kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:

> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > > >>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > > >>> halfbrain.
> > > >> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> > > >> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> > > >> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> > > >> as such.
> > > >
> > > > According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> > >
> > > It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> > > Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> > > lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> > >
> > > > So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> > >
> > > Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> > > doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> > > approximation, but only an approximation.
> > 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, yX
>
> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)

So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?

Jan

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:02 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the water.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are not covariance.
> >>>>>>>>>>> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.d
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >>>>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >>>>>>>>> knows this.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >>>>>>>>> that is.
> >>>>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> >>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
> >>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No you don't know.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
> >>>>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
> >>>>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But you inferred that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
> >>>>>
> >>>>> First you have to learn what it means.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
> >>>>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
> >>>>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
> >>>>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
> >>>>> textbook?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> >>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
> >>>> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
> >>>> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
> >>>> it to him... Seto, look it up!
> >>> hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
> >>>
> >> Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
> >> read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
> >> kinds of covariance.
> You can’t type the first sentence in the article you looked up?
> >>
> >> Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
> >> you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?
> >>
> >> Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
> >> published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
> >> isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
> >> and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?
> >
> > You are a moron......how do we know that your understanding of the word "covariance"
> > is correct?
> You’ll NEVER know, because you’ve never read a textbook about it, so you
> have no idea what the right answer is, even if it’s expressed to you.
>
> This is your standard third-grade game to try to pump people on a newsgroup
> for information. “Bet you can’t.” “How do I know your understanding is
> correct?” “Tell us this secret you know.”

You don't know the correct meaning of the word so you give us your standard bullshit <sad>
>
> When you decide to grow up and read textbooks rather than making excuses,
> you’ll learn something. Not before.ING
> > I think not. All you do is bullshit.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:01 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>>>>>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> >>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> >>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> >>>>>>> as such.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> >>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> >>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> >>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> >>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
> >>>> 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, yX
> >>>
> >>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> >>>
> >>>
> >> That doesn’t help. Fab/Faa is a constant.
> > .
> > Moron, the moon is moving wrt the earth means that at different time "A"
> > will measure a different {Fab).
> > Gee you are so stupid and yet tried to claim that you know everything
> >
> >
> Ken, for the record, I have never once claimed that I know everything. I
> have never once claimed that I’m the foremost expert on physics in this
> newsgroup.

Yes you did. All your posts assert that other posts are incorrect.
>
> But there is a wide spectrum between knowing nothing and knowing
> everything. And I am certain that I know much, much, much more physics than
> you do.
Yes you know much more Einstein's obsolete than I.

>In fact, I have a hard time thinking of three people who post on
> this newsgroup who know less physics than you do. And you have said so
> yourself. You’ve said that other people know a lot more physics than you
> do, but you call it all “obsolete” physics, and that your ridiculous
> oatmeal is “new” physics. The quality of physics is determined by other
> people, not by you.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:02 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not covariance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.d
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>>>>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>>>>>>>>> that is.
>>>>>>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No you don't know.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>>>>>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>>>>>>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you inferred that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First you have to learn what it means.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
>>>>>>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
>>>>>>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
>>>>>>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
>>>>>>> textbook?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
>>>>>> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
>>>>>> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
>>>>>> it to him... Seto, look it up!
>>>>> hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
>>>>>
>>>> Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
>>>> read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
>>>> kinds of covariance.
>> You can’t type the first sentence in the article you looked up?
>>>>
>>>> Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
>>>> you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?
>>>>
>>>> Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
>>>> published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
>>>> isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
>>>> and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?
>>>
>>> You are a moron......how do we know that your understanding of the word "covariance"
>>> is correct?
>> You’ll NEVER know, because you’ve never read a textbook about it, so you
>> have no idea what the right answer is, even if it’s expressed to you.
>>
>> This is your standard third-grade game to try to pump people on a newsgroup
>> for information. “Bet you can’t.” “How do I know your understanding is
>> correct?” “Tell us this secret you know.”
>
> You don't know the correct meaning of the word so you give us your standard bullshit <sad>

Oh, I forgot that line from the third-grade game:

“Bet you can’t. If you knew, you’d say.”

“It’s unscientific to not answer my questions.”

“How do I know your understanding is correct?”

“You don’t know, and so you’re bullshitting.”

“Unless it’s secret, explain this to us.”

