<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Golly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>(The wristwatches wasa joke, which I assumed all of
you would have realized. Reading a wristwatch to the nearest thousandth of
a second would be tough, anyway)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You seem to be impllying that we do not know the
orbital period of the Moon to "better than a few seconds"? Wow. You
also clearly have nevver used the VSOP87 database. ALL of the
gravitational interactions in the Solar System are quantified to many decimal
point accuracy. The VSOP87 data is not precise enough to track the
effect that YOU have on Uranus' moon Umbriel from jusut walkingn around on Earth
(your gravitational effect exists, and maybe someday the VSOP87 data will get
that accurate, but not yet. The ONLY reason that myy six months of
mathematically analyzing the VSOP87 data in 1992 was able to PREDICT where
Io and Europa were going to be four years later, was because the VSOP87
mountains of data terms WERE and ARE amazingly accurate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I realize that any TIME referrence that you have
ever seen have only given values "to the nearest minute" or "to the nearest
second", but I assure you that workingn with the Calculus Integrals of the
VSOP87 data for those six months impressed me with their accuracy. In MY
results (back in 1992) I actually COULD have presented the times to the nearest
thousandth of a second, but I did not, because I did not think "the public"
would have been able to use such precise times. You are sounding like a
"world class authority" in correcting me on this matter. Again, I ACTUALLY
SPENT THE MONTHS DOING THE MATH, so I like to think I have some idea what I
am talking about.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Forr your information, VISUAL data is of minimal
value. A Photometer is used to identify the MOMENT when "first contact"
occurs, just like for eclipses of the Moon, which is FAR more accurate than
anyone with their eyes. By the way, when anything visual occurs, yoour
optic nerves and your brain take about 0.025 second before you are aware of it,
and that varies slightly by individual. For many decades, photometers have
been usued by astronomers.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>But I hear your corrections to me, who is clearly
an ignorant person.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I see you keep repeating about my ignorance of such
things, and I appreciate it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>By the way, I was not ANNOUNCING that the world
must try the proposed one-way light experiment I suggested. I merely had
seen such terrible logical erors in the ideas your group had been discussing
regarding possible one-way light determinations that I had merely presented an
idea which had occurred to me during my math adventure of 25 years
ago. Even though you have clearly explained to me that (which is utterly
impossible), since I actually DID THE MATH and used the VSOP87 data, I have to
disagree. But I also note that ALL existing ESTIMATES of the speed of
light, including the "official" nine-digit value decided in the 1980s, have all
been based on "out and return" paths, I also wonder if there mightt be some "yet
unknown" factor which might affect the accuracy of such "out and return"
values. After all, many oof your group still believe in the "aether" of
1870 thinking. I see some appeal in trying to determinen a "one-way speed
of light" which does not rely on speculative assumptions. I thought that
the idea of ACTUALLY knowing when some event occurred with good accuracy, and
the using photometers here at various locations on the Earth to determine when
the even was seen, minimal assumptions would be involved. However
accuraely such an experiment could be done might provide a "new" speed of
light.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>OBVIOUSLY, we better count on Wikipedia for the
most reliable information. Since Wikipedia keeps secret the authors of all
their articles, you have no way to ask how that author determinned thst the
"uncertainty is 4 parts per billion". But I guess I better trust that,
too.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I allso have an apology to make. I am now old
and I have severe Parkinsons, so when I type, sometimes keys get hit twice or
extra letters appear in my text efforts. Oh, well.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Carl Johnson.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>