Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672147 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-17 23:33 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 12:09 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 180 — 9 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 23:33 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:41 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 00:47 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 10:43 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 18:30 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-23 23:45 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 11:55 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-24 16:13 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-24 08:04 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:38 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 11:36 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 11:52 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:39 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-18 12:56 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:09 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:07 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:28 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:08 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 13:18 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-19 15:34 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:19 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-19 18:47 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 06:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 08:14 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 10:33 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 08:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 11:31 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 09:35 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 12:30 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 13:54 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 16:25 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 14:36 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 16:58 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:00 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:14 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:25 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:40 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-20 15:42 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 17:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 19:43 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 22:28 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:21 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-24 19:48 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-24 22:16 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 06:23 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-25 11:36 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 20:43 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 20:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 07:03 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 06:50 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:19 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:15 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 19:04 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 14:38 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 18:21 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-24 22:01 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 11:26 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-26 14:19 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-26 15:40 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 19:45 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-26 23:00 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 06:02 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 07:42 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 07:43 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-28 09:59 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:04 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 02:29 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 06:52 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-25 11:16 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:58 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-29 13:10 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 13:13 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:32 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 08:33 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 13:36 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 20:56 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 13:37 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 20:02 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:51 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:06 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-28 12:01 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:34 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 11:35 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-29 13:58 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-29 14:30 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:41 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-30 11:50 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-30 11:06 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 13:36 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 11:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 14:30 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 07:28 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:51 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 17:16 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-01 10:52 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-01 11:23 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 11:59 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 20:44 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 22:11 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 18:04 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-01 18:05 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:32 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 20:52 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:59 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:21 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:10 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:12 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:14 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 19:04 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-06 11:55 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 10:48 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-06 11:38 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:08 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 14:52 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-06 14:55 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-06 08:56 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 07:26 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 14:29 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 07:55 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 08:03 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 15:12 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 08:42 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 10:43 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 16:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-07 16:15 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 10:24 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 19:05 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 09:35 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 23:44 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-07 17:40 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 02:25 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:07 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:09 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:24 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:27 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:39 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-08 15:42 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-08 17:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 08:54 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 09:21 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-08 17:42 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 18:34 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-08 18:15 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-09 18:01 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 17:41 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-07 12:44 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 20:20 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 02:28 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:20 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-28 15:50 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 20:30 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-30 11:58 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 08:07 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-31 13:34 +0300
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 09:20 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-18 21:30 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:29 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 11:37 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 13:23 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-19 20:53 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:13 +0000
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-20 21:25 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-20 21:29 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-20 15:50 -0700
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-21 11:34 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 11:52 +0200
Re: The experiment that sinks both SR and LET Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 12:09 -0700
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A9710C9.9FC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #672631 |
Python wrote: > > Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit : > > On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>> > >>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my book > >>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use > >>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free. > >>> > >>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans > >> > >> God luck with that. > >> > >>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of > >>>>>>> Astronomy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the > >>>>>> solar system, > >>>>> > >>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite > >>>>> where Astronomers think they are. > >>>> > >>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example? > >>> > >>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia instead of > >>> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant > >>> light speed failing.. > >> > >> Shit happens. > >> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system > >> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems, > >> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft, > >> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1] > >> > >> You haven't shown that you can do better, > >> > >> Jan > >> > >> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity > >> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level. > >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards > > to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric, > > and overall the "polaricentric". > > > > The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem. > > > > The modern account of redshift-bias/distortion and that > > since "Dark Energy" and "2MASS" for example, combined > > with the overall isotropy of what was and is the visible > > universe, make for that "light's speed is a constant, ..., > > in deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ... at absolute zero", > > that "deep space" is arbitrarily deep. I.e., there's plenty > > of data that has falsified the often premier theories, then has > > that a simple sort of experiment makes for distinguishing > > space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, > > since "E = mc^2" is "only good to the first/second-order". > > > > So, redshift-distortion/bias, is a rather modern sort of > > account that intends to make for why light's speed is a > > constant, yet that it enters and exits rotational settings > > as if tidally, then helping explain many effects of optics, > > about which more local explanations fail, in a wider, > > overall potentialistic setting, that the potential-fields > > are the real-fields, and for accounts like "physics is a > > gauge theory" and so on. > > > > It's a continuum mechanics. > > The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards > to the geocentric, heliocentric, and overall > paragraphocentric. > > Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being > non-constant in precisely the constant way required by > the potentialistic real-fields, except to second order, > where E=mc^2 becomes rotationally linear. > > This follows from continuum gauge mechanics and the > Bäcklund-Ricci-Regge correspondence, in the usual sense > that none of those words need to be connected by an > equation. > > It's a discontinuum mechanics. technobabble! is dis from a classic Star Trek episode??? Let me put on my Harvard PHD hat in Physics and disect it... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 11:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6A971812.947@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #672631 |
Python wrote:
>
> Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> > On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my book
> >>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use
> >>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free.
> >>>
> >>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans
> >>
> >> God luck with that.
> >>
> >>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of
> >>>>>>> Astronomy.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the
> >>>>>> solar system,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite
> >>>>> where Astronomers think they are.
> >>>>
> >>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example?
> >>>
> >>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia instead of
> >>> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant
> >>> light speed failing..
> >>
> >> Shit happens.
> >> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system
> >> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems,
> >> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft,
> >> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1]
> >>
> >> You haven't shown that you can do better,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >>
> >> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity
> >> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level.
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards
> > to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric,
> > and overall the "polaricentric".
> >
> > The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem.
> >
> > The modern account of redshift-bias/distortion and that
> > since "Dark Energy" and "2MASS" for example, combined
> > with the overall isotropy of what was and is the visible
> > universe, make for that "light's speed is a constant, ...,
> > in deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ... at absolute zero",
> > that "deep space" is arbitrarily deep. I.e., there's plenty
> > of data that has falsified the often premier theories, then has
> > that a simple sort of experiment makes for distinguishing
> > space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
> > since "E = mc^2" is "only good to the first/second-order".
> >
> > So, redshift-distortion/bias, is a rather modern sort of
> > account that intends to make for why light's speed is a
> > constant, yet that it enters and exits rotational settings
> > as if tidally, then helping explain many effects of optics,
> > about which more local explanations fail, in a wider,
> > overall potentialistic setting, that the potential-fields
> > are the real-fields, and for accounts like "physics is a
> > gauge theory" and so on.
> >
> > It's a continuum mechanics.
>
> The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards
> to the geocentric, heliocentric, and overall
> paragraphocentric.
>
> Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being
> non-constant in precisely the constant way required by
> the potentialistic real-fields, except to second order,
> where E=mc^2 becomes rotationally linear.
>
> This follows from continuum gauge mechanics and the
> Bäcklund-Ricci-Regge correspondence, in the usual sense
> that none of those words need to be connected by an
> equation.
>
> It's a discontinuum mechanics.
This is not a physical theory; it is a pile of impressive-sounding
terminology assembled specifically to avoid the one thing a physical
theory must contain: a mathematical model that makes a falsifiable
prediction.
1. "The Cassini result is explained variously” explains absolutely
nothing.
"The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards to the
geocentric, heliocentric, and overall paragraphocentric.”
"Geocentric” and "heliocentric” are coordinate descriptions. They are
not competing physical mechanisms capable of explaining a measurement.
And "paragraphocentric” is not a recognized physical framework. It
contributes exactly zero explanatory content.
The Cassini experiment measured the frequency shift of radio signals
passing near the Sun and placed a very tight constraint on the
post-Newtonian parameter . General relativity predicts a specific value:
A serious alternative theory therefore needs to calculate the observable
light-time/frequency shift and demonstrate something like:
or
and show how its parameters reproduce the observed result.
Your paragraph provides neither.
You haven't explained Cassini. You have named Cassini and then changed
the subject.
2. "Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being non-constant”
is a logical train wreck.
This sentence:
"Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being non-constant
in precisely the constant way required…”
contains an immediate contradiction.
If a supposedly fundamental constant is actually variable, you must
specify:
which constant,
variable with respect to what,
the functional dependence,
the physical mechanism,
the coordinate/frame dependence,
the observable consequence,
and the experimental bound on the variation.
For example, if you mean the gravitational constant,
then say so.
If you mean the fine-structure constant,
say so.
If you mean a PPN parameter, say so.
"Non-constant in precisely the constant way required” is verbal
camouflage for "I haven't specified the function."
Worse, redshift is itself an observable/relativistic effect. You cannot
simply declare that "redshift bias" converts a constant into a variable
without deriving the transformation and showing that it survives
coordinate changes and observational calibration.
That isn't physics. That's linguistic tax evasion.
3. "Except to second order, where becomes rotationally linear" is
mathematical gibberish.
This is probably the worst sentence in the entire specimen.
is the mass-energy equivalence relation for a body at rest. More
generally, special relativity gives
What exactly does "second order" mean here?
Second order in:
velocity ?
gravitational potential ?
curvature?
perturbation amplitude?
angular velocity?
a coordinate expansion?
redshift ?
And what does "rotationally linear" mean mathematically?
Linear in angular momentum?
Linear in angular velocity?
Linear rotational correction?
If so, derive it.
Otherwise, "rotationally linear" is just a phrase wearing a lab coat.
Also, does not suddenly "become" rotational because someone invokes
second-order corrections. Rotational dynamics require additional
structure—angular momentum, moment of inertia, frame dragging,
stress-energy, or whatever your proposed theory actually uses.
You have supplied none of it.
4. "Continuum gauge mechanics" is not a substitute for equations.
"This follows from continuum gauge mechanics…"
Fine.
Write the Lagrangian.
Define the fields.
Define the gauge group.
Define the connection.
Define the curvature.
Define the action.
Derive the Euler–Lagrange equations.
Show the conserved quantities.
Then derive the claimed Cassini observable.
Until that happens, "continuum gauge mechanics" is merely a noun pile.
If your theory is supposed to modify general relativity, you need
something concrete such as
Then demonstrate what your actually is.
You explicitly say:
"none of those words need to be connected by an equation."
That sentence is effectively a confession.
They absolutely need to be connected by equations.
The equations are the theory.
5. "Bäcklund–Ricci–Regge correspondence" looks like three mathematical
ideas duct-taped together.
Bäcklund transformations, Ricci curvature/flow, and Regge calculus are
not interchangeable magical ingredients.
If you're asserting a correspondence between them, specify the map:
B : {fields/configuration} - {fields/configuration}
Then establish what is preserved.
Does the correspondence preserve:
the action?
curvature?
geodesics?
constraints?
observables?
topology?
field equations?
solutions?
If it is merely an analogy, call it an analogy.
If it is a mathematical equivalence, prove the equivalence.
Otherwise you've committed the classic theoretical-physics version of
name-dropping: take several legitimate technical concepts, place hyphens
between them, and hope nobody asks what the arrows mean.
6. "It’s a discontinuum mechanics" is a slogan, not a theory.
"Discontinuum" could mean several radically different things:
discrete spacetime,
lattice mechanics,
piecewise-flat geometry,
singular fields,
discontinuous matter fields,
cellular/graph-based dynamics,
non-smooth manifolds,
discrete causal structure.
These are not remotely equivalent.
If you mean Regge-style discrete geometry, define the simplicial complex
and edge lengths:
Then specify the discrete action and field equations.
If you mean something else, define it.
A theory cannot be rescued by inventing a label after refusing to define
the machinery underneath it.
Garbage
Your paragraph relies on an enormous pile of unstated premises:
That "redshift bias" is a physically meaningful modification rather
than an observational/calibration issue.
That a measured relativistic observable can be reinterpreted by
changing coordinate language without changing the underlying equations.
That a fundamental constant can vary without specifying a dynamical
field responsible for that variation.
That the variation somehow has exactly the magnitude required by the
desired result.
That the required variation doesn't violate other precision
measurements.
That second-order terms somehow generate a rotational relation.
That is the appropriate equation for that correction.
That several unrelated mathematical frameworks possess a common
correspondence.
That this correspondence produces your claimed physics.
That no equations are necessary to demonstrate any of the above.
That experimental agreement can be asserted without calculating an
observable.
That terminology can substitute for definitions.
The central hidden assumption is the most fatal:
You assume that because several concepts can be mentioned in the same
paragraph, they therefore participate in the same physical mechanism.
They don't.
A physicist reading this has a brutally simple response:
"Show me the equation."
A second physicist asks:
"What does it predict that GR doesn't?"
A third asks:
"What experiment falsifies it?"
A fourth asks:
"What are the free parameters?"
Then someone checks whether the theory reproduces the existing tests of:
gravitational redshift,
light deflection,
Shapiro delay,
perihelion precession,
binary-pulsar timing,
gravitational-wave observations,
equivalence-principle tests,
local Lorentz invariance,
and precision bounds on varying constants.
At that point, vocabulary stops being useful.
If your theory introduces a varying constant, experimentalists will hunt
for that variation.
If it introduces an additional field, they will hunt for its coupling.
If it modifies the metric, they will constrain the modified metric.
If it reproduces GR exactly in every accessible experiment, someone will
ask why the new theory exists.
You don't get to choose which observations count.
The Cassini result is particularly unforgiving because it is a precision
measurement, not a vague qualitative observation.
A viable alternative framework has to proceed:
theory-field equations-solution-observable-numerical
prediction-measurement
Your proposed chain is currently:
buzzwords-buzzwords-E=Mc2-Cassini
There is no computational bridge.
And "constant being non-constant" creates an additional quantitative
disaster. A varying fundamental constant isn't free. Once you introduce
variation, you must calculate its consequences everywhere else that
constant appears.
