Received: by 10.68.238.67 with SMTP id vi3mr669078pbc.6.1337227617991;
        Wed, 16 May 2012 21:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
Path: pr3ni7700pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Subject: Re: Understanding Einstein's simple derivation of the Lorentz Transformation
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 21:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <b0561df1-6cec-4305-8f6a-178188520e94@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>
References: <65cf6a8c-6d34-4256-b667-976f30076e2d@f20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <9f8dd601-1a16-480b-9dc0-e266abfc8b59@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
 <40b11b9e-abd0-44cd-9642-87dd7ff19c84@n5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
 <5ebe1d9b-4e21-49ed-8d8e-ef085bae9761@v22g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <2a43183b-6b7e-4063-ba2c-2514e489056b@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <73c0a96f-e375-451a-8174-9ffd5e69523a@2g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>
 <603dcb19-05a4-4cf8-877f-bc55a7639527@o35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <416701a7-8245-4f7e-bed0-4682d5ed8849@y3g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
 <c0425af8-06e6-4f8a-b66b-5856f963e16e@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
 <f29d73e7-69a9-41be-a9f7-3b452020a978@a8g2000pbe.googlegroups.com>
 <bcf87487-2093-41b4-860b-c262b328b321@v26g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <0490020f-5b58-4fc4-9c96-501f9004b84f@ri8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 164.67.46.34
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337227617 23698 127.0.0.1 (17 May 2012 04:06:57 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 04:06:57 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=164.67.46.34; posting-account=jPnQ2goAAAA461y3QD0lbyw0oKeThma1
User-Agent: G2/1.0
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he may possibly have been superceded by Mao).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.

thus:
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?!

thus:
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.

thus:
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.

thus:
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,
yet,
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...