From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 09/01/2026 01:44 PM, Python wrote:

Le 01/09/2026 |a 21:00, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

On 09/01/2026 07:51 AM, Python wrote:

Le 01/09/2026 |a 16:28, Ross Finlayson a |-crit :

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
B|ncklund-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_.


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2