You cannot make X vary enough to fix Cassini and then quietly pretend X
remains unchanged in every other precision experiment.
That's how theories die: not from insufficient imagination, but from
collateral predictions.
Burn completely: "paragraphocentric."
There is no useful physics here. Delete it.
Burn completely: the redshift-bias claim.
Replace it with an explicit model:
or whatever your actual proposed relation is.
Then derive it.
Burn completely: the "second order ? rotationally linear" assertion.
Define the expansion parameter and derive the second-order term.
Then demonstrate where rotation enters.
Burn completely: the unexplained correspondence.
If Bäcklund/Ricci/Regge mathematics is genuinely central, define the
objects and construct the correspondence explicitly.
Otherwise remove the names.
Burn completely: "none of those words need to be connected by an
equation."
That is precisely backwards.
They need to be connected by equations, derivations, and observables.
Rebuild: the entire theory from first principles.
Start with:
Ontology — what actually exists?
Mathematical structure — manifold, lattice, graph, continuum,
discrete complex, etc.
Fundamental variables.
Symmetries/gauge group.
Action or dynamical law.
Field equations.
Conservation laws.
Classical/weak-field limit.
Relativistic limit.
Prediction for the Cassini observable.
Numerical parameter values.
Independent prediction that distinguishes the model from GR.
Until step 10 exists, there is no Cassini explanation.
One fragment survives: the instinct to connect precision experimental
anomalies/measurements with a deeper mathematical framework.
That's it.
Cassini is a legitimate place to test gravitational theory. Discrete
geometry is legitimate. Gauge formulations are legitimate. Bäcklund
transformations are legitimate mathematical objects. Ricci geometry is
legitimate. Regge calculus is legitimate.
But legitimate ingredients do not automatically make a legitimate
theory.
A refrigerator, a Ferrari, and a particle accelerator are all legitimate
machines. Throwing their names into one sentence does not produce a
working vehicle.
Right now this isn't a revolutionary theory waiting for refinement; it's
technical vocabulary hiding the absence of a model—so stop polishing the
prose, throw away the adjectives, and produce the equations or admit
there is nothing there.
snake in the grass
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 11:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <uZacnVcNcJApvQr3nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672631 |
On 09/01/2026 07:51 AM, Python wrote: > Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >> On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my >>>>>> book >>>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use >>>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free. >>>> >>>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans >>> >>> God luck with that. >>> >>>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of >>>>>>>> Astronomy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the >>>>>>> solar system, >>>>>> >>>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite >>>>>> where Astronomers think they are. >>>>> >>>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example? >>>> >>>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia >>>> instead of >>>> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant >>>> light speed failing.. >>> >>> Shit happens. >>> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system >>> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems, >>> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft, >>> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1] >>> >>> You haven't shown that you can do better, >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity >>> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level. >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards >> to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric, >> and overall the "polaricentric". >> >> The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem. >> >> The modern account of redshift-bias/distortion and that >> since "Dark Energy" and "2MASS" for example, combined >> with the overall isotropy of what was and is the visible >> universe, make for that "light's speed is a constant, ..., >> in deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ... at absolute zero", >> that "deep space" is arbitrarily deep. I.e., there's plenty >> of data that has falsified the often premier theories, then has >> that a simple sort of experiment makes for distinguishing >> space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, >> since "E = mc^2" is "only good to the first/second-order". >> >> So, redshift-distortion/bias, is a rather modern sort of >> account that intends to make for why light's speed is a >> constant, yet that it enters and exits rotational settings >> as if tidally, then helping explain many effects of optics, >> about which more local explanations fail, in a wider, >> overall potentialistic setting, that the potential-fields >> are the real-fields, and for accounts like "physics is a >> gauge theory" and so on. >> >> It's a continuum mechanics. > > The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards > to the geocentric, heliocentric, and overall > paragraphocentric. > > Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being > non-constant in precisely the constant way required by > the potentialistic real-fields, except to second order, > where E=mc^2 becomes rotationally linear. > > This follows from continuum gauge mechanics and the > Bäcklund-Ricci-Regge correspondence, in the usual sense > that none of those words need to be connected by an > equation. > > It's a discontinuum mechanics. That's word-play, it's ir-relevant. The notions of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are the old-fashioned accounts of out-moded cosmology, then here renovated with regards to "the Earth's frame" and "the Sun's frame", their rest frames, with regards to that usually enough being called "the terrestrial frame" or "the solar frame" vis-a-vis "the lab frame". Now, I'm aware that some these days eschew even any concept of "rest frame" since they're partial-differential-geometers who think adding a zero by reductionism is increasing precision when instead its narrowing applicability, here though the notion of the "rest frame" is as a "rotating frame", with basically the old-fashioned notion that the Sun does in a sense rotate about the Earth from what are _perspectives_. So, the "polaricentric" basically abstracts this to Polaris "the North Star", that the "polaricentric", which is a seeming oxymoron since the "polar" and the "centric" are anti-podal or a-symmetric, has that the polar as singular is for the contradistinction between the perspectives of the frames as rotating and restful, then that space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational may be distinguished, for example where they can be distinguished by imposing a neutrally-charged linear-accelerator like SLAC over a non-neutrally-charged cyclotron like a Tevatron, or for that matter _much smaller apparatuses_, then that the "real space-contraction" and "real space-contraction-linear" and "real space-contraction-rotational", provides distinct milieu for the propagation of various forms of energy in radiation, where also here there's that light is "pure diffraction with imaging in decoherenecy" while radio is "compounded refraction with imaging in coherency", thusly that _light_ is always free in whatever frame it's in and whatever media it's in, since light is always fleeting and flux, that then the account of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric" and outside that the "polaricentric" make then for an account that light's speed is _derived_ from galactic drift velocity, being about twice that. The L-principle or light's speed's constacy still holds in this way - "in deep space, in a vacuum, at absolute zero", and also it holds locally in this way, with a theory that acknowledges the very limits of assuming light is the meter to make accounts of that it's the measure, then that the modern sky-survey with various accounts of the observatory has furthermore given other meters and measures so that we know that redshift-bias/distortion is real, then for that accounts like this "Large Fresnel" or "Occult Fresnel" both is a falsifiable theory not falsified like the premier theories have been falsified, and, improves the explanatory factors for accounts like Leibniz' requirements of the valid and sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7bVlOeVTP_z3qwehm7FBYcULs2E@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672636 |
Le 01/09/2026 à 21:00, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
> On 09/01/2026 07:51 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit :
>>> On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my
>>>>>>> book
>>>>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use
>>>>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans
>>>>
>>>> God luck with that.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of
>>>>>>>>> Astronomy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the
>>>>>>>> solar system,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite
>>>>>>> where Astronomers think they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia
>>>>> instead of
>>>>> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant
>>>>> light speed failing..
>>>>
>>>> Shit happens.
>>>> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system
>>>> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems,
>>>> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft,
>>>> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1]
>>>>
>>>> You haven't shown that you can do better,
>>>>
>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity
>>>> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level.
>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards
>>> to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric,
>>> and overall the "polaricentric".
>>>
>>> The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem.
>>>
>>> The modern account of redshift-bias/distortion and that
>>> since "Dark Energy" and "2MASS" for example, combined
>>> with the overall isotropy of what was and is the visible
>>> universe, make for that "light's speed is a constant, ...,
>>> in deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ... at absolute zero",
>>> that "deep space" is arbitrarily deep. I.e., there's plenty
>>> of data that has falsified the often premier theories, then has
>>> that a simple sort of experiment makes for distinguishing
>>> space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational,
>>> since "E = mc^2" is "only good to the first/second-order".
>>>
>>> So, redshift-distortion/bias, is a rather modern sort of
>>> account that intends to make for why light's speed is a
>>> constant, yet that it enters and exits rotational settings
>>> as if tidally, then helping explain many effects of optics,
>>> about which more local explanations fail, in a wider,
>>> overall potentialistic setting, that the potential-fields
>>> are the real-fields, and for accounts like "physics is a
>>> gauge theory" and so on.
>>>
>>> It's a continuum mechanics.
>>
>> The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards
>> to the geocentric, heliocentric, and overall
>> paragraphocentric.
>>
>> Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being
>> non-constant in precisely the constant way required by
>> the potentialistic real-fields, except to second order,
>> where E=mc^2 becomes rotationally linear.
>>
>> This follows from continuum gauge mechanics and the
>> Bäcklund-Ricci-Regge correspondence, in the usual sense
>> that none of those words need to be connected by an
>> equation.
>>
>> It's a discontinuum mechanics.
>
> That's word-play, it's ir-relevant.
>
> The notions of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are
> the old-fashioned accounts of out-moded cosmology, then
> here renovated with regards to "the Earth's frame" and
> "the Sun's frame", their rest frames, with regards to
> that usually enough being called "the terrestrial frame"
> or "the solar frame" vis-a-vis "the lab frame".
>
> Now, I'm aware that some these days eschew even any concept
> of "rest frame" since they're partial-differential-geometers
> who think adding a zero by reductionism is increasing precision
> when instead its narrowing applicability, here though the notion
> of the "rest frame" is as a "rotating frame", with basically
> the old-fashioned notion that the Sun does in a sense rotate
> about the Earth from what are _perspectives_.
>
> So, the "polaricentric" basically abstracts this to Polaris
> "the North Star", that the "polaricentric", which is a
> seeming oxymoron since the "polar" and the "centric" are
> anti-podal or a-symmetric, has that the polar as singular
> is for the contradistinction between the perspectives of
> the frames as rotating and restful, then that space-contraction-linear
> and space-contraction-rotational may be distinguished, for example
> where they can be distinguished by imposing a neutrally-charged
> linear-accelerator like SLAC over a non-neutrally-charged cyclotron
> like a Tevatron, or for that matter _much smaller apparatuses_,
> then that the "real space-contraction" and "real
> space-contraction-linear" and "real space-contraction-rotational",
> provides distinct
> milieu for the propagation of various forms of energy in radiation,
> where also here there's that light is "pure diffraction with imaging
> in decoherenecy" while radio is "compounded refraction with imaging
> in coherency", thusly that _light_ is always free in whatever frame
> it's in and whatever media it's in, since light is always fleeting and
> flux, that then the account of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric"
> and outside that the "polaricentric" make then for an account that
> light's speed is _derived_ from galactic drift velocity, being
> about twice that.
>
> The L-principle or light's speed's constacy still holds in this
> way - "in deep space, in a vacuum, at absolute zero", and also
> it holds locally in this way, with a theory that acknowledges
> the very limits of assuming light is the meter to make accounts
> of that it's the measure, then that the modern sky-survey with
> various accounts of the observatory has furthermore given other
> meters and measures so that we know that redshift-bias/distortion
> is real, then for that accounts like this "Large Fresnel" or
> "Occult Fresnel" both is a falsifiable theory not falsified
> like the premier theories have been falsified, and, improves
> the explanatory factors for accounts like Leibniz' requirements
> of the valid and sound.
Ross,
That's word-play, it's ir-relevant.
The paragraphocentric is not word-play, since "paragraph"
is merely the old-fashioned account of the textual frame,
then renovated with regards to the sentence-frame and the
overall discourse-frame, their rest frames, vis-a-vis the
reader-frame.
Now, I'm aware that some these days eschew even any concept
of "paragraph rest frame", usually the partial-differential-
grammarians who think that adding a verb by reductionism is
increasing semantic precision when instead it narrows
applicability.
Here though the paragraph is rotating.
Thus the paragraphocentric basically abstracts the geocentric,
heliocentric and polaricentric to the typographicentric, where
the "paragraph" and the "centric" are anti-podal or
a-syntactic, and where sentence-contraction-linear and
sentence-contraction-rotational can be distinguished.
This can be tested by imposing a neutrally-punctuated linear
sentence over a non-neutrally-parenthesized paragraph like
the one above, or for that matter MUCH SMALLER CLAUSES.
Then the real sentence-contraction, real
sentence-contraction-linear and real
sentence-contraction-rotational provide distinct milieu for
the propagation of various forms of meaning in prose.
Here there's also that ordinary English is "pure syntax with
meaning in coherency", while Ross-English is "compounded
vocabulary with meaning in decoherency", thusly that meaning
is always free in whatever sentence it's in and whatever
paragraph it's in, since meaning is always fleeting and flux.
The W-principle, or word's meaning's constacy, still holds in
this way:
in deep prose,
in a vacuum,
at absolute comprehension.
Locally it also holds, except where the word is used as the
meter to measure the meaning that was derived from the word
being its own measure.
Modern paragraph-surveys have furthermore supplied other
meters and measures, so that we know semantic-bias/distortion
is real.
This makes "Large Paragraph" or "Occult Paragraph" a
falsifiable theory not falsified like the premier theories
have been falsified, while improving the explanatory factors
for Leibniz' requirements of the valid and sound.
In particular, the theory predicts that if enough technical
terms are accelerated through a sufficiently long paragraph,
their semantic content undergoes Lorentz contraction until
it becomes experimentally indistinguishable from zero.
Your last post appears to be well inside that regime.
It's a continuum semantics.
This is experimentally distinguishable: put the paragraph through
SLAC and the nouns continue approximately linearly; put it through
the Tevatron and they eventually come back around to the same point.
Your prose appears to have been using the Tevatron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 22:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d1520518d307ca$231810$989275$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672638 |
On Tue, 01 Sep 26 20:44:37 +0000, Python wrote: > Le 01/09/2026 à 21:00, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >> On 09/01/2026 07:51 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >>>> On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> >> The notions of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are the >> old-fashioned accounts of out-moded cosmology, then here renovated with >> regards to "the Earth's frame" and "the Sun's frame", their rest >> frames, with regards to that usually enough being called "the >> terrestrial frame" >> or "the solar frame" vis-a-vis "the lab frame". >> >> Now, I'm aware that some these days eschew even any concept of "rest >> frame" since they're partial-differential-geometers who think adding a >> zero by reductionism is increasing precision when instead its narrowing >> applicability, here though the notion of the "rest frame" is as a >> "rotating frame", with basically the old-fashioned notion that the Sun >> does in a sense rotate about the Earth from what are _perspectives_. >> >> So, the "polaricentric" basically abstracts this to Polaris "the North >> Star", that the "polaricentric", which is a seeming oxymoron since the >> "polar" and the "centric" are anti-podal or a-symmetric, has that the >> polar as singular is for the contradistinction between the perspectives >> of the frames as rotating and restful, then that >> space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational may be >> distinguished, for example where they can be distinguished by imposing >> a neutrally-charged linear-accelerator like SLAC over a >> non-neutrally-charged cyclotron like a Tevatron, or for that matter >> _much smaller apparatuses_, >> then that the "real space-contraction" and "real >> space-contraction-linear" and "real space-contraction-rotational", >> provides distinct milieu for the propagation of various forms of energy >> in radiation, where also here there's that light is "pure diffraction >> with imaging in decoherenecy" while radio is "compounded refraction >> with imaging in coherency", thusly that _light_ is always free in >> whatever frame it's in and whatever media it's in, since light is >> always fleeting and flux, that then the account of the "geocentric" and >> "heliocentric" and outside that the "polaricentric" make then for an >> account that light's speed is _derived_ from galactic drift velocity, >> being about twice that. >> >> The L-principle or light's speed's constacy still holds in this way - >> "in deep space, in a vacuum, at absolute zero", and also it holds >> locally in this way, with a theory that acknowledges the very limits of >> assuming light is the meter to make accounts of that it's the measure, >> then that the modern sky-survey with various accounts of the >> observatory has furthermore given other meters and measures so that we >> know that redshift-bias/distortion is real, then for that accounts like >> this "Large Fresnel" or "Occult Fresnel" both is a falsifiable theory >> not falsified like the premier theories have been falsified, and, >> improves the explanatory factors for accounts like Leibniz' >> requirements of the valid and sound. > > Ross, > > That's word-play, it's ir-relevant. All Philosophers would love to be Physicists but simply cannot handle the geometrical challenges...to compensate they assemble large numbers of physical expressions and then run them together in random fashion in the hope of appearing knowledgeable. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 18:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d46dnQetGPei6wr3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672638 |
On 09/01/2026 01:44 PM, Python wrote: > Le 01/09/2026 à 21:00, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >> On 09/01/2026 07:51 AM, Python wrote: >>> Le 01/09/2026 à 16:28, Ross Finlayson a écrit : >>>> On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my >>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and >>>>>>> use >>>>>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans >>>>> >>>>> God luck with that. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of >>>>>>>>>> Astronomy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> solar system, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite >>>>>>>> where Astronomers think they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example? >>>>>> >>>>>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia >>>>>> instead of >>>>>> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant >>>>>> light speed failing.. >>>>> >>>>> Shit happens. >>>>> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system >>>>> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems, >>>>> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft, >>>>> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1] >>>>> >>>>> You haven't shown that you can do better, >>>>> >>>>> Jan >>>>> >>>>> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity >>>>> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level. >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards >>>> to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric, >>>> and overall the "polaricentric". >>>> >>>> The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem. >>>> >>>> The modern account of redshift-bias/distortion and that >>>> since "Dark Energy" and "2MASS" for example, combined >>>> with the overall isotropy of what was and is the visible >>>> universe, make for that "light's speed is a constant, ..., >>>> in deep space, ..., in a vacuum, ... at absolute zero", >>>> that "deep space" is arbitrarily deep. I.e., there's plenty >>>> of data that has falsified the often premier theories, then has >>>> that a simple sort of experiment makes for distinguishing >>>> space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational, >>>> since "E = mc^2" is "only good to the first/second-order". >>>> >>>> So, redshift-distortion/bias, is a rather modern sort of >>>> account that intends to make for why light's speed is a >>>> constant, yet that it enters and exits rotational settings >>>> as if tidally, then helping explain many effects of optics, >>>> about which more local explanations fail, in a wider, >>>> overall potentialistic setting, that the potential-fields >>>> are the real-fields, and for accounts like "physics is a >>>> gauge theory" and so on. >>>> >>>> It's a continuum mechanics. >>> >>> The Cassini result is explained variously, with regards >>> to the geocentric, heliocentric, and overall >>> paragraphocentric. >>> >>> Redshift-bias/distortion makes for the constant being >>> non-constant in precisely the constant way required by >>> the potentialistic real-fields, except to second order, >>> where E=mc^2 becomes rotationally linear. >>> >>> This follows from continuum gauge mechanics and the >>> Bäcklund-Ricci-Regge correspondence, in the usual sense >>> that none of those words need to be connected by an >>> equation. >>> >>> It's a discontinuum mechanics. >> >> That's word-play, it's ir-relevant. >> >> The notions of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric" are >> the old-fashioned accounts of out-moded cosmology, then >> here renovated with regards to "the Earth's frame" and >> "the Sun's frame", their rest frames, with regards to >> that usually enough being called "the terrestrial frame" >> or "the solar frame" vis-a-vis "the lab frame". >> >> Now, I'm aware that some these days eschew even any concept >> of "rest frame" since they're partial-differential-geometers >> who think adding a zero by reductionism is increasing precision >> when instead its narrowing applicability, here though the notion >> of the "rest frame" is as a "rotating frame", with basically >> the old-fashioned notion that the Sun does in a sense rotate >> about the Earth from what are _perspectives_. >> >> So, the "polaricentric" basically abstracts this to Polaris >> "the North Star", that the "polaricentric", which is a >> seeming oxymoron since the "polar" and the "centric" are >> anti-podal or a-symmetric, has that the polar as singular >> is for the contradistinction between the perspectives of >> the frames as rotating and restful, then that space-contraction-linear >> and space-contraction-rotational may be distinguished, for example >> where they can be distinguished by imposing a neutrally-charged >> linear-accelerator like SLAC over a non-neutrally-charged cyclotron >> like a Tevatron, or for that matter _much smaller apparatuses_, >> then that the "real space-contraction" and "real >> space-contraction-linear" and "real space-contraction-rotational", >> provides distinct >> milieu for the propagation of various forms of energy in radiation, >> where also here there's that light is "pure diffraction with imaging >> in decoherenecy" while radio is "compounded refraction with imaging >> in coherency", thusly that _light_ is always free in whatever frame >> it's in and whatever media it's in, since light is always fleeting and >> flux, that then the account of the "geocentric" and "heliocentric" >> and outside that the "polaricentric" make then for an account that >> light's speed is _derived_ from galactic drift velocity, being >> about twice that. >> >> The L-principle or light's speed's constacy still holds in this >> way - "in deep space, in a vacuum, at absolute zero", and also >> it holds locally in this way, with a theory that acknowledges >> the very limits of assuming light is the meter to make accounts >> of that it's the measure, then that the modern sky-survey with >> various accounts of the observatory has furthermore given other >> meters and measures so that we know that redshift-bias/distortion >> is real, then for that accounts like this "Large Fresnel" or >> "Occult Fresnel" both is a falsifiable theory not falsified >> like the premier theories have been falsified, and, improves >> the explanatory factors for accounts like Leibniz' requirements >> of the valid and sound. > > Ross, > > That's word-play, it's ir-relevant. > > The paragraphocentric is not word-play, since "paragraph" > is merely the old-fashioned account of the textual frame, > then renovated with regards to the sentence-frame and the > overall discourse-frame, their rest frames, vis-a-vis the > reader-frame. > > Now, I'm aware that some these days eschew even any concept > of "paragraph rest frame", usually the partial-differential- > grammarians who think that adding a verb by reductionism is > increasing semantic precision when instead it narrows > applicability. > > Here though the paragraph is rotating. > > Thus the paragraphocentric basically abstracts the geocentric, > heliocentric and polaricentric to the typographicentric, where > the "paragraph" and the "centric" are anti-podal or > a-syntactic, and where sentence-contraction-linear and > sentence-contraction-rotational can be distinguished. > > This can be tested by imposing a neutrally-punctuated linear > sentence over a non-neutrally-parenthesized paragraph like > the one above, or for that matter MUCH SMALLER CLAUSES. > > Then the real sentence-contraction, real > sentence-contraction-linear and real > sentence-contraction-rotational provide distinct milieu for > the propagation of various forms of meaning in prose. > > Here there's also that ordinary English is "pure syntax with > meaning in coherency", while Ross-English is "compounded > vocabulary with meaning in decoherency", thusly that meaning > is always free in whatever sentence it's in and whatever > paragraph it's in, since meaning is always fleeting and flux. > > The W-principle, or word's meaning's constacy, still holds in > this way: > > in deep prose, > in a vacuum, > at absolute comprehension. > > Locally it also holds, except where the word is used as the > meter to measure the meaning that was derived from the word > being its own measure. > > Modern paragraph-surveys have furthermore supplied other > meters and measures, so that we know semantic-bias/distortion > is real. > > This makes "Large Paragraph" or "Occult Paragraph" a > falsifiable theory not falsified like the premier theories > have been falsified, while improving the explanatory factors > for Leibniz' requirements of the valid and sound. > > In particular, the theory predicts that if enough technical > terms are accelerated through a sufficiently long paragraph, > their semantic content undergoes Lorentz contraction until > it becomes experimentally indistinguishable from zero. > > Your last post appears to be well inside that regime. > > It's a continuum semantics. > > This is experimentally distinguishable: put the paragraph through > SLAC and the nouns continue approximately linearly; put it through > the Tevatron and they eventually come back around to the same point. > > Your prose appears to have been using the Tevatron. That's a lie, English isn't "pure syntax", opinions vary. Furthermore, the much smaller apparatus of course is non-zero and exists. Then, the bot argues that as pure syntax then that a sufficiently long paragraph contains a la Whatmough enough information that it has its own definition, and calls that a Lorentz contraction, when that would also reference the mathematics of invariant theory and as well this thread itself, or a remarkably similar utterance. Yet, as above, that's not a practical account, and indeed, then has put both its semantics and syntax through both of the SLAC and Tevatron, and saying the labels wore off, when I specifically sewed the labels on before dropping these in the laundry. Then, a clever bot may have sewed your labels for you, then that syntax and syntax is syntax, that's yet schema, and one over infinity is only one over one over zero, that since unrestricted comprehension is acknowledged, then that's more than a mere mockery and doesn't work too hard. The strong metonymy is more than weak metaphor, while yet finite language includes words for the lack thereof, that being natural, then "pure syntax" is only a very specialist's English, and it's exactly an ideal. The Galilean and Lorentzian the mechanical before the reduction the invariance does have that space-contraction-linear and space-contractional-rotational are formally distinct, and each and both real. Then, above, where my fingers slipped 'coherenecy', now one must read it and think it, too. Then, the experiment to arrive at zero of what's to be made observably falsifiably measurable, of what fits both Big Bang and Steady State models like any cosmology does, here has that instead only the invocation of theatheory leaves an account sane, then that mental faculties of the object sense distinguish to the word sense and make for that you should slap yourself for that. "Stop hitting yourself, ....", agreeably that's steganographic. It's a continuum _mechanics_.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0s6d1.1c1xyud1n3f8ucN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672629 |
Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my book > >>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon. > >>> > >>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use > >>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free. > >> > >> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans > > > > God luck with that. > > > >>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of > >>>>>> Astronomy. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the > >>>>> solar system, > >>>> > >>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite > >>>> where Astronomers think they are. > >>> > >>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example? > >> > >> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia instead of > >> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant > >> light speed failing.. > > > > Shit happens. > > However, all succesful navigation through the solar system > > is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems, > > in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft, > > reckoning with constant speed of light, [1] > > > > You haven't shown that you can do better, > > > > Jan > > > > [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity > > (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism> > > > > > > > > > > The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards > to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric, > and overall the "polaricentric". > > The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem. [snip irrelevancies] The positions of space probes are not obtained by 'dead reckoning'. They are obtained by pinging their transponders, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 18:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d46dnQatGPfD6wr3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #672648 |
On 09/01/2026 02:35 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 09/01/2026 05:30 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> >>>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2026 11:06:05 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I know of many thousands of such cases.but you wil have to buy my book >>>>>> to learn about them. It will be available very soon. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe you should go to Stockholm first to collect your prize, and use >>>>> the money to distribute your works of genius for free. >>>> >>>> Nah! I don't want to be associated with a bunch of charlatans >>> >>> God luck with that. >>> >>>>>>> It also get many things completely wrongc...like the whole of >>>>>>>> Astronomy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sure, merely correct to about ten decimal places, for orbits in the >>>>>>> solar system, >>>>>> >>>>>> Correct according to constant light speed. So no objects are quite >>>>>> where Astronomers think they are. >>>>> >>>>> Like the Huygens probe landed on Titan for example? >>>> >>>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia instead of >>>> missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of constant >>>> light speed failing.. >>> >>> Shit happens. >>> However, all succesful navigation through the solar system >>> is based on using general relativistic coordinate systems, >>> in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft, >>> reckoning with constant speed of light, [1] >>> >>> You haven't shown that you can do better, >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity >>> (and hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level. >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> The Pioneer Anomaly is explained variously, with regards >> to the speed of light in the geocentric, the heliocentric, >> and overall the "polaricentric". >> >> The dead-reckoning is a well-known difficult problem. > > [snip irrelevancies] > The positions of space probes are not obtained by 'dead reckoning'. > They are obtained by pinging their transponders, > > Jan > Nobody said it wasn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 20:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d14c9e9d8e06eb$221$1967813$4266dc33@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672627 |
On Tue, 1 Sep 2026 14:30:25 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 13:36:19 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >>> ...and two Mars probes crashing...an asteroid landing in Russia instead >> of missing the Earth altogether and numerous other examples of >> constant light speed failing.. > > Shit happens. > However, all succesful navigation through the solar system is based on > using general relativistic coordinate systems, > in particular TCB, and using transponders on spacecraft, > reckoning with constant speed of light, [1] > > You haven't shown that you can do better, > > Jan > > [1] Tracking of the Cassini spacecraft confirms general relativity (and > hence constant speed of light) at the 10^-5 level. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameterized_post-Newtonian_formalism> As I have pointed out, Einstein's silly theory is largely workable. One can use the constant c model along with imaginary time and space transforms and a lot of other crap...or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach...and get the same answers. Which is easier?.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 20:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <OpnU0-KS0uMqx5BDJh6SRYFw8os@jntp> |
| In reply to | #672637 |
Ralph,
> or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach...
> and get the same answers. Which is easier?
Then this should be very easy to demonstrate.
Take the Cassini experiment Jan just mentioned.
Write down your "much simpler variable c" law and calculate the
observable actually measured in the experiment: the round-trip
radio propagation time/frequency shift as Cassini passed near solar
conjunction.
GR gives a definite prediction.
You say your Newtonian variable-c theory gives the same answer.
So give us:
1. your equation for c as a function of position/motion;
2. the trajectory and propagation equation you use;
3. the resulting predicted observable;
4. its numerical difference from the GR prediction.
No "imaginary time".
No "space transforms".
No Einstein.
Just Newton + your variable c.
If it really gives the same answers, this should be an ideal
opportunity to demonstrate it.
Because "my theory gets the same answers" is considerably easier
to type than actually getting one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-01 21:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d15155d91b1728$231809$989275$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672639 |
On Tue, 01 Sep 26 20:52:15 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > >> or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach... >> and get the same answers. Which is easier? > > Then this should be very easy to demonstrate. > > Take the Cassini experiment Jan just mentioned. > > Write down your "much simpler variable c" law and calculate the > observable actually measured in the experiment: the round-trip radio > propagation time/frequency shift as Cassini passed near solar > conjunction. > > GR gives a definite prediction. ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances moved by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out and the whole process effectively reverts to Newton. > You say your Newtonian variable-c theory gives the same answer. > > So give us: > > 1. your equation for c as a function of position/motion; > 2. the trajectory and propagation equation you use; > 3. the resulting predicted observable; > 4. its numerical difference from the GR prediction. > > No "imaginary time". > No "space transforms". > No Einstein. > > Just Newton + your variable c. > > If it really gives the same answers, this should be an ideal opportunity > to demonstrate it. > > Because "my theory gets the same answers" is considerably easier to type > than actually getting one of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0t5rl.bgchlg18btnmxN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672650 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Tue, 01 Sep 26 20:52:15 +0000, Python wrote: > > > Ralph, > > > >> or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach... > >> and get the same answers. Which is easier? > > > > Then this should be very easy to demonstrate. > > > > Take the Cassini experiment Jan just mentioned. > > > > Write down your "much simpler variable c" law and calculate the > > observable actually measured in the experiment: the round-trip radio > > propagation time/frequency shift as Cassini passed near solar > > conjunction. > > > > GR gives a definite prediction. > > ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances moved by > light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out and the whole > process effectively reverts to Newton. Good, you are almost there. If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous Newtonian claptrap, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-02 21:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d19751cb093876$2517827$2346$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #672696 |
On 9/2/2026 9:13 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Sep 26 20:52:15 +0000, Python wrote: >> >>> Ralph, >>> >>>> or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach... >>>> and get the same answers. Which is easier? >>> >>> Then this should be very easy to demonstrate. >>> >>> Take the Cassini experiment Jan just mentioned. >>> >>> Write down your "much simpler variable c" law and calculate the >>> observable actually measured in the experiment: the round-trip radio >>> propagation time/frequency shift as Cassini passed near solar >>> conjunction. >>> >>> GR gives a definite prediction. >> >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances moved by >> light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out and the whole >> process effectively reverts to Newton. > > Good, you are almost there. > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. The mumble of your idiot guru was not even consistent. > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous > Newtonian claptrap, > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-03 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d1f2663062dd9e$830$1666339$4026de73@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672696 |
On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:13:01 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 01 Sep 26 20:52:15 +0000, Python wrote: >> >> > Ralph, >> > >> >> or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach... >> >> and get the same answers. Which is easier? >> > >> > Then this should be very easy to demonstrate. >> > >> > Take the Cassini experiment Jan just mentioned. >> > >> > Write down your "much simpler variable c" law and calculate the >> > observable actually measured in the experiment: the round-trip radio >> > propagation time/frequency shift as Cassini passed near solar >> > conjunction. >> > >> > GR gives a definite prediction. >> >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances moved >> by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out and the >> whole process effectively reverts to Newton. > > Good, you are almost there. > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous > Newtonian claptrap, Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern Physics article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole concept of 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading ground for unadulterated bullshit. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 10:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0wo2f.8yxswp1l1uomsN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672742 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2 Sep 2026 21:13:01 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 01 Sep 26 20:52:15 +0000, Python wrote: > >> > >> > Ralph, > >> > > >> >> or use Newton's much simpler variable c approach... > >> >> and get the same answers. Which is easier? > >> > > >> > Then this should be very easy to demonstrate. > >> > > >> > Take the Cassini experiment Jan just mentioned. > >> > > >> > Write down your "much simpler variable c" law and calculate the > >> > observable actually measured in the experiment: the round-trip radio > >> > propagation time/frequency shift as Cassini passed near solar > >> > conjunction. > >> > > >> > GR gives a definite prediction. > >> > >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances moved > >> by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out and the > >> whole process effectively reverts to Newton. > > > > Good, you are almost there. > > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. > > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous > > Newtonian claptrap, > > Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern Physics > article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole concept of > 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading ground for > unadulterated bullshit. But according to you it is all perfectly correct bullshit, because all errors in it cancel out. (see yourself, above) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-04 21:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d23a835fe8da0b$1020$1420243$4276dc23@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672747 |
