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?
>
>

You do not.

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