Message from discussion Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Received: by 10.68.238.67 with SMTP id vi3mr669078pbc.6.1337227617991;
Wed, 16 May 2012 21:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337227617 23698 127.0.0.1 (17 May 2012 04:06:57 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 04:06:57 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=18.104.22.168; posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648;
.NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
probably even more important, would be some "classical
reading" of some "classical German," if
that is your mother tongue. my only suggestion,
there, is a contemporary of Shakespeare, Schiller
(there are more busts of Schiller in the USA
-- http://www.schillerinstitute.org/ --
than any other person, or foreigner, or some thing, although
he may possibly have been superceded by Mao).
> as for Shakespeare, you need his help with your English,
> more than I do.
probably, they dare say that, because
they are not familiar with the NOAA datum
on the "non-decreasing heighth of the three big icesheets,"
as I put it in math-proofy terms.
integrate that with the GRACE data, and the decreasing rate
of (apparent) sealevel rise.
> They have
> stated that more than half a trillion tons of long-period ice is
> lost every year without reforming. Oh, how DARE they?!
no matter how much of a kludge,
Miskolczi's toy model really is,
it is essenitally equivalent to the datum
of the paucity of the CO2 abosprtive spectrum -- tiny,
compared to H2O's.
of course, the Big Poster of All Radiation probably needs
to be updated; I can think of one, offhand, as well
as the whole topic of Raman spectroscopy, and
probably cast new realms of spectroscopy.
that I've never even heard of.
I read the weekly of the AGU, alot, and it is not as you say;
as a matter of fact, I just, again, referenced a nice survey
of glacial moraines, which does not allow
for the usual chicken little thing of "egadz --
the sky is glowing," as it does, every six months,
when you get your annual "hole in the ozonosphere,"
which first truly became a known unkown
during the IGY, '57-9, when Dobson et Nicole set-out
their little dobsonometers (units of dobsons,
not the church of the subgenius .-)
> > Royal Society web site, the American Geophysical Union web site.
a) CO2 increase -- check (although it's much more variable,
historically, although this is probably due to human influence,
and thus really local to cities);
b) melting ice caps, North, South, Iceland -- no check; no-one has,
diputed my NOAA datum about their "non-decreaasing hieghth;"
c) melting glaciers -- no check; for much the same reasons, although
local factors viz deforestation are clearly far more important,
than for the three big caps, which may be *fed* by those factors,
viz a really nice survey of the cycles of surging of glaciers
of various types, based on studying the moraines etc.;
d) sealevel rise -- no check; name-calling at Morner, no dice --
he is a totally mainstream student of the Quaternary Period;
thank you, and carry on.
> the physics is pretty compelling...