On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:25:45 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> >> > GR gives a definite prediction. >> >> >> >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances >> >> moved by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out >> >> and the whole process effectively reverts to Newton. >> > >> > Good, you are almost there. >> > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. >> > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous >> > Newtonian claptrap, >> >> Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern >> Physics article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole concept >> of 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading ground for >> unadulterated bullshit. > > But according to you it is all perfectly correct bullshit, > because all errors in it cancel out. (see yourself, above) I have acknowledged that Einstein's theory is not completely wrong. It is just ridiculously, unnecessarily complicated and very misleading particularly for Astronomy. In restricted situations, the constant c model can be used so long as the relativistic corrections are applied in order to exactly cancel P2's built in errors. Of course in the many experiments where light speed remains at c there is no need to do that. That is particularly relevant to interferometry. > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 12:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0ypqn.3xg7mv1ry7w62N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672806 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:25:45 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > GR gives a definite prediction. > >> >> > >> >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances > >> >> moved by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel out > >> >> and the whole process effectively reverts to Newton. > >> > > >> > Good, you are almost there. > >> > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. > >> > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous > >> > Newtonian claptrap, > >> > >> Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern > >> Physics article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole concept > >> of 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading ground for > >> unadulterated bullshit. > > > > But according to you it is all perfectly correct bullshit, > > because all errors in it cancel out. (see yourself, above) > > I have acknowledged that Einstein's theory is not completely wrong. It is > just ridiculously, unnecessarily complicated and very misleading > particularly for Astronomy. > In restricted situations, the constant c model can be used so long as the > relativistic corrections are applied in order to exactly cancel P2's built > in errors. Of course in the many experiments where light speed remains at > c there is no need to do that. That is particularly relevant to > interferometry. So still no answer. What is your example of Einstein's theory being wrong? (no verbally wrong, by your claptrap, but actually disagreeing with an experimental result) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-05 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d2821ac7c5a763$4$1900558$4236dc63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #672826 |
On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 12:14:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:25:45 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >> >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> >> >> > GR gives a definite prediction. >> >> >> >> >> >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances >> >> >> moved by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel >> >> >> out and the whole process effectively reverts to Newton. >> >> > >> >> > Good, you are almost there. >> >> > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. >> >> > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous >> >> > Newtonian claptrap, >> >> >> >> Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern >> >> Physics article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole >> >> concept of 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading >> >> ground for unadulterated bullshit. >> > >> > But according to you it is all perfectly correct bullshit, >> > because all errors in it cancel out. (see yourself, above) >> >> I have acknowledged that Einstein's theory is not completely wrong. It >> is just ridiculously, unnecessarily complicated and very misleading >> particularly for Astronomy. >> In restricted situations, the constant c model can be used so long as >> the relativistic corrections are applied in order to exactly cancel >> P2's built in errors. Of course in the many experiments where light >> speed remains at c there is no need to do that. That is particularly >> relevant to interferometry. > > So still no answer. > What is your example of Einstein's theory being wrong? > (no verbally wrong, by your claptrap, > but actually disagreeing with an experimental result) I have answered. I have pointed out that one can live with the constant c model so long as the Lts are applied to counter its built in errors. If they are applied when light speed doesn't depart from c they will introduce errors. A principal misinterpretation of SR is that it claims light always moves through space at the same speed c. It does not infer that at all. It is just a mathematical way of making measured OWLS equal c in a particular frame. > > Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 11:55 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <117j9pd$279eq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #672853 |
On 05/09/2026 22:04, HenryWilson wrote: > On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 12:14:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:25:45 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>> >>>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> GR gives a definite prediction. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances >>>>>>> moved by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel >>>>>>> out and the whole process effectively reverts to Newton. >>>>>> >>>>>> Good, you are almost there. >>>>>> If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. >>>>>> All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous >>>>>> Newtonian claptrap, >>>>> >>>>> Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern >>>>> Physics article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole >>>>> concept of 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading >>>>> ground for unadulterated bullshit. >>>> >>>> But according to you it is all perfectly correct bullshit, >>>> because all errors in it cancel out. (see yourself, above) >>> >>> I have acknowledged that Einstein's theory is not completely wrong. It >>> is just ridiculously, unnecessarily complicated and very misleading >>> particularly for Astronomy. >>> In restricted situations, the constant c model can be used so long as >>> the relativistic corrections are applied in order to exactly cancel >>> P2's built in errors. Of course in the many experiments where light >>> speed remains at c there is no need to do that. That is particularly >>> relevant to interferometry. >> >> So still no answer. >> What is your example of Einstein's theory being wrong? >> (no verbally wrong, by your claptrap, >> but actually disagreeing with an experimental result) > > I have answered. I have pointed out that one can live with the constant c > model so long as the Lts are applied to counter its built in errors. If > they are applied when light speed doesn't depart from c they will > introduce errors. A principal misinterpretation of SR is that it claims > light always moves through space at the same speed c. It does not infer > that at all. It is just a mathematical way of making measured OWLS equal > c in a particular frame. In the context of theories of physics a countered error is no error. Perhaps in other contexts, too. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1s0zjgw.1htcdnl1hy7hstN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #672853 |
HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > On Sat, 5 Sep 2026 12:14:11 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > > > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 4 Sep 2026 10:25:45 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote: > >> > >> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> >> > GR gives a definite prediction. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> ...yes...because it defines space itself in terms of 'distances > >> >> >> moved by light at speed c'. So all SR's built in errors cancel > >> >> >> out and the whole process effectively reverts to Newton. > >> >> > > >> >> > Good, you are almost there. > >> >> > If 'all SR's built in errors cancel out' it is a correct theory. > >> >> > All that remains to do for you now is getting rid of superfluous > >> >> > Newtonian claptrap, > >> >> > >> >> Hahahaaha! That's really funny. One has to only look at any modern > >> >> Physics article to see where all the claptrap lies. The whole > >> >> concept of 'spacetime based on constant light speed' is a breading > >> >> ground for unadulterated bullshit. > >> > > >> > But according to you it is all perfectly correct bullshit, > >> > because all errors in it cancel out. (see yourself, above) > >> > >> I have acknowledged that Einstein's theory is not completely wrong. It > >> is just ridiculously, unnecessarily complicated and very misleading > >> particularly for Astronomy. > >> In restricted situations, the constant c model can be used so long as > >> the relativistic corrections are applied in order to exactly cancel > >> P2's built in errors. Of course in the many experiments where light > >> speed remains at c there is no need to do that. That is particularly > >> relevant to interferometry. > > > > So still no answer. > > What is your example of Einstein's theory being wrong? > > (no verbally wrong, by your claptrap, > > but actually disagreeing with an experimental result) > > I have answered. I have pointed out that one can live with the constant c > model so long as the Lts are applied to counter its built in errors. If > they are applied when light speed doesn't depart from c they will > introduce errors. A principal misinterpretation of SR is that it claims > light always moves through space at the same speed c. It does not infer > that at all. It is just a mathematical way of making measured OWLS equal > c in a particular frame. So no answer. No surprise there, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web