On May 24, 8:59 am, waldofj <wald...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On May 24, 8:01 am, "ken...@att.net" <seto...@att.net> wrote:
> > On May 24, 7:21 am, Daryl McCullough <stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> 
> > > The Usenet discussion groups sci.physics.relativity, sci.math,
> > > sci.logic have almost completely become a place to have an
> > > argument with crackpots. Really, out of every 20 posts in
> > > sci.physics.relativity, maybe 19 are either posts by
> > > anti-relativity crackpots or people trying to explain things
> > > to anti-relativity crackpots,
> 
> > Here's the problem.....you assumed that every body disagrees with the
> > mainstream views are crackpots and thus their ideas and arguements are
> > dismissed without giving due consideration.
> 
> No Ken. Throughout history every advance in physics has come from
> people who rejected the mainstream views. Their views were ultimately
> excepted because their new theory's were logical, mathematically
> consistent, and ultimately confirmed by experiment.

So you disagreee with LaLaLa? He said that disagreeing with mainstream
view is not science.

> You, on the other hand, have consistently shown that you do not
> understand basic logic, physics, or even algebra. Your views are
> rejected not because you disagree with the mainstream view but because
> you are a complete IDIOT in every sense of the word.

What make you say that? I proposed a new theory of relativity call
IRT. IRT includes SRT as a subset. However unlike SRT the equations of
IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity. IRT have an
unlimited domian of applicability and thus it is valid for use to
replace SRT/GRT in all applications. A paper on IRT is available in
the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf