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
>

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