EXPLAINING TIME DILATION

"TomGee" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411090123.2b322915@posting.google.c om...
news:<txrjd.129894$[Only registered users see links. ].com>. ..
same
about
universal
(observer)

You are a ****ing liar.
The book "Model Mechanics: A New Intretation of Nature"
(ISBN 0-9647136-0-8) was written and published in1993-1994 and copy right
1995
The book "The Physics of Absolute Motion" (ISBN 0-9647135-1-6) was written
published in 1998-1999 and copy right in 2000.

So **** off moron.

Ken Seto

[Only registered users see links. ] (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0411081035.66e62496@posting.google. com>...

<snip>


All my best ideas have already been stolen, often by people who have
long since died. ;-)


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"kenseto" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<AB5kd.4852$[Only registered users see links. ].com>...


But how can I be lying when they are your own words? I did not make
them up, they are direct quotes from your mouth so it is clear that if
they are lies then they are your lies and not mine. Why do you argue
against your own story if not because they were lies to begin with?
All anyone has to do is to search by your name and look for the posts
I have referenced and compare what I have said about what you have
claimed. How can you deny your own words?

"TomGee" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411091337.6ee6bef3@posting.google.c om...
news:<AB5kd.4852$[Only registered users see links. ].com>...
the
idea
universal
clock
represent a
right
written

So **** head how did I lie? The two books were published and copy right as
shown above. Whatever I posted after that were mis- interpreted by you.
Besides your theory on universal time is not the same as mine. If you insist
that it is the same then you are the one who is stealing from me since my
book were published before you posted your ideas. Go **** youself idiot.


****ing moron ...this is refering to publication of my theory in peer
reviewed journals.


****ing moron these dates are after the publication of the book in 1993. Go
ckeck with ISBN for the publication date for Model Mechanics.


You don't have any ****ing idea. You stole your idea from me.

Ken Seto

[Only registered users see links. ] (tadchem) wrote in message news:<130fe1c3.0411091154.6d44c4fe@posting.google. com>...
Are you saying you killed them all, or that your best ideas have never
been original?
TomGee

[Only registered users see links. ] (TomGee) wrote in message news:<cc2dde17.0411091730.480f1ce1@posting.google. com>...

<snip>


I'm not saying...


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"TomGee" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411081009.2906c6df@posting.google.c om...

Tom, it is simply change that varies in items with differing motions due to
trajectory of the particles.




from: Spirit of Truth

(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!

"June R Harton" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<h0Zkd.21865$[Only registered users see links. ].prodigy. com>...


Spirit, that may sound simple to you, but to me that seems to be too
open to interpretations which can vary widely just because it is not
sufficiently specific to the time dilation effect. However, I
appreciate your input, and I do not disagree with you, only that it
seems somewhat vague.
TomGee 111204

"TomGee" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:cc2dde17.0411062138.6c90c854@posting.google.c om...

Hallo Tom.

According to my blend of dialectics and double speak one can tell by the
crap flung upon you that your work must have some substance to it to be
pissing the shill off.

Well done... Tom. To the wakeful goyim wondering around cyberspace this is a
tell tale sign apparent like sign posts, bright lights and a big neon finger
flashing on and off, etc.

I have no bother for physics anymore, (With Armageddeon and all that shit
unfolding, who gives a flying **** about physics?) so I didn't even read
this post. I just wanted to say as a personal note, over the past couple of
years I did visit your web site a few times to read your work but lo and
behold, guess ****ing what? Your main works link would not open. Fancy
****ing that hey! Probably worked okay from your side when you tested it.
anyway, that's history.

Take care and beware of the WHO, vaccinations, prescription antidepressant
drugs, aspartame, water fluoridation, shills and agent provocateurs. ;-)

"em" <nootlanoo@dodiggerda> wrote in message news:<4196ee2f$0$17429$[Only registered users see links. ]. au>...


Um, thanks, em (I think).... I envy your ability to shrug off physics
and live a carefree life! Thanks for letting me know there is a life
beyond physics so that I can aspire to get there.

Actually, physics has been good to me because as an outsider I have
escaped most of the bile leveled at insiders by their very own. Of
course, so much hatred spills over into ngs like this one, but if we
can come to see the roles played by shills et al here we can come to
actually enjoy sticking it to 'em! I have not yet posted all of my
ideas which I have developed and written in my essay. As you can see,
the simplest ones put the shills into a foaming rage, so it's very
hard keeping a straight face while responding to their futile kneejerk
reactions which are simply functions of the levels of brainwashings
they received from their environment.

The roles played out in these ngs have some good and some bad in them.
The shills serve to provoke us into better and better explanations of
our ideas. Without opposition to our ideas these would be very dull
and dead-end ngs. It is unfortunate that most people who respond to
our posts are shills et al, but even they are better than nothing.
And nothing is what we get otherwise - a great BIG silence to our new
ideas, usually, as if they are so bad there is no sense in responding
to them, or as if they are so hard to argue against that better not
step in and find out we cannot logically or properly defend our own
ideas against the new. Which is better? The best that shills can
offer, or the dead silence from the more objective practitioners of
science?

As for me, I prefer the awful shrieks of the walking brain-dead to the
silence of the fearful lambs. I may someday tire of it all and join
you in a life free from toil and trouble, shills or silence, and
unreasonable thought.
TomGee 111404