On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 9:41:54 AM UTC-7, 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., ....)

See.... What I said....

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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.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.

So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
> > 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

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, 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,
> 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)

My equation can do that too. Just select the time ent of measurement that give me the right ratio value for Fab/Faa.

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@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,
You prove first that the time of measurement that will give these numbers.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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.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.
>
> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?

No it’s not a lie. What part of “precision well into the few millimeters
range” did you find confusing?

>>> 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
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, 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,
>> 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)
>
> My equation can do that too. Just select the time ent of measurement that
> give me the right ratio value for Fab/Faa.
>

You do that.

>
>

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

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 11:44:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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..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.
> >
> > So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
> > accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
> No it’s not a lie. What part of “precision well into the few millimeters
> range” did you find confusing?

Yes it is a lie because it is derived from Einstein's lying postulate that the one-way speed of light is constant and overseer independent.
> >>> 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>
> >>>>>> because it is derived from Einstein's
> >>>>>> 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
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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:
> > >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > >>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > >>>>>>>>>> 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, 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.
>
> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?

Sure, call it
'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
if that calmes your aroused feelings.

Neverteless, these 'pulse return times' are routinely measured,
accurate to fractions of a nanosecond in about 2 seconds,
and those measured numbers agree with predictions of general relativity,
to that accuracy.
Not just once, but all the time, and over decades.

So show that your theory can do the same,
with a comparble accuracy,

Jan

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@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,
> You prove first that the time of measurement that will give these numbers.
>

Time resolution on TDC’s of 10ns is easy and purchasable off the shelf.
Earth moon distance is 400,000 km, which is about 1.3 light seconds. Round
trip time is then twice that or about 2.6 seconds. That’s a relative
precision of 10 ns / 2.6 s = 4E-9. That’s one measurement. Repeat the
measurement over an hour or 3600 seconds or about 1300 repetitions. Regular
statistics teaches you that repeating a measurement n times improves the
precision of the mean by sqrt(n) or here by about 40, so that’s now a
relative precision of 1E-10. Distance to moon is 4E8 m, so distance
resolution is (1E-10)(4E8m) = 4 cm without trying.

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 11:44:17 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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.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.
>>>
>>> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
>>> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
>> No it’s not a lie. What part of “precision well into the few millimeters
>> range” did you find confusing?
>
> Yes it is a lie because it is derived from Einstein's lying postulate
> that the one-way speed of light is constant and overseer independent.

No it doesn’t depend on that.

>>>>> 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>
>>>>>>>> because it is derived from Einstein's
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 18:06:49 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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:
> > > >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > >>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 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, 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.
> >
> > So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
> > accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
> Sure, call it
> 'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
> if that calmes your aroused feelings.
>
> Neverteless, these 'pulse return times' are routinely measured,
> accurate to fractions of a nanosecond in about 2 seconds,
> and those measured numbers agree with predictions of general relativity,

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.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, 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:
> > > > >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > >>>>>>>> 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)
>
> My equation can do that too. Just select the time ent of measurement that
> give me the right ratio value for Fab/Faa.

There is nothing to give.
-You- should be capable of giving that,
if you really have a theory,

Jan

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:06:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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:
> > > >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > >>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 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, 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.
> >
> > So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
> > accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
> Sure, call it
> 'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
> if that calmes your aroused feelings.

Such measurement is based on faulty assumptions that the one way speed of light is constant in the opposite directions. It is not.
My theory is based on constant wavelength for a specific source....for example:
1. The wavelength for a sodium source is Lambda_Na and it is constant in all frames and remain constant during
transit.
2. The frequency of the moon sodium source varies with time on earth.....f_Na.
3. The distance between the moon and the earth at any time is:
L_m =(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
4. So you see the distance between the earth and the moon is not constant......it varies at different instant of time.
5. My prediction agree with observations and Einstein's physics disagree with observations.

> =
> Neverteless, these 'pulse return .times' are routinely measured,
> accurate to fractions of a nanosecond in about 2 seconds,
> and those measured numbers agree with predictions of general relativity,
> to that accuracy.
> Not just once, but all the time, and over decades.
>
> So show that your theory can do the same,
> with a comparble accuracy,
>
> Jan

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:28:07 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, 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:
> > > > > >>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > >>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 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)
> >
> > My equation can do that too. Just select the time ent of measurement that
> > give me the right ratio value for Fab/Faa.
> There is nothing to give.
> -You- should be capable of giving that,
> if you really have a theory,

My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain constant at all time. It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:06:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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:
>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, 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.
>>>
>>> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
>>> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
>> Sure, call it
>> 'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
>> if that calmes your aroused feelings.
>
> Such measurement is based on faulty assumptions that the one way speed of
> light is constant in the opposite directions.

This is an experimental fact, not an assumption. Tested dozens of times.

> It is not.
> My theory is based on constant wavelength for a specific source....for example:
> 1. The wavelength for a sodium source is Lambda_Na and it is constant in
> all frames and remain constant during
> transit.
> 2. The frequency of the moon sodium source varies with time on earth.....f_Na.
> 3. The distance between the moon and the earth at any time is:
> L_m =(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> 4. So you see the distance between the earth and the moon is not
> constant......it varies at different instant of time.
> 5. My prediction agree with observations and Einstein's physics disagree with observations.
>
>> =
>> Neverteless, these 'pulse return .times' are routinely measured,
>> accurate to fractions of a nanosecond in about 2 seconds,
>> and those measured numbers agree with predictions of general relativity,
>> to that accuracy.
>> Not just once, but all the time, and over decades.
>>
>> So show that your theory can do the same,
>> with a comparble accuracy,
>>
>> Jan
>

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

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 2:28:07 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 3:58:44 PM UTC-4, 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:
>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
>>>
>>> My equation can do that too. Just select the time ent of measurement that
>>> give me the right ratio value for Fab/Faa.
>> There is nothing to give.
>> -You- should be capable of giving that,
>> if you really have a theory,
>
> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth
> varies with time and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance
> remain constant at all time.