Since these are unmoving to grown-ups, you change your responses to excuses
about books:

“I don’t have to read physics books, because I’ve written a book that
replaces all of them.”

“I’m not going to waste my time reading books based on Einstein’s bullshit,
even the chapters about physics created in the 1600’s, because the authors
in the 1600’s predicted the nonsense that Einstein would say in 1905 and
adapted their stuff to be compatible.”

“My book is more recent than those physics book, so my book is modern
physics and those books are all obsolete physics.”

“I refuse to read textbooks that just brainwash people.”

“If you have read other textbooks, then you are obligated to read mine too.
And no, I’m not obligated to do the same, so fuck off.”

>>
>> When you decide to grow up and read textbooks rather than making excuses,
>> you’ll learn something. Not before.ING
>>> I think not. All you do is bullshit.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > > >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > > > >>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > > > >>> halfbrain.
> > > > >> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> > > > >> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> > > > >> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> > > > >> as such.
> > > > >
> > > > > According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> > > >
> > > > It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> > > > Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> > > > lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> > > >
> > > > > So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> > > >
> > > > Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> > > > doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> > > > approximation, but only an approximation.
> > > 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, yX
> >
> > That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?

Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion. It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 1:09:59 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:01 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
>>>>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
>>>>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
>>>>>>>>> as such.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
>>>>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
>>>>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
>>>>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
>>>>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
>>>>>> 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, yX
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That doesn’t help. Fab/Faa is a constant.
>>> .
>>> Moron, the moon is moving wrt the earth means that at different time "A"
>>> will measure a different {Fab).
>>> Gee you are so stupid and yet tried to claim that you know everything
>>>
>>>
>> Ken, for the record, I have never once claimed that I know everything. I
>> have never once claimed that I’m the foremost expert on physics in this
>> newsgroup.
>
> Yes you did. All your posts assert that other posts are incorrect.

I don’t feel the need to respond to posts that have the physics right. So I
don’t respond to everyone.

I do respond to you, because you are wrong almost 100% of the time, and the
reason for that is simple: you never learned any physics at all. There is
NO physics you can do that didn’t come out of your head. You’ve learned
NOTHING about physics from anyone else. Not one thing. All your posts are
incorrect.

>>
>> But there is a wide spectrum between knowing nothing and knowing
>> everything. And I am certain that I know much, much, much more physics than
>> you do.
> Yes you know much more Einstein's obsolete than I.

Not just Einstein’s physics. Also the physics from the 1800s before
Einstein was born. Also the physics from the 1700s. Also the physics from
the 1600s.

Einstein is not the source of all physics, you nincompoop. And you know NO
physics that physicists know, regardless of the era. The only thing you
know is the bullshit you made up and falsely called “new physics.”

I know more much, much, much more physics than you from the 17th, 18th,
19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

>
>> In fact, I have a hard time thinking of three people who post on
>> this newsgroup who know less physics than you do. And you have said so
>> yourself. You’ve said that other people know a lot more physics than you
>> do, but you call it all “obsolete” physics, and that your ridiculous
>> oatmeal is “new” physics. The quality of physics is determined by other
>> people, not by you.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
>>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
>>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
>>>>>>> as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
>>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
>>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
>>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
>>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
>>>> 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, yX
>>>
>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
>
> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.

Ken, in case this has eluded you, what is 10^-9 (the precision of the
position measurement) of the distance from earth to moon. Do you know how
to calculate this?

Of course you don’t.

You can’t count change at the grocery store.

> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
>
>

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:11:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:02 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail..com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the water.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not covariance.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.d
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
> >>>>>>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
> >>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
> >>>>>>>>>>> that is.
> >>>>>>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
> >>>>>>>>> Nope.
> >>>>>>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
> >>>>>>>>> Yes.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No you don't know.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
> >>>>>>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But you inferred that.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> First you have to learn what it means.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
> >>>>>>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
> >>>>>>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
> >>>>>>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
> >>>>>>> textbook?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant..
> >>>>>> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
> >>>>>> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
> >>>>>> it to him... Seto, look it up!
> >>>>> hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
> >>>> read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
> >>>> kinds of covariance.
> >> You can’t type the first sentence in the article you looked up?
> >>>>
> >>>> Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
> >>>> you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
> >>>> published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
> >>>> isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
> >>>> and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?
> >>>
> >>> You are a moron......how do we know that your understanding of the word "covariance"
> >>> is correct?
> >> You’ll NEVER know, because you’ve never read a textbook about it, so you
> >> have no idea what the right answer is, even if it’s expressed to you.
> >>
> >> This is your standard third-grade game to try to pump people on a newsgroup
> >> for information. “Bet you can’t.” “How do I know your understanding is
> >> correct?” “Tell us this secret you know.”
> >
> > You don't know the correct meaning of the word so you give us your standard bullshit <sad>
> Oh, I forgot that line from the third-grade game:
>
> “Bet you can’t. If you knew, you’d say.”
>
> “It’s unscientific to not answer my questions.”
> “How do I know your understanding is correct?”
> “You don’t know, and so you’re bullshitting.”
>
> “Unless it’s secret, explain this to us.”
>
>
>
> Since these are unmoving to grown-ups, you change your responses to excuses
> about books:
>
> “I don’t have to read physics books, because I’ve written a book that
> replaces all of them.”
>
> “I’m not going to waste my time reading books based on Einstein’s bullshit,
> even the chapters about physics created in the 1600’s, because the authors
> in the 1600’s predicted the nonsense that Einstein would say in 1905 and
> adapted their stuff to be compatible.”
>
> “My book is more recent than those physics book, so my book is modern
> physics and those books are all obsolete physics.”
>
> “I refuse to read textbooks that just brainwash people.”
>
> “If you have read other textbooks, then you are obligated to read mine too.
> And no, I’m not obligated to do the same, so fuck off.”

Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my theory.
> >>
> >> When you decide to grow up and read textbooks rather than making excuses,
> >> you’ll learn something. Not before.ING
> >>> I think not. All you do is bullshit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:21:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>>>>>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> >>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> >>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> >>>>>>> as such.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> >>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> >>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> >>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> >>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
> >>>> 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, yX
> >>>
> >>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> >> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
> >
> > Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
> Ken, in case this has eluded you, what is 10^-9 (the precision of the
> position measurement) of the distance from earth to moon. Do you know how
> to calculate this?

Moon the earth observer had to assume that he is in a state of absolute rest to make these calculations. So your claim of 10^-9 is a meaningless number.
>
> Of course you don’t.
>
> You can’t count change at the grocery store.
> > It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:11:38 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:53:02 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:02:08 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:07:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2022 2:19 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 12:51:37 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, April 2, 2022 at 11:48:44 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 8:18:22 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 11:21:03 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 9:00:26 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My general gravity equation will unite all the forces of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature......that is a waste of time?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is not even manifestly covariant, which means it’s dead
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the water.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it’s obviously not. It would help if you knew what the word meant, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you’d know immediately your equation isn’t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If my equation is not then Newton's and Einstein's equations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not covariance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All laws of physics are manifestly covariant.d
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROTFLOL......so you elevated Newton's theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I didn’t. It’s not one of the laws of physics that survived. Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>> knows this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Einstein's theory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, that one is manifestly covariant. I get that you have no idea what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is.
>>>>>>>>>>>> How is Einstein's theory covariant? Because Einstein's postulate said so?
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you know what covariance mean?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No you don't know.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes I do. Do you wants references to the books I read?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's why you keep on using the laws of physics when you ran into difficulties.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not a postulated concept.
>>>>>>>>>>> That’s right, it’s not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But you inferred that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, I didn’t. I studied the subject.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you give an example of covariance in Einstein's theory????
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> First you have to learn what it means.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would do no good to give you an example of conservation of momentum
>>>>>>>>> because you don’t know what either momentum or conservation in physics
>>>>>>>>> mean. I’d have to explain what those words mean and then give you an
>>>>>>>>> example. But why would I when that’s all described in a basic physics
>>>>>>>>> textbook?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In any case it is not able to refute a theory.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So how is my theory violate the laws of nature?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It violates covariance. All physics laws are manifestly covariant.
>>>>>>>> hehehe..this is fun to watch. Seto is (pathetically) trying to trick you
>>>>>>>> into explaining covariance to him, and you know that and won't explain
>>>>>>>> it to him... Seto, look it up!
>>>>>>> hehehe I look it up in Wikipedia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, good for you. What was the first sentence in the article you chose to
>>>>>> read? There are about 10 different articles all having to do with different
>>>>>> kinds of covariance.
>>>> You can’t type the first sentence in the article you looked up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Plus, I’m going to bet that you didn’t understand many words in the article
>>>>>> you read, and so looking it up didn’t teach you much of anything, did it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most importantly, why did you wait to learn about it NOW, long after you
>>>>>> published your equation about gravity which is obviously wrong because it
>>>>>> isn’t covariant? Or put another way, now that you’ve read about covariance
>>>>>> and learned what your equation lacks, is it time to retract it?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are a moron......how do we know that your understanding of the word "covariance"
>>>>> is correct?
>>>> You’ll NEVER know, because you’ve never read a textbook about it, so you
>>>> have no idea what the right answer is, even if it’s expressed to you.
>>>>
>>>> This is your standard third-grade game to try to pump people on a newsgroup
>>>> for information. “Bet you can’t.” “How do I know your understanding is
>>>> correct?” “Tell us this secret you know.”
>>>
>>> You don't know the correct meaning of the word so you give us your
>>> standard bullshit <sad>
>> Oh, I forgot that line from the third-grade game:
>>
>> “Bet you can’t. If you knew, you’d say.”
>>
>> “It’s unscientific to not answer my questions.”
>> “How do I know your understanding is correct?”
>> “You don’t know, and so you’re bullshitting.”
>>
>> “Unless it’s secret, explain this to us.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Since these are unmoving to grown-ups, you change your responses to excuses
>> about books:
>>
>> “I don’t have to read physics books, because I’ve written a book that
>> replaces all of them.”
>>
>> “I’m not going to waste my time reading books based on Einstein’s bullshit,
>> even the chapters about physics created in the 1600’s, because the authors
>> in the 1600’s predicted the nonsense that Einstein would say in 1905 and
>> adapted their stuff to be compatible.”
>>
>> “My book is more recent than those physics book, so my book is modern
>> physics and those books are all obsolete physics.”
>>
>> “I refuse to read textbooks that just brainwash people.”
>>
>> “If you have read other textbooks, then you are obligated to read mine too.
>> And no, I’m not obligated to do the same, so fuck off.”
>
> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my theory.

