Koobee Wublee says... > >On Mar 2, 3:49 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Exactly. In some cases (Seto for example), the motivation is neither >> the scientist nor science, but "How do I get some of that?" > >He saw the fallacy of SR, explained this fallacy, and offered a >solution whether the solute is valid or not is debatable.
Seto, like you, has no understanding of what SR says. He makes up his own version of SR which is *not* the theory used by actual physicists. He argues that the theory he made up is inconsistent. So what? It's not SR, as that theory is understood by physicists. Who cares whether it is consistent, or not?
If you want to make a scientific argument against relativity, then argue against the theory that is ACTUALLY being used by physicists.
Yes, I know that you anti-relativity people claim that the nonsensical version is the version that Einstein actually meant. That's a historical argument. I think you're wrong about that, but it really has no *scientific* relevance. What's scientifically relevant is the theory *as it is understood* today. If you want to argue against that theory, you have to start with understanding it. Which you haven't bothered to do.
