On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>
> >>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
> >> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> >> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> >
> > Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> > L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > Lambda_Na=589nm
> > f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>
Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.
>.
> >>> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain constant at all time.
> >> No, it doesn't.
> >>> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
> >> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
> >> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
> >> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
> >> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/12/2022 11:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>>
>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>> Lambda_Na=589nm
>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>
> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.

No, I asked YOU to use YOUR formula to predict the earth-moon distance.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth vari
es with time
> > >> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> > >> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> > >
> > > Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> > > L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > > Lambda_Na=589nm
> > > f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> > And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >
> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon
at anytime.

You do it,

Jan

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>>
>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>
> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.

No, you do it.

>> .
>>>>> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain constant at all time.
>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
>>>> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
>>>> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
>>>> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
>>>> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth vari
es with time
> >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>
> > Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moo
n at anytime.
>
> No, you do it.

I guess he can't even derive Keplerian ellises,
except by copy-pasting from a textbook,

Jan

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

>>
>> No, you do it.
>
> I guess he can't even derive Keplerian ellises,
> except by copy-pasting from a textbook,
>
> Jan
>

At this point, it’s simple deflection. He can’t do it, he can’t admit that
he can’t do it.
There’s just pursed lips, a silent glare, and stalking off.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> No, you do it.
> >
> > I guess he can't even derive Keplerian ellises,
> > except by copy-pasting from a textbook,
>
> At this point, it's simple deflection. He can't do it, he can't admit that
> he can't do it.
> There's just pursed lips, a silent glare, and stalking off.

In physics, it is always the results that count.
You must do at least as good as all that exists,
and then some better.

What we see here again and again is that the nutters
are completely clueless about what they are up against.
Many things can nowadays be predicted and computed
to nine or more decimals,
and that accuracy is often needed for practical applications.
There is a huge amount of competence hidden there.

The obvious idea is to take what exists, and improve on that.
Typical example:
Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of GR,
which gave him the enormous mountain of existing data
on celestial mechanics and observation for free.
Then he derive Mercury's precession on top of that.

Our relativity nutters have blocked that way for themselves.
They reject relativity, so all of modern high-precision physics.
That means they have to start from scratch,
and to recover all that is known already to enormous precision.
This is of course an impossible task.

Jan

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 14:35:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >>
> > >> No, you do it.
> > >
> > > I guess he can't even derive Keplerian ellises,
> > > except by copy-pasting from a textbook,
> >
> > At this point, it's simple deflection. He can't do it, he can't admit that
> > he can't do it.
> > There's just pursed lips, a silent glare, and stalking off.
> In physics, it is always the results that count.

When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must
be true.

> You must do at least as good as all that exists,
> and then some better.
>
> What we see here again and again is that the nutters
> are completely clueless about what they are up against.
> Many things can nowadays be predicted and computed
> to nine or more decimals,
> and that accuracy is often needed for practical applications.
> There is a huge amount of competence hidden there.

Fortunately - even your bunch of idiots isn't stupid enough
to treat your ideological idiocies (like Holy Synchronizing
Procedure, for instance ) seriously, so sometimes your
results indeed have some value.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:23:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/12/2022 11:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
> >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>> Lambda_Na=589nm
> >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>
> > Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.
> No, I asked YOU to use YOUR formula to predict the earth-moon distance.
I don't have to do anything for you Beside, I don't have the (Fab and Fae.a) data with time.
It appears that you don't care that my formula will revelutionalize Relativity and that's why you want me to waste time to do it.

On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
> >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> >>>
> >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>
> > Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.
> No, you do it.

I don't have the data to do it.
> >> .
> >>>>> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain constant at all time.
> >>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>>>> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
> >>>> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
> >>>> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
> >>>> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
> >>>> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 14:35:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>
> > > >> No, you do it.
> > > >
> > > > I guess he can't even derive Keplerian ellises,
> > > > except by copy-pasting from a textbook,
> > >
> > > At this point, it's simple deflection. He can't do it, he can't admit that
> > > he can't do it.
> > > There's just pursed lips, a silent glare, and stalking off.
> > In physics, it is always the results that count.
>
> When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must
> be true.

You can't argue with succes,

Jan

On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 18:24:12 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 13 April 2022 at 14:35:33 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, you do it.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess he can't even derive Keplerian ellises,
> > > > > except by copy-pasting from a textbook,
> > > >
> > > > At this point, it's simple deflection. He can't do it, he can't admit that
> > > > he can't do it.
> > > > There's just pursed lips, a silent glare, and stalking off.
> > > In physics, it is always the results that count.
> >
> > When a fanatic idiot is asserting it simply must
> > be true.
> You can't argue with succes,

Like - the success of forbidden by your bunch of
idiots ("broken") GPS clocks?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth va
ries with time
> > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth an
d
> > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> > >>>
> > >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> > >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > >>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> > >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> > >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> > >>
> > > Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the m
oon at anytime.
> > No, you do it.
>
> I don't have the data to do it.

