativistic effects on a satellite clock
IRT cannot
C. predict the time dilation of A's clock measured by B, when their
relative velocity is 22220 km/s.
Seto can *not* demonstrate that IRT can do any of these things!
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Unification of Physics |
09 Nov 2007 04:43:04 PM |
|
|
Sam The big event in physics is the unification of the 4 forces into
one. It will be shown someday that the other 3 forces come out of
gravity's great force in the Planck realm Bert
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
06 Nov 2007 08:11:37 AM |
|
|
On Nov 6, 8:04 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified. The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Not with already measured data as parameters in the calculated
prediction, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Name two SR predictions (real predictions, ones based on already
measured data) that IRT also has.
Just two.
Or admit that you don't know what the heck you're talking about.
Ken Seto
Go figure!!!!!!
Definition for a runt of the SRians:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
07 Nov 2007 08:27:02 AM |
|
|
On Nov 6, 9:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:04 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified. The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Not with already measured data as parameters in the calculated
prediction, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Name two SR predictions (real predictions, ones based on already
measured data) that IRT also has.
Fucking idiot the SR equations are also IRT equations so all the SR
predictions are also IRT predictions. The converted SR(IRT) equations
are extension of the original SR(IRT)equation using F_ab and f_ab
instead of v and c. THese converted IRT equations are valid in all
environments, including gravity.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
08 Nov 2007 09:02:26 PM |
|
|
On Nov 7, 6:27 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:04 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified. The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Not with already measured data as parameters in the calculated
prediction, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Name two SR predictions (real predictions, ones based on already
measured data) that IRT also has.
Fucking idiot the SR equations are also IRT equations so all the SR
predictions are also IRT predictions. The converted SR(IRT) equations
are extension of the original SR(IRT)equation using F_ab and f_ab
instead of v and c. THese converted IRT equations are valid in all
environments, including gravity.
Frequentia f should be deprecate for wavestint t.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
09 Nov 2007 12:25:19 AM |
|
|
On Nov 7, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:04 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory" using
already available data. So while it is certainly a self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified. The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Not with already measured data as parameters in the calculated
prediction, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Name two SR predictions (real predictions, ones based on already
measured data) that IRT also has.
Fucking idiot the SR equations are also IRT equations so all the SR
predictions are also IRT predictions. The converted SR(IRT) equations
are extension of the original SR(IRT)equation using F_ab and f_ab
instead of v and c. THese converted IRT equations are valid in all
environments, including gravity.
So you can't name two predictions of SR that are identical in IRT?
Ken Seto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
09 Nov 2007 08:31:24 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194589519.222022.308570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:04 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com>
wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On
Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory"
using
already available data. So while it is certainly a
self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory
of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time
he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually
written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified.
The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative
velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Not with already measured data as parameters in the calculated
prediction, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Name two SR predictions (real predictions, ones based on already
measured data) that IRT also has.
Fucking idiot the SR equations are also IRT equations so all the SR
predictions are also IRT predictions. The converted SR(IRT) equations
are extension of the original SR(IRT)equation using F_ab and f_ab
instead of v and c. THese converted IRT equations are valid in all
environments, including gravity.
So you can't name two predictions of SR that are identical in IRT?
Fucking idiot runt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
09 Nov 2007 01:27:17 PM |
|
|
On Nov 9, 8:31 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194589519.222022.308570@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 7, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:11 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:04 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 3:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:41 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com>
wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:05 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:> On
Nov 5, 8:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto offers no quantitative predictions from his "theory"
using
already available data. So while it is certainly a
self-published
paper on his website, it can't be said to be a physical theory
of any
value.
ROTFLOL....PD is a runt of the SRians. He said that using old
measured data in an equation is prediction and that using newly
measured data in an equation is not prediction. At the same time
he
asserted that SR equations give predictions even though all SR
equations require newly measured relative velocity data to make
prediction.
That's incorrect, Seto. Your ignorance of what was actually
written in
the papers is astonishingly abysmal and you should be mortified.
The
papers contained predictions based on already known relative
velocity
data.
Hey idiot it also contains predictions that SR doesn't predict.
Not with already measured data as parameters in the calculated
prediction, it doesn't.
Furthermore, the first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as
the SR postulates. Therefore any SR predictions are also IRT
predictions.
Name two SR predictions (real predictions, ones based on already
measured data) that IRT also has.
Fucking idiot the SR equations are also IRT equations so all the SR
predictions are also IRT predictions. The converted SR(IRT) equations
are extension of the original SR(IRT)equation using F_ab and f_ab
instead of v and c. THese converted IRT equations are valid in all
environments, including gravity.
So you can't name two predictions of SR that are identical in IRT?
Fucking idiot runt.
That's what I thought. When it comes down to it, Ken, your utter
incompetence is unearthed with just the digging of a toe -- no shovel
required. And whenever that happens, this is your response -- and that
happens quite often, doesn't it?
PD
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 12:59:19 PM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 01:43:08 PM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 03:13:00 PM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 1:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
Today physics.
Tomorrow all knowledge.
Welcome to Principia Cybernetica Web:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
06 Nov 2007 10:45:57 AM |
|
|
On Nov 5, 2:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
You've been making silly statements just like that for years in
defense of your lame understanding of physics. Maybe you could
enlighten everybody and finally explain just what that stupid phrase
is actually supposed to mean? Or is your understanding of sentence
construction comparable to your knowledge of physics?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
07 Nov 2007 07:51:18 AM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194367557.938900.207860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 2:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
You've been making silly statements just like that for years in
defense of your lame understanding of physics. Maybe you could
enlighten everybody and finally explain just what that stupid phrase
is actually supposed to mean? Or is your understanding of sentence
construction comparable to your knowledge of physics?
Fucking idiot.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
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 ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
08 Nov 2007 02:12:41 PM |
|
|
On Nov 7, 8:51 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194367557.938900.207860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 5, 2:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
You've been making silly statements just like that for years in
defense of your lame understanding of physics. Maybe you could
enlighten everybody and finally explain just what that stupid phrase
is actually supposed to mean? Or is your understanding of sentence
construction comparable to your knowledge of physics?
Fucking idiot.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
How can it be a religion, when it is falsifiable? But, if you're
going to really challenge it, you better come prepared with all you
can possibly understand about it. That's where you fail every time.
An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR.
Again, your problem. Anyone who has seriously studied SR already
knows its limitations.
A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school.
Spoken by a guy who seems to think that a aquare wheel is an
improvement.
An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow.
Now, that's just plain stupid even for someone like you.
An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
No one's attacking you. We're attacking your pathetic ideas. But
then, when you leave holes in your theory big enough to fly a 747
through, you're just begging for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
09 Nov 2007 08:25:10 AM |
|
|
"Igor" <thoovler@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194547702.192612.70490@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 8:51 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194367557.938900.207860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 5,
2:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even
understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
You've been making silly statements just like that for years in
defense of your lame understanding of physics. Maybe you could
enlighten everybody and finally explain just what that stupid phrase
is actually supposed to mean? Or is your understanding of sentence
construction comparable to your knowledge of physics?
Fucking idiot.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
How can it be a religion, when it is falsifiable?
This shows me that YOU don't understand SR. SR is not falsifiable with the
current defintion for the length of a meter.....1 meter = 1/299,792,458
light-second.
But, if you're
going to really challenge it, you better come prepared with all you
can possibly understand about it. That's where you fail every time.
ROTFLOL....pot calling the kettle black. My understanding of SR is llight
years ahead of you. It is my complete understanding of SR enables me to
formulate a complete theory of relativity called IRT. IRT includes SRT as a
subset. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all
environments, including gravity.
Again you are a fucking idiot runt of the SRians. So *****.
Ken Seto
An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR.
Again, your problem. Anyone who has seriously studied SR already
knows its limitations.
A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school.
Spoken by a guy who seems to think that a aquare wheel is an
improvement.
An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow.
Now, that's just plain stupid even for someone like you.
An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
No one's attacking you. We're attacking your pathetic ideas. But
then, when you leave holes in your theory big enough to fly a 747
through, you're just begging for it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Poe" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
08 Nov 2007 02:32:19 PM |
|
|
On Nov 8, 3:12 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:51 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194367557.938900.207860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 5, 2:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
You've been making silly statements just like that for years in
defense of your lame understanding of physics. Maybe you could
enlighten everybody and finally explain just what that stupid phrase
is actually supposed to mean? Or is your understanding of sentence
construction comparable to your knowledge of physics?
Fucking idiot.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
How can it be a religion, when it is falsifiable? But, if you're
going to really challenge it, you better come prepared with all you
can possibly understand about it. That's where you fail every time.
Ken thinks we accept SR for religious reasons rather
than scientific ones, i.e., alone in this thread there is
one person who thinks SR is a religion: Ken.
An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR.
Again, your problem. Anyone who has seriously studied SR already
knows its limitations.
Ah, but there is one person in this thread who
does *not* know the limitations of SR: Ken.
A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school.
Spoken by a guy who seems to think that a aquare wheel is an
improvement.
I think we have another match for Ken here.
It seems there is one person and one person only
who comes at all close to Ken's description of
"runt of the SRians" and that person is: Ken.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
09 Nov 2007 11:29:14 AM |
|
|
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194553939.873525.257040@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 8, 3:12 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 8:51 am, "kenseto" <kens...@woh.rr.com> wrote:
"Igor" <thoov...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194367557.938900.207860@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...> On Nov
5, 2:43 pm, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 1:59 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, kenseto <kens...@erinet.com> wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my
website:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
That sounds pretty ambitious for someone that doesn't even
understand
high school physics.
Igor is a runt of the SRians.
You've been making silly statements just like that for years in
defense of your lame understanding of physics. Maybe you could
enlighten everybody and finally explain just what that stupid phrase
is actually supposed to mean? Or is your understanding of sentence
construction comparable to your knowledge of physics?
Fucking idiot.
Definition for a runt of the SR SRians:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion.
How can it be a religion, when it is falsifiable? But, if you're
going to really challenge it, you better come prepared with all you
can possibly understand about it. That's where you fail every time.
Ken thinks we accept SR for religious reasons rather
than scientific ones, i.e., alone in this thread there is
one person who thinks SR is a religion: Ken.
Idiot ......pot calling the kettle black.
Ken Seto
An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR.
Again, your problem. Anyone who has seriously studied SR already
knows its limitations.
Ah, but there is one person in this thread who
does *not* know the limitations of SR: Ken.
A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school.
Spoken by a guy who seems to think that a aquare wheel is an
improvement.
I think we have another match for Ken here.
It seems there is one person and one person only
who comes at all close to Ken's description of
"runt of the SRians" and that person is: Ken.
- Randy
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Unfication of Physics |
05 Nov 2007 11:12:23 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
A paper entitled "Unification of Physics" is available in my website:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/index.htm
Ken Seto
Seto shames his parents!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
