" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hexenmeister wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hexenmeister wrote:
" wrote in message
ups.com...

Hexenmeister wrote:
" wrote in message
ups.com...

Hexenmeister wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hexenmeister wrote:
" wrote in message
oups.com...

Eric Gisse wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 15 Feb 2006 23:33:40 -0800, "

wrote:


The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.math, Eric Gisse

wrote
on 14 Feb 2006 13:31:12 -0800
.com:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:00:50 GMT, The Ghost In The
Machine
wrote:

In sci.math, HW@..(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:28:07 GMT
:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 05:00:22 GMT, The Ghost In
The
Machine
wrote:


[snippage]

Of course this was not what was observed.

So what aspects of what WAS observed ARE real,
Ghost?
Why do you accept any of the observed data?

Oh, you're right! It's all willusion; nothing
happened!

The standard theory, in simplified form, is
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...upernovae.html
but this is obviously incorrect in light of c'=c+v.

http://www.supernovae.net/isn.htm

is interesting enough to mention; a lot of amateurs
submit
observations.

http://www.supernovae.net/snimages/

lists more than a dozen in 2005 alone. But
remember,
they're
all willusionary; it's not an exploding star but
some
other
method by which light is twisted and bent to create
the
willusion of an exploding star. Probably the other
stars
jostle and pull at the light, creating "hot spots"
or
something,
in c'=c+v theory.

And then there's the Crab Nebula...

Don't try to joke Ghost...we have enough comedians
here
already.

HOW CAN YOU BE SURE OF THE EXPANSION RATE OF THE SN?

You are seeing a willusion.

Yesss...clearly.

I find it amusing how "willusions" always come
together
to
support
SR
and GR.

It's a gigantic conspiracy, of course -- initiated by
none
other
than
Teddy Roosevelt, or perhaps Grover Cleveland or William
McKinley,
and perpetuated by every president since...

:-)

After all, the tabloid journals -- who are *the* source
of
news,
since
they're unfettered by such things as good journalistic
practices,
fact-checking, and common sense -- have been showing us
aliens
for
years.

Perhaps they're moving the stars around to ensure that
we
don't
learn
that everything is willusionary ... before we're ready.

Or not.

If we take a line of sight through the center of the
Milky
Way,
and
see
a galaxy at distance 1.1billion lyrs, where is / was it?
(Hint: the MW is revolving (claimed) once per 200,000yrs)
((Double hint: Its apparent position is a Jimillusion))

Hey Watch it!
I have a copywrite on 'willusion' and 'Jillusion'. You're
getting
too
close...

No matter what happens if you take it to court, you are both
losers.

Lil' Eric, if what is presented as "evidence" for the AE
theories
was
ever
before a court, either:
a) The judge would die laughing
b) He would jail those bringing it before the court for
contempt
c) It would be chucked out as COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED

Jim G
c'=c+v


Your sig is wrong,
c' = c+v.cos(phi)
This is particularly important right now, mid Feb 2006, because
c'
= c
from
Cassini. It won't be c' = c+v until May, you are out of date.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedi...assini_msn.pdf
http://nso0.livjm.ac.uk/uninow/orrery/
We have just gone past closest approach.

Androcles.

I understand what you are getting at.
I'll stick to the simplicity of considering that part of
Cassini's
(or
any other source)
motion as it relates to the increasing/decreasing distance from
source
to observer.
ie, the cos factor is a given when considering an orbiting
source,
and
Pythagorus
when the source is travelling a straight path, but not along a
line
between source and detector.
OK with that?

Whatever floats your boat, I'm merely pointing out that your
simplicity
is inaccurate. It's good enough for the phuckwits but not good
enough
for your education. And you never know, someone may be bright
enough
to see it and think to themselves "Perhaps Jim knows what he's
talking
about".
Androcles.

I'm not too fussed.
I spotted yonks ago that "transverse Doppler effect" was merely an
observer/data analyser
error. It is easily understood when considering the correct light
paths
and travel times.

The curious thing about transverse shift is that it is blue, not red.
When you divide by a number less than unity the quotient is greater
than the numerator, and sqrt(1- v^2/c^2) is less than one. A moving
clock that is running slow sends more ticks than it produces.
Clever, that. Wish I could do it, I'd make a fortune out of a
production
line.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...er/Doppler.htm
Transverse is when cos(phi) = 0.
It's not an observer/data error, its a ****up by Einstein, you will
never
observe it. Only an hallucinating relativist can.

A lot more complicated for curved orbit sources, but same
principals
apply:
"Light moves initially from its source at c".

Nope. The source moves initially from its light at -c.
The bottle represent the light.
Androcles.
c' = c-v.sin(phi+pi/2) :-)

Whatever flies your kite :-)

My kite flies better and faster in three dimensions than your boat
floats
in
two.
Gotcha!


