Re: Who hacked Ken's presentation?

On Aug 25, 12:41 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 25, 9:20 am, "kens...@xxxxxxxxxx" <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Aug 23, 12:56 pm, Robert Higgins <robert_higgins...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Aug 22, 10:53 am, blackhead <larryhar...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It's now 7-50am US Pacific time with over an hour ofKen'stalk left:

http://webmeeting.dimdim.com/portal/MeetingJoin.jsp

The talk is disappointing becauseKenjust reads straight from the
slides. He also pronounces clock as *** 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: "Kenis a moron", "Kenis 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?

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.

Ken Seto

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.

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



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Quantcast