I'll take that as a NO,

Jan

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
>>>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>>>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>
>>> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.
>> No, you do it.
>
> I don't have the data to do it.

Then it doesn’t meet the bar of other theories. Other theories let you
calculate data either from known physical constants or from empirical
numbers like the mass of the moon.

>>>> .
>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain
>>>>>>> constant at all time.
>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
>>>>>> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
>>>>>> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
>>>>>> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
>>>>>> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth va
> ries with time
> > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth an
> d
> > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> > > >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > > >>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> > > >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> > > >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> > > >>
> > > > Stuthe NSC)The sc

You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate the data.

>
> Jan
on)

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:53:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
> >>>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> >>>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>>>
> >>> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.
> >> No, you do it.
> >
> > I don't have the data to do it.
> Then it doesn’t meet the bar of other theories. Other theories let you
> calculate data either from known physical constants or from empirical
> numbers like the mass of the moon.

Yeah that's your security blanket......I don't have the resources to generate the data..
> >>>> .
> >>>>>>> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain
> >>>>>>> constant at all time.
> >>>>>> No, it doesn't.
> >>>>>>> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
> >>>>>> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
> >>>>>> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
> >>>>>> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
> >>>>>> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto wrote:

>> > I don't have the data to do it.
>> Then it doesn’t meet the bar of other theories. Other theories let you
>> calculate data either from known physical constants or from empirical
>> numbers like the mass of the moon.
>
> Yeah that's your security blanket......I don't have the resources to
> generate the data..

I can help with the resources. Just tell me what to do.

On 4/13/2022 12:16 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 12:23:55 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/12/2022 11:13 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
>>>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>>>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>> Lambda_Na=589nm
>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>
>>> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and the moon at anytime.
>> No, I asked YOU to use YOUR formula to predict the earth-moon distance.
> I don't have to do anything for you

Translation: I have no idea how to do that with my third grade math ability.

> Beside, I don't have the (Fab and Fae.a) data with time.

These days, *everything* is available on the net. And not doing such
exercises means you haven't finished the job required from any
physicist, to use your "theory" in real world situations to see if it works.

> It appears that you don't care that my formula will revelutionalize Relativity and that's why you want me to waste time to do it.

Finishing your job by providing relevant formulas and calculating real
world test cases is needed to complete a theory to the point where other
physicists can independently verify your "theory". This is nothing
special and not "wasting your time", it's FINISHING your work. ALL
physicists (and other scientists) MUST do this. This is what any and
every physicist who it trying to come up with a theory has to do.

What you are doing is like making stuffing and stuffing a turkey with it
and saying Tada!! Thanksgiving dinner!! No, you have a raw turkey and a
salmonella feast. You didn't finish the job and cook the turkey!

On April 4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
> Newton is no longer a good approximation.
> Everything you calculate with Newton only
> is in direct conflict with observation,

Mathematicians can solve the field equations to 9 digits of accuracy,
for the moon? And use that to distinguish from Newton's model?

Cite?

There's the problem of ignorance of the moon's mass distribution,
and exact center of gravity position. It's a large, irregular shape,
and non-uniform density (to 9 digits, certainly). Tracking a mirror
on the surface won't provide that information.

Do we know the location of earth's center of gravity, to 9 digits?

When we talk about measuring distance, it's implicitly a distance
between POINTS. Distance between objects means distance between
specific points on those objects; or, depending on context, we might
approximate the objects as points (as, e.g. the GPS satellites). That
doesn't hold in this case.

A single point at the surface doesn't address these issues.

--
Rich

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
> > > > >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
> > earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
> > the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
> > UTC.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> > > > >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > > > >>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> > > > >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> > > > >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> > > > >>
> > > > > Stuthe NSC)The sc
>
> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
> the data.

It is up to you to convince the world
that you have something that is worth funding.
THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
of computing something observable to better precision,

Jan

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On April 4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better
> > Newton is no longer a good approximation.
> > Everything you calculate with Newton only
> > is in direct conflict with observation,
>
> Mathematicians can solve the field equations to 9 digits of accuracy,
> for the moon? And use that to distinguish from Newton's model?

Yes. (in perturbation theory)
And Newton's model is quite irrelevant. It takes general relativity.

What was done instead was to distinguish between general relativity
and the competing Brans-Dicke theory of gravity. [1]
The lunar laser ranging experiment (almost) ruled out Brans-Dicke.

> Cite?

Woof! Woofwoof!!
It has been in the literature for decades.
Go look it up for yourself.