Einstein’s theory says no such thing. Why would you make that up?

> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
>

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

On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:06:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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:
> >>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, 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.
> >>>
> >>> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
> >>> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
> >> Sure, call it
> >> 'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
> >> if that calmes your aroused feelings.
> >
> > Such measurement is based on faulty assumptions that the one way speed of
> > light is constant in the opposite directions.
> This is an experimental fact, not an assumption. Tested dozens of times.
> > It is not.
> > My theory is based on constant wavelength for a specific source....for example:
> > 1. The wavelength for a sodium source is Lambda_Na and it is constant in
> > all frames and remain constant during
> > transit.
> > 2. The frequency of the moon sodium source varies with time on earth......f_Na.
> > 3. The distance between the moon and the earth at any time is:
> > L_m =(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> > 4. So you see the distance between the earth and the moon is not
> > constant......it varies at different instant of time.
> > 5. My prediction agree with observations and Einstein's physics disagree with observations.
> >
> >> =
> >> Neverteless, these 'pulse return .times' are routinely measured,
> >> accurate to fractions of a nanosecond in about 2 seconds,
> >> and those measured numbers agree with predictions of general relativity,
> >> to that accuracy.
> >> Not just once, but all the time, and over decades.
> >>
> >> So show that your theory can do the same,
> >> with a comparble accuracy,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, April 10, 2022 at 2:38:39 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:06:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kenseto <set...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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, 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
>>>>> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
>>>> Sure, call it
>>>> 'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
>>>> if that calmes your aroused feelings.
>>>
>>> Such measurement is based on faulty assumptions that the one way speed of
>>> light is constant in the opposite directions.
>> This is an experimental fact, not an assumption. Tested dozens of times.
>>> It is not.
>>> My theory is based on constant wavelength for a specific source....for example:
>>> 1. The wavelength for a sodium source is Lambda_Na and it is constant in
>>> all frames and remain constant during
>>> transit.
>>> 2. The frequency of the moon sodium source varies with time on earth.....f_Na.
>>> 3. The distance between the moon and the earth at any time is:
>>> L_m =(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>>> 4. So you see the distance between the earth and the moon is not
>>> constant......it varies at different instant of time.
>>> 5. My prediction agree with observations and Einstein's physics
>>> disagree with observations.
>>>
>>>> =
>>>> Neverteless, these 'pulse return .times' are routinely measured,
>>>> accurate to fractions of a nanosecond in about 2 seconds,
>>>> and those measured numbers agree with predictions of general relativity,
>>>> to that accuracy.
>>>> Not just once, but all the time, and over decades.
>>>>
>>>> So show that your theory can do the same,
>>>> with a comparble accuracy,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> But you don't need Lorentz transform for that?
>
>

On Sunday, 10 April 2022 at 23:38:39 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Such measurement is based on faulty assumptions that the one way speed of
> > light is constant in the opposite directions.
> This is an experimental fact, not an assumption. Tested dozens of times.

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

On 4/10/2022 5:12 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 12:06:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 11:46:28 AM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> So the assertion that you can measure the distance of the moon to an
>>> accuracy of 5cm is a lie....right?
>> Sure, call it
>> 'measured round trip time to the moon of a laser pulse' instead,
>> if that calmes your aroused feelings.
>
> Such measurement is based on faulty assumptions that the one way speed of light is constant in the opposite directions. It is not.

Stupid Ken, if you understand what they are doing, it becomes plainly
obvious the assumption is that the *two way* (not one way) speed of
light is constant. That is easily proven. Because the two way speed of
light being constant is proven, that is not an assumption, so yes they
are measuring the distance to an accuracy of 5cm.

The one way speed of light is harder to prove, but it has been done. So
yet again, you are wrong, Stupid Ken.

On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:

> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time

Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.

> and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain constant at all time.

No, it doesn't.

> It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.

Your say-so doesn't make it true.
You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.

On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>
> > My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.

Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
Lambda_Na=589nm
f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
> > and Einstein's theory predicts falsely that the distance remain constant at all time.
> No, it doesn't.
> > It is obvious that my theory is a superior theory.
> Your say-so doesn't make it true. on the moon.
> You don't even have a theory, because you can't even make any
> predictions. You won't answer my question about predicting the
> earth-moon distance tomorrow at noon, because you can't.

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>
> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> Lambda_Na=589nm
> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.

And use it to get the distance between earth and moon at noon UTC.

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

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

On 4/11/2022 4:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>
>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth varies with time
>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>
> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
> Lambda_Na=589nm
> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.

So where is your use of this formula to predict the earth-moon distance,
tomorrow at noon?

On 4/11/2022 5:24 PM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/11/2022 4:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>> On Monday, April 11, 2022 at 12:35:01 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> On 4/10/2022 5:18 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>
>>>> My theory predicts that the distance between the moon and the earth
>>>> varies with time
>>> Show your formula, and use it to show the distance between the earth and
>>> moon for tomorrow, at noon UTC.
>>
>> Stupid Moron Mike: Here is my formula:
>> L_earth and moon=return time/2(Lambda_Na)(f_Na)
>> Lambda_Na=589nm
>> f_Na=incoming frequency of Na source on the moon.
>
> So where is your use of this formula to predict the earth-moon distance,
> tomorrow at noon?

Let alone deciding specifically what constitutes the distance between
two very rough surfaces presented by the earth and our moon.