The coven never could figure out source position, time, and velocity
relationships.
So out comes the wands to make transverse or otherwise whatever they
need.
It's that (-) which stuffs the LT's right from the start; Lorentz
(Fitzy et al) never realised the
mistaken conclusion caused by arbitrarily reversing the signage for v
(of train), half way through the equation. ISTM that the direction
became confused with a magnitude.
(for which any student should receive a good kick up the arse)

Yep. My kite flies in three dimensions without the string length
changing.

Motion (3D flight) of your kite is caused by gusting wind, or grandkid
running.
Energy is supplied. Allow the same for my boat (waves and oars), and I
can move in
3D also.


Hmm... I have no quick repartee to that, but I'll point out that the
energy
supplied
is irrelevant.
I can't stop your boat from upward motion.



tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-uy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-wz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
For v = 0.866c, u = 0.866c, w = 0.866c the resultant velocity is
sqrt( 3/4 + 3/4 +3/4) = 1.5c

Which equation gives a resultant veloity of zero?
Einstein never flew his kite, his had a broken string.
He must have had a terrible childhood to grow up so bitter
and inflict his nonsense on the world. Perhaps his grandpa
didn't know how to make kites as I do for my grandson.
Which reminds me, I've got a kite to make, its windy today.
I've got a clean garbage bag somewhere, a nice big one...
Androcles.

Memories of getting my arse kicked as a kid, when my kite flew so well
(about probably 800m), that I couldn't be bothered winding in all that
string,
and let it go. :-(
Mind you, the po0llution police weren't on my case; it was made from
paper
and wood. Don't lose yours!!!!!!!!!

I haven't made it yet, too busy. I'm pondering a dodecahedral
hot air balloon instead to **** off air traffic control. The legal weight
limit
for model aircraft is 50 lbs, but if its bouyant, what then? I'd have
to check the law books to see if it was a weight or mass limit.
And it would have a practical use as a platform for aerial photography.
I could supply Google Earth.
Hmm... I may have to buy more masking tape.

Check for finger prints or other identifiers; then launch!
Send me a postcard; it would have a better chance of finding me than
would SR/GR of being correct.

Jim G
c'=c+v (still)

I'm glad you said "still". "Moving" would be incorrect.
Androcles.

That's because I don't have to waste precious electrons plumbing the
depths of insulting putdowns to a mouthbreather like you.

I'll let you into a secret: everybody else including other crackpots
thinks you're a waste of oxygen as well.

"Areader" wrote in message
oups.com...
That's because I don't have to waste precious electrons plumbing the
depths of insulting putdowns to a mouthbreather like you.

I'll let you into a secret: everybody else including other crackpots
thinks you're a waste of oxygen as well.


You are the reason God created the middle finger.
*plonk*
Androcles.

there are several "classical" results, out there,
such as the wrogly-cited Michelson-Morley ones, or
the further refinement by DCMiller, and at least one other,
that I'd just heard about & forgot. also, from 19th cce.

Of course this was not what was observed.

thus:
well, the "dual version" is the actual "4CT" problem, but
the graphtheoretic version saves trying
to get a toddler to fill-in the blanks for you....
maybe, this was the initial impetus for graphtheory; eh?

thus:
if you look at the last sets of figures in Clinton's paper,
you see that some of the facets become increasingly
nonequiangular, even nonconvex ... but
this could turn-out to be an important feature.

the paper is not that easy to comprehend, though.

http://megadome.com/ -- "Dolgerber Mutations"

thus:
anyway, it was wrong;
there is not just one cell -- "C=1 in 3D" --
which was supposed to be implicit in my statement.

thus quoth:
Let us be precise. In n-dimensional space the formula is:
N_0 - N_1 + N_2 - N_3 + ... + (-1)^n.N_n = 1
where N_i is the number of i-dimensional boundaries....
In 2D, 3D and 4D we have N_0 = V, N_1 = E, N_2 = F, N_3 = C and N_4 = H

where H is the number of hypercells (1 in 4D). (See that it also
matches
when we set F = 1 in 2D and C = 1 in 3D.)...
So actually you should not take 2 as C, but 2 is split as 1 - (-1)^n.
in
the complete alternating formula.

thus:
seriously, Jack actually does have testable hypotheses,
which was shown by his slip-up on the the "Genadi-Shipov drive,"
which was just an obvious table-top concoction. of course,
when I dyssed that, although he got the "point," he surely
did not bother to reply directly to moi, moiself or Brian....
I think of him more as a New Age Mathematical-physics Savant;
saying it's wrong,wrong,wrong is just as dubious
as lending it any immediate (or posthumous) credence.

--Welcome ot the Googolplex; you can login any time, like, you, but....
http://tarpley.net/bush23.htm
http://www.benfranklinbooks.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf
http://larouchepub.com/other/2003/30..._58_const.html
http://www.rand.org/publications/ran...sues/rr.12.00/
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html