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:21:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
>>>>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
>>>>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
>>>>>>>>> as such.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
>>>>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
>>>>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
>>>>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
>>>>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
>>>>>> 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, yX
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>>>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
>>>
>>> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
>> Ken, in case this has eluded you, what is 10^-9 (the precision of the
>> position measurement) of the distance from earth to moon. Do you know how
>> to calculate this?
>
> Moon the earth observer had to assume that he is in a state of absolute
> rest to make these calculations.

Nope. You don’t have to assume anything about rest or motion to calculate
what 10^-9 of the distance between the earth and moon is.

And you can’t do it at all. Not one lick.

> So your claim of 10^-9 is a meaningless number.
>>
>> Of course you don’t.
>>
>> You can’t count change at the grocery store.
>>> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > > > >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > > > > >>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...:
> > > > > >> ...
> > > > > >>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > > > > >>> halfbrain.
> > > > > >> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able
> > > > > >> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost
> > > > > >> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered
> > > > > >> so, let alone identified as such.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance.
> > > > > To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying
> > > > > "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a
> > > > > century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a
> > > > > pretty good approximation, but only an approximation.
> > > > 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,
> > >
> > > That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> > So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
>
> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.

Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy,
using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts.

The measurements were used to (almost) rule out
the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,
which was a competitor to general relativity.

> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.

Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors,
and measure the return time. Average over many pulses.
The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit,
also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account)

So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against,

Jan

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able
>>>>>>>> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost
>>>>>>>> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered
>>>>>>>> so, let alone identified as such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance.
>>>>>> To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying
>>>>>> "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a
>>>>>> century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a
>>>>>> pretty good approximation, but only an approximation.
>>>>> 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,
>>>>
>>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
>>
>> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
>
> Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy,
> using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts.
>
> The measurements were used to (almost) rule out
> the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,
> which was a competitor to general relativity.
>
>> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
>
> Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors,
> and measure the return time. Average over many pulses.
> The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit,
> also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account)
>
> So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against,
>
> Jan
>

I should also add to the list of Ken’s dodges that he is keen on excluding
any experimental measurement that’s already been done that would rule out
his ideas. He does this by insisting that the measurement relies on certain
assumptions, which he states without justification, and then saying that
the assumptions are wrong.

Ken basically is willing to say ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL, to defend his
ideas and to stave off criticism. He’s not about to allow the possibility
that it’s wrong. He’s got too much invested in it. This, if nothing else,
shows that he’s a shameless fraud and doesn’t know how to behave like a
scientist.

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

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 23:20:23 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...:
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able
> >>>>>>>> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost
> >>>>>>>> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered
> >>>>>>>> so, let alone identified as such.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance.
> >>>>>> To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying
> >>>>>> "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a
> >>>>>> century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a
> >>>>>> pretty good approximation, but only an approximation.
> >>>>> 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,
> >>>>
> >>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> >>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
> >>
> >> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
> >
> > Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy,
> > using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts.
> >
> > The measurements were used to (almost) rule out
> > the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,
> > which was a competitor to general relativity.
> >
> >> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
> > Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors,
> > and measure the return time. Average over many pulses.
> > The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit,
> > also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account)
> >
> > So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> I should also add to the list of Ken’s dodges that he is keen on excluding
> any experimental measurement that’s already been done that would rule out
> his ideas.

In the meantime in the real world, however, forbidden
by your insane religion TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always did.

On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:

> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my theory.

Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is "obsolete".

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
>> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my theory.
>
> Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
> books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
> valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is "obsolete".
>

Ken has difficulties accepting that some things are harder than just
declaring them accomplished.

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

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:
>
>> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
>> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my
>> theory.
>
> Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
> books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
> valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is
> "obsolete".

Listen to Kenseto, he is older than you. He knows more.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 11:11:34 AM UTC-7, Jabe Jukado wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> > On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
> >> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my
> >> theory.
> >
> > Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
> > books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
> > valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is
> > "obsolete".
> Listen to Kenseto, he is older than you. He knows more.

I imagine one might say, "in a particular _case_ of an extreme
in relativistic dynamics, there is a static case that looks like
Seto's entire theory".

(That's otherwise falsifiable as "incomplete" the theory., ....)

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:41:54 PM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 11:11:34 AM UTC-7, Jabe Jukado wrote:
> > Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > > On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > >> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
> > >> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my
> > >> theory.
> > >
> > > Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
> > > books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
> > > valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is
> > > "obsolete".
> > Listen to Kenseto, he is older than you. He knows more.
> I imagine one might say, "in a particular _case_ of an extreme
> in relativistic dynamics, there is a static case that looks like
> Seto's entire theory".
>
> (That's otherwise falsifiable as "incomplete" the theory., ....)
You are wrong. My equation includes a correction factor {Fab/Faa). This covers all relativistic dynamics.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:13:13 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> > > > > > >> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> > > > > > >>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...:
> > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > >>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> > > > > > >>> halfbrain.
> > > > > > >> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able
> > > > > > >> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost
> > > > > > >> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered
> > > > > > >> so, let alone identified as such.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance.
> > > > > > To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying
> > > > > > "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a
> > > > > > century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a
> > > > > > pretty good approximation, but only an approximation.
> > > > > 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,
> > > >
> > > > That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> > > So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
> >
> > Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
> Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy,
> using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts.
>
> The measurements were used to (almost) rule out
> the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,
> which was a competitor to general relativity.
> > It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
> Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors,
> and measure the return time. Average over many pulses.

This assumes that the one-way speed of light is constant in both ways.......it is not.
My equation has no such wrong assumption.

> The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit,
> also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account)

Math fitting to give the right answer.
Your wrong procedure assumes that the earth and the moon are in a state of absolute rest.
>
> So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against,

Cooking out the result you want is not precision.

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:16:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:
> >
> >> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
> >> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my theory.
> >
> > Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
> > books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
> > valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is "obsolete".
> >
> Ken has difficulties accepting that some things are harder than just
> declaring them accomplished.

No body has shown my equation is wrong. All you do is just meaningless assertions.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:13:13 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...:
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
>>>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able
>>>>>>>>> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost
>>>>>>>>> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered
>>>>>>>>> so, let alone identified as such.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance.
>>>>>>> To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying
>>>>>>> "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a
>>>>>>> century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a
>>>>>>> pretty good approximation, but only an approximation.
>>>>>> 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,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
>>>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
>>>
>>> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
>> Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy,
>> using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts.
>>
>> The measurements were used to (almost) rule out
>> the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,
>> which was a competitor to general relativity.
>>> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
>> Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors,
>> and measure the return time. Average over many pulses.
>
> This assumes that the one-way speed of light is constant in both ways.......it is not.

Your claim is factually inconsistent with dozens of experiments.

> My equation has no such wrong assumption.
>
>> The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit,
>> also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account)
>
> Math fitting to give the right answer.
> Your wrong procedure assumes that the earth and the moon are in a state of absolute rest.
>>
>> So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against,
>
> Cooking out the result you want is not precision.
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 1:16:03 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/5/2022 4:25 PM, kenseto wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moron if you want to refute my theory you need to read my book and not
>>>> assume that your obsolete physics is the standard to criticize my theory.
>>>
>>> Stupid Ken, if you wish to refute standard physics, you need to read
>>> books on standard physics and not assume that your bogus "physics" is a
>>> valid successor of standard physics or claim standard physics is "obsolete".
>>>
>> Ken has difficulties accepting that some things are harder than just
>> declaring them accomplished.
>
> No body has shown my equation is wrong.

That’s mistaken. It’s obviously wrong, for reasons I’ve given but which you
don’t understand.

What is true is that nobody has convinced YOU that your equation is wrong.
But that’s completely inconsequential. As long as everyone on earth who has
looked at your stuff knows it is wrong, that’s what matters, and whether
you insist that it’s right to your last dying breath won’t matter at all.
You win nothing by being adamant about stupidity.

> All you do is just meaningless assertions.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:02:30 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:21:40 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able to spot
> >>>>>>>>> that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost a tautology. An
> >>>>>>>>> non covariant law couldn't even be considered so, let alone identified
> >>>>>>>>> as such.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. To say
> >>>>>>> Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying "Sheep are not
> >>>>>>> lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a century. It
> >>>>>>> doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a pretty good
> >>>>>>> approximation, but only an approximation.
> >>>>>> 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, yX
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> >>>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
> >>>
> >>> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
> >> Ken, in case this has eluded you, what is 10^-9 (the precision of the
> >> position measurement) of the distance from earth to moon. Do you know how
> >> to calculate this?
> >
> > Moon the earth observer had to assume that he is in a state of absolute
> > rest to make these calculations.
> Nope. You don’t have to assume anything about rest or motion to calculate
> what 10^-9 of the distance between the earth and moon is.

Moron if you don't include the fact that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest, How can you calculate that the moon's motion is accurate 10^-9 accurate?
>
> And you can’t do it at all. Not one lick.
> > So your claim of 10^-9 is a meaningless number.
> >>
> >> Of course you don’t.
> >>
> >> You can’t count change at the grocery store.
> >>> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:20:23 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin <bodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...:
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor
> >>>>>>>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able
> >>>>>>>> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost
> >>>>>>>> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered
> >>>>>>>> so, let alone identified as such.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance.
> >>>>>> To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying
> >>>>>> "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a
> >>>>>> century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a
> >>>>>> pretty good approximation, but only an approximation.
> >>>>> 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,
> >>>>
> >>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa)
> >>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm?
> >>
> >> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion.
> >
> > Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy,
> > using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts.
> >
> > The measurements were used to (almost) rule out
> > the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity,
> > which was a competitor to general relativity.
> >
> >> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest.
> >
> > Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors,
> > and measure the return time. Average over many pulses.
> > The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit,
> > also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account)
> >
> > So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> I should also add to the list of Ken’s dodges that he is keen on excluding
> any experimental measurement that’s already been done that would rule out
> his ideas. He does this by insisting that the measurement relies on certain
> assumptions, which he states without justification, and then saying that
> the assumptions are wrong.
>
> Ken basically is willing to say ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL, to defend his
> ideas and to stave off criticism. He’s not about to allow the possibility
> that it’s wrong. He’s got too much invested in it. This, if nothing else,
> shows that he’s a shameless fraud and doesn’t know how to behave like a
> scientist.

Moron, my equation is the most advanced in the field of gravitational science. There is no three bodies problem.
Go ahead and waste another 110 years to justify Einstein's theory. Gee you are so stupid.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables