On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:15 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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.

My theory (equation) gives the actual results. Not the cooked results of current physics.
> >
> >> 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 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?

This is similar to asking how you could measure the distance from your
house to the grocery store without knowing whether the chicken is cooked or
not.

Whether the motion of the motion is absolute or not has absolutely nothing
to do with the precision of the measurement of the moon’s motion.

>>
>> 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
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

You saying that means nothing. Only if someone else says it will that
matter.

> 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
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 2:54:15 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>
> My theory (equation) gives the actual results.

Prove that. Generate an actual result from your equation. Empty claims
generate laughter.

> Not the cooked results of current physics.
>>>
>>>> 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
>

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

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 20:54:15 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > 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.

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

On 4/7/2022 2:54 PM, Ken Seto 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.

Stupid Ken, it's clear that your claims are not covariant, so they
cannot be laws of physics. That's all that's needed to show that they
are wrong.

Of course nobody can show to YOU that your assertions are wrong, but
that's like proving to some guy in an asylum who thinks that he's
Napoleon that he isn't Napoleon. But it's not worth it to prove to
cranks that their crank beliefs are wrong, so you'll go to your grave
unconvinced that you are wrong. Meanwhile, science proper will continue
to ignore your claims since you never provided the required scientific
observations and experimental evidence of them, for starters.

> All you do is just meaningless assertions.

No, that is what YOU do, Stupid Ken. You only make meaningless
assertions. No evidence, no equations, no experimental data, no nothing,
nothing except your assertions.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> All you do is just meaningless assertions.
>
> No, that is what YOU do, Stupid Ken. You only make meaningless
> assertions.
> No evidence, no equations, no experimental data, no nothing, nothing
> except your assertions.

You don't even have that.

On 4/7/2022 3:01 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> 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:

>>>>>> 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?

How can a concept which doesn't even exist in modern physics (absolute
rest) be a "fact"? The mere existence of "absolute rest" is only your
assertion, and assertions are not facts.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> (That's otherwise falsifiable as "incomplete" the theory., ....)
> You are wrong. My equation includes a correction factor {Fab/Faa). This
> covers all relativistic dynamics.

You theory makes no sense. A division is not equation. A second is not a
clock_second, but an unit. Try again with something simpler.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> 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.

you need a Kalman filtering, also known as linear quadratic estimation.

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.
> My equation has no such wrong assumption.

Whatever you want. But....
The laser reflection from the Moon produces numbers.
(you know, experimental data, and lots of them,
accurate to 10 significant digits)
Newtonian mechanics, with relativistic corrections,
can predict those numbers to that accuracy,
and the observed numbers match those predictions.

You can predict those numbers too, and to that precision?
Go ahead and do it,

Jan

> > 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.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 4/7/2022 2:54 PM, Ken Seto 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.
>
> Stupid Ken, it's clear that your claims are not covariant, so they
> cannot be laws of physics. That's all that's needed to show that they
> are wrong.
>
> Of course nobody can show to YOU that your assertions are wrong, but
> that's like proving to some guy in an asylum who thinks that he's
> Napoleon that he isn't Napoleon.

Actually that is quite an old condition, going back to Gallic times.
<https://d6scj24zvfbbo.cloudfront.net/2491b4bdfe3032b66cd15301da0538c2/200000281-6d9c56e94c/700/Amn%C3%A9six-5.jpg?ph=d8718bf417>

Le druide Amnesix has trouble treating this psychiatric patient,
for nobody knows yet who he is supposed to take himself for,

Jan

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

Great.
Now predict something *that does not agree with relativistic dynamics*,
in the tenth decimal place,
and people will be convinced of your greatness,
if confirmed by measurement,

Jan

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> You saying that means nothing. Only if someone else says it will that
> matter.

Ken Seto's equation is the most advanced in the field of gravitational
science.

ain't i someone?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>
>> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> You saying that means nothing. Only if someone else says it will that
>> matter.
>
>
> Ken Seto's equation is the most advanced in the field of gravitational
> science.
>
>
> ain't i someone?
>
>

Congratulations, Joker.

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

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:24:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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?
> This is similar to asking how you could measure the distance from your
> house to the grocery store without knowing whether the chicken is cooked or
> not.

Using Einstein's false assumption that the oneway speed of light is isotropic to measure distance is wrong.
>
> Whether the motion of the motion is absolute or not has absolutely nothing
> to do with the precision of the measurement of the moon’s motion.

There is constant motion between the earth and the moon. How can you say that measuring the distance of the moon is to an accuracy of 10^-9 ? Cooking up the number is not scientific. <sad>
> >>
> >> 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:34:31 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> Great.
> Now predict something *that does not agree with relativistic dynamics*,
> in the tenth decimal place,
> and people will be convinced of your greatness,
> if confirmed by measurement,

1. Light from a distant star curve around a massive object then regains it original path to the earth. This agrees with my physical model of the E-Matrix.
2. Gravity action at a distance: Absolute motions of the interacting objects create tension on the E-Strings. This cause the interacting object to converge to each other and this is the cause of gravity.

What it is is that my theory provides physical explanation for all observations. Einstein's theory has no physical explanation for all observations.

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:34:30 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> > My equation has no such wrong assumption.
> Whatever you want. But....
> The laser reflection from the Moon produces numbers.
> (you know, experimental data, and lots of them,
> accurate to 10 significant digits)
> Newtonian mechanics, with relativistic corrections,
> can predict those numbers to that accuracy,
> and the observed numbers match those predictions.

Why you think that my equation not able to produce those numbers?

>
> You can predict those numbers too, and to that precision?
> Go ahead and do it,

Yes my equation can produce those numbers.
>
> Jan
> > > 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.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:24:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> This is similar to asking how you could
>>> measure the distance from your
>> house to the grocery store without knowing whether the chicken is cooked or
>> not.
>
> Using Einstein's false assumption that the oneway speed of light is
> isotropic to measure distance is wrong.

It’s not an assumption. It’s an experimentally demonstrated fact.

>>
>> Whether the motion of the motion is absolute or not has absolutely nothing
>> to do with the precision of the measurement of the moon’s motion.
>
> There is constant motion between the earth and the moon.

The distance between the moon and the earth is very slowly changing,
compared to the time it takes to measure it, and sampling methods by
repeating the laser measurement (the round-trip time of flight for the
laser pulse is about 2.5s) over the course of an hour get the precision
well into the few millimeters range. Simple calculations using looked-up
numbers bear this out.

> How can you say that measuring the distance of the moon is to an accuracy
> of 10^-9 ? Cooking up the number is not scientific. <sad>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:34:31 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>> Great.
>> Now predict something *that does not agree with relativistic dynamics*,
>> in the tenth decimal place,
>> and people will be convinced of your greatness,
>> if confirmed by measurement,
>
> 1. Light from a distant star curve around a massive object then regains
> it original path to the earth. This agrees with my physical model of the E-Matrix.

Saying that the path is curved is not sufficient agreement. Showing that
the amount of curvature is the SAME AMOUNT is what’s needed.

Qualitative explanations are useless in a quantitative field of study.

> 2. Gravity action at a distance: Absolute motions of the interacting
> objects create tension on the E-Strings. This cause the interacting
> object to converge to each other and this is the cause of gravity.
>
> What it is is that my theory provides physical explanation for all
> observations. Einstein's theory has no physical explanation for all observations.
>
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:34:30 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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.
>>> My equation has no such wrong assumption.
>> Whatever you want. But....
>> The laser reflection from the Moon produces numbers.
>> (you know, experimental data, and lots of them,
>> accurate to 10 significant digits)
>> Newtonian mechanics, with relativistic corrections,
>> can predict those numbers to that accuracy,
>> and the observed numbers match those predictions.
>
> Why you think that my equation not able to produce those numbers?
>
>>
>> You can predict those numbers too, and to that precision?
>> Go ahead and do it,
>
> Yes my equation can produce those numbers.

Prove it.

>>
>> Jan
>>>> 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 Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:34:31 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> > Great.
> > Now predict something *that does not agree with relativistic dynamics*,
> > in the tenth decimal place,
> > and people will be convinced of your greatness,
> > if confirmed by measurement,
>
> 1. Light from a distant star curve around a massive object then regains it
> original path to the earth. This agrees with my physical model of the
> E-Matrix.
> 2. Gravity action at a distance: Absolute motions of the interacting
> objects create tension on the E-Strings. This cause the interacting object
> to converge to each other and this is the cause of gravity.
>
> What it is is that my theory provides physical explanation for all
> observations. Einstein's theory has no physical explanation for all
> observations.

Perhaps no explanation, but it does produce numbers,
and very accurate numbers indeed,
and those numbers are confirmed by very accurate measurements.

Let us see you predict a solar eclipse for example,
to the nearest second, to begin with something easy,

Jan

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:24:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> > This is similar to asking how you could measure the distance from your
> > house to the grocery store without knowing whether the chicken is cooked or
> > not.
>
> Using Einstein's false assumption that the oneway speed of light is
> isotropic to measure distance is wrong.
> >
> > Whether the motion of the motion is absolute or not has absolutely nothing
> > to do with the precision of the measurement of the moon's motion.
>
> There is constant motion between the earth and the moon. How can you say
> that measuring the distance of the moon is to an accuracy of 10^-9 ?
> Cooking up the number is not scientific. <sad>

Right.
And Einsteinian relativity can predict that instantaneous distance,
and it can predict how it will change with time,
and it is seen to be correct to centimeter accuracy.
(in more than 300 000 km)

Show that you can do the same,

Jan

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 5:34:30 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Ken Seto <seto...@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.
> > > My equation has no such wrong assumption.
> > Whatever you want. But....
> > The laser reflection from the Moon produces numbers.
> > (you know, experimental data, and lots of them,
> > accurate to 10 significant digits)
> > Newtonian mechanics, with relativistic corrections,
> > can predict those numbers to that accuracy,
> > and the observed numbers match those predictions.
>
> Why you think that my equation not able to produce those numbers?
>
> >
> > You can predict those numbers too, and to that precision?
> > Go ahead and do it,
>
> Yes my equation can produce those numbers.

Prove it,

Jan

On Friday, 8 April 2022 at 21:58:44 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:24:27 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 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:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> ...
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?
> > > This is similar to asking how you could measure the distance from your
> > > house to the grocery store without knowing whether the chicken is cooked or
> > > not.
> >
> > Using Einstein's false assumption that the oneway speed of light is
> > isotropic to measure distance is wrong.
> > >
> > > Whether the motion of the motion is absolute or not has absolutely nothing
> > > to do with the precision of the measurement of the moon's motion.
> >
> > There is constant motion between the earth and the moon. How can you say
> > that measuring the distance of the moon is to an accuracy of 10^-9 ?
> > Cooking up the number is not scientific. <sad>
> Right.
> And Einsteinian relativity can predict that instantaneous distance,

Well, that's of course a lie, as expected from a relativistic
crank. Your Shit can't even say what "a distance" is.

> and it can predict how it will change with time,

With what time?
You do realize, poor halfbrain, that according
to your Shit "change of moon distance in time"
is different for every human on the Earth, don't
you?