Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: General Gravity Equation Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 21:31:55 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Message-ID: <624FBABB.3E44@ix.netcom.com> References: <9b309a08-bbb6-45f0-a977-6ca5d7b66ac3n@googlegroups.com> <395acb76-dff6-436d-923b-e3570b479384n@googlegroups.com> <4916243e-1b0c-4c8a-8794-8feb970cacabn@googlegroups.com> <1ppwsrq.1wethup17h82ipN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <8fe2754f-dc9d-4fdd-936d-4fde9bc3efc2n@googlegroups.com> <1ppyaql.starfzygsollN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1ppynpz.18lhnza7zggnfN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> <1d2426ba-ff29-485b-a613-7ce34a8fcc56n@googlegroups.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="31907"; posting-host="/cd6lVY8Z/mQ7QUEKAKGKw.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220407-16, 04/07/2022), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:582200 Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Ken Seto wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:20:23 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote: > >> J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> kenseto wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:16:49 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 4:54:27 PM UTC-4, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>>>> Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> kenseto wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 3:46:42 PM UTC-4, Python wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak schwrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 3 April 2022 at 18:51:37 UTC+2, bodk...: > >>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. All laws of nature are covariant. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Not any "laws of nature" but your moronic jargon, poor > >>>>>>>>>>> halfbrain. > >>>>>>>>>> "One of the best logician Humanity ever had" is not even able > >>>>>>>>>> to spot that "a law of nature" have to be "covariant" is almost > >>>>>>>>>> a tautology. An non covariant law couldn't even be considered > >>>>>>>>>> so, let alone identified as such. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> According to Odd, newton's gravitation law is not covariance. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It is not Lorentz covariant. It does not have Lorentz covariance. > >>>>>>>> To say Newton's gravitational law is not covariance is like saying > >>>>>>>> "Sheep are not lion." It's crappy English. Please speak English. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So newton's law of gravitational law is refuted......right? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Newton's law of gravitation has been known to be wrong for a > >>>>>>>> century. It doesn't get the right answers experimentally. It's a > >>>>>>>> pretty good approximation, but only an approximation. > >>>>>>> And nowadays, with accuracies in positions of 10^-9 or better > >>>>>>> Newton is no longer a good approximation. > >>>>>>> Everything you calculate with Newton only > >>>>>>> is in direct conflict with observation, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's why my equation included a correction factor (Fab/Faa) > >>>>> So you can calculate the moon's motion accurate to 5 cm? > >>>> > >>>> Moon's motion accurate to 5cm is an assertion. > >>> > >>> Nope, the Moon's distance is routinely measured to that accuracy, > >>> using the laser reflectors installed there by Apollo astronauts. > >>> > >>> The measurements were used to (almost) rule out > >>> the Brans-Dicke theory of gravity, > >>> which was a competitor to general relativity. > >>> > >>>> It assumes that the earth observer is in a state of absolute rest. > >>> > >>> Nope again. Just fire a laser pulse at the laser reflectors, > >>> and measure the return time. Average over many pulses. > >>> The results are compatible with calculations of the Moon's orbit, > >>> also to that precision. (taking general relativity into account) > >>> > >>> So yes, it really is that kind of precision that you are up against, > >>> > >>> Jan > >>> > >> I should also add to the list of Ken’s dodges that he is keen on excluding > >> any experimental measurement that’s already been done that would rule out > >> his ideas. He does this by insisting that the measurement relies on certain > >> assumptions, which he states without justification, and then saying that > >> the assumptions are wrong. > >> > >> Ken basically is willing to say ANYTHING, ANYTHING AT ALL, to defend his > >> ideas and to stave off criticism. He’s not about to allow the possibility > >> that it’s wrong. He’s got too much invested in it. This, if nothing else, > >> shows that he’s a shameless fraud and doesn’t know how to behave like a > >> scientist. > > > > Moron, my equation is the most advanced in the field of gravitational science. > > You saying that means nothing. Only if someone else says it will that > matter. Ken Seto's equation is the most advanced in the field of gravitational science. ain't i someone? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.