> There's the problem of ignorance of the moon's mass distribution,
> and exact center of gravity position. It's a large, irregular shape,
> and non-uniform density (to 9 digits, certainly). Tracking a mirror
> on the surface won't provide that information.

No need to, the orientation of the moon is measured too,
because there are three laser reflectors there.

> Do we know the location of earth's center of gravity, to 9 digits?

Better.
To sufficient accuracy to force a redefinition of the AU
as a fixed number, 1 AU = 149 597 870 700 meter (exactly)
The (more accurately) measured position of the Earth is too erratic
to serve as a base.

> When we talk about measuring distance, it's implicitly a distance
> between POINTS. Distance between objects means distance between
> specific points on those objects; or, depending on context, we might
> approximate the objects as points (as, e.g. the GPS satellites). That
> doesn't hold in this case.
>
> A single point at the surface doesn't address these issues.

The actual orientation is space of the Earth
is known to much greater precision.
It is quite irregular, for a great many reasons.
The IERS is tasked with keeping track of it.
For the short term they track the GPS constellation,
for long term stability they use VLBI,

Jan

[1] Brans-Dicke is a mixed scalar-tensor theory of gravity.
It can never be ruled out completely.
But the scalar component, if any,
has by now been measured to be so small
that few people still believe in it.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth va
>> ries with time
>>>>>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth an
>> d
>>>>>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>
>>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
>
> You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate the data.
>

Well, Ken, let me ask you a simple question: Have you submitted a grant
application to the funding agencies?

How did you think this works? The funding agencies just show up at a
physicist’s door and say, “Hey, have $200,000 to do this research for us”?
Is that what you thought?

Maybe it might be better if you took a look at an actual grant application
to DoE or NSF to see how the physicists do a number of calculations already
in the application.

One final caution: If you submit a grant application and it contains the
kind of awful prose you wrote above (“science foundaher tion”), you will
easily predict the sound of the application and the envelope hitting the
trash bin.

>
>>
>> Jan
> on)
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:53:02 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
>>>>>>>>> earth varies with time
>>>>>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>>>>>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
>>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
>>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid, use my formula to predict the distance between the earth and
>>>>> the moon at anytime.
>>>> No, you do it.
>>>
>>> I don't have the data to do it.
>> Then it doesn’t meet the bar of other theories. Other theories let you
>> calculate data either from known physical constants or from empirical
>> numbers like the mass of the moon.
>
> Yeah that's your security blanket......I don't have the resources to generate the data..

Then write a grant proposal to fund that work.

On the other hand, it costs you no money to look up physical constants and
empirical numbers like the mass of the moon, so why would you need funding
for those? If you don’t know how to look up numbers like that, money won’t
help.

>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain
>>>>>>>>> constant at all time.
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
>>>>>>>> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
>>>>>>>> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
>>>>>>>> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
>>>>>>>> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 5:15:45 AM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com:
> > > > > >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney:
> > > > > >>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the
> > > earth va ries with time > > >>>> Show your formula, and use it to show
> > > the distance between the earth an d > > >>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon
> > > UTC.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> > > > > >>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > > > > >>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> > > > > >>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> > > > > >> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > Stuthe NSC)The sc
> >
> > You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> > release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> > refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate
> > the data.
> It is up to you to convince the world
> that you have something that is worth funding.
> THE way to do that is to show that you are capable
> of computing something observable to better precision,

I am 85 years old. I don't have the time to apply for funding and do the experiments.
If you young guys don't want to do it, then I guess we will stay ignorant for another 100 years.

On Thursday, April 14, 2022 at 8:57:50 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 12:33:09 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 8:15:34 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 5:00:54 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth va
> >> ries with time
> >>>>>>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth an
> >> d
> >>>>>>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> >>>>>>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> >>>>>>> Lambda_NaX9nm
> >>>>>>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> >>>>>> And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Stuthe NSC)The sc
> >
> > You guys (science foundaher tion) got all the money....why don't you
> > release some to me to generate the data. Are you afraid that my twill
> > refute Einstein's theory so you will never give me the mneyti generate the data.
> >
> Well, Ken, let me ask you a simple question: Have you submitted a grant
> application to the funding agencies?

Yes I have and no answer. The reviewers are all relativists.
>
> How did you think this works? The funding agencies just show up at a
> physicist’s door and say, “Hey, have $200,000 to do this research for us”?
> Is that what you thought?
>
> Maybe it might be better if you took a look at an actual grant application
> to DoE or NSF to see how the physicists do a number of calculations already
> in the application.

I am 85 years old (close to 86). I don't have the time or energy to gp through the grant application. I guess we will have to waste another 110 year to find the TOE.
>
> One final caution: If you submit a grant application and it contains the
> kind of awful prose you wrote above (“science foundaher tion”), you will
> easily predict the sound of the application and the envelope hitting the
> trash bin.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Jan
> > on)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables