On basic formalism of special theory of relativity

None

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 7:57:21 AM9/23/05

to

Dear Colleagues,

We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper

On basic formalism of special theory of relativity

Abstract:

We will study Lorentz transformation for speeds and accelerations, how
do they satisfy the self-consistence of the group of metamorphisms and
whether it is legal to join formally the concepts of invariant and 4-D
interval. In these frames we will check, whether there are conserved
the regularities of accelerated motion in inertial reference frames,
the law of vectors addition and reality of relativistic reduction of
bodies, and whether it is legal to study the non-uniform motion of
bodies with respect to their intrinsic frames. Basing on this analysis,
we conclude that the formalism of special theory of relativity is
unable to solve the kinematic and dynamic problems of bodies.

Enjoy reading full text here:

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr

We would like you to pay attention: in this paper we described the
clues to the basic discrepancies of SR and GR considerably limiting the
classes of problems which these theories are able to solve. Even in
these classes you yield strange non-associative results. Understanding
these discrepancies, projecting them onto discrepancies shown in our
previous papers, you hopefully will understand that relativistic
conception, limiting itself to geometrisation of physical processes,
created an artificial, helpless formalism whose beauty is imaginary. In
deeper understanding the issue, the charm of Relativity vanishes. While
classical physics is able to solve these problems correctly.

We will be pleased to hear your responds.

Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin

Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine

Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: self...@yandex.ru , sel...@mail.ru
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 12:01:33 PM9/23/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1127476641.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Equation (11) of
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sr29/sr29.html
a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2) / ( 1 + v u'(t')/c^2 )^3
is the standard transformation for the acceleration of an object
going in the x-direction. There is nothing new about that and it
is easily derived from the Lorentz transformation.

Then you say:
| We see from (11) that in passing from stationary RF to that
| moving, the constant acceleration becomes time-variable and
| we can provide its constancy only if
| u'(t') = const =/= 0

This obviously implies that for the object
a'(t') = const = 0
and of course
u(t) = const =/= 0
a(t) = const = 0

So your following statement is rather silly:
| With it the dotted RF becomes non-inertial and we, on one
| hand, come to inconsistency with the computations on whose
| basis we yielded (11), and on the other hand, we
| automatically exceed the limits of SR validity.
| Additionally, the dotted frame cannot be the intrinsic frame
| for the accelerated body, as at zero speed of body in this
| frame we yield quite strange relation
| a = a' (1-v^2/c^2)^(3/2)

This relation actually says
0 = 0
which is not quite strange.

I find your functions with non-zero curl(grad) much more
quite strange:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
and elsewhere...

Dirk Vdm

Perspicacious

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 12:05:23 PM9/23/05

to

None wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper

> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr

> We will be pleased to hear your responds.
>
> Best to you all,
> Sergey B. Karavashkin

Greetings,

I suspect that many have reached my conclusion.
I strongly believe that you've spent too much time
-- and too many pages -- dwelling on what you reject
instead of revising special relativity and focusing on
your own axioms and developing a consistent alternative.

http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4305#4305

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 12:08:57 PM9/23/05

to

"Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127491523.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> None wrote:
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
> > We will be pleased to hear your responds.
> >
> > Best to you all,
> > Sergey B. Karavashkin
>
> Greetings,
>
> I suspect that many have reached my conclusion.
> I strongly believe that you've spent too much time
> -- and too many pages -- dwelling on what you reject
> instead of revising special relativity and focusing on
> your own axioms and developing a consistent alternative.

No, he spent too much time on not understanding the
physical meanings of the variables in the equaitons.

Dirk Vdm

nightbat

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 3:06:46 PM9/23/05

to

nightbat wrote

nightbat

Thanks for your astute report Dirk and please keep up your
always excellent Science Officer astronomy and physics correlation's and
post responses.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Sep 23, 2005, 5:00:02 PM9/23/05

to

"nightbat" <nigh...@home.ffni.com> wrote in message news:43345246...@home.ffni.com...

[snip]

> Thanks for your astute report Dirk and please keep up your
> always excellent Science Officer astronomy and physics correlation's and
> post responses.
>
> ponder on,
> the nightbat

Trudging across the tundra
Mile after mile
Trudging across the tundra

;-)

Dirk Vdm

None

unread,

Oct 1, 2005, 8:27:39 AM10/1/05

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

There is no news that you, Dirk, are absolutely unaware of physics, you
only think yourself to be some kind of Napoleon, and all you are able
to is to pour your gall on threads. This does not add you knowledge,
and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the

standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the

x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique. The standard
relativistic expression with its derivation we showed in page 30
(formula (24)). You ought to know what you are so hard defending.

Now about your usual method to pervert what the opponent says on the
grounds of your own silliness of which Nightbat pisses boiling water.
;-)

The main property of inertial reference frames is that they do not
change the pattern of body's motion. This means, if the body moved
with the uniform acceleration with respect to stationary RF, it has to
move the same with respect to any other inertial RF. While the formula
which you so much liked shows the opposite. Namely, that the uniformly
accelerated pattern of body's motion does not conserve in
inertial-frame-to-inertial-frame passing. And, as we showed in our
work, both our formula and relativistic (24) show it. Have you a hiccup
because of your own silliness? Nothing of surprise, it is seen in your
psychotic idle talk. ;-)

And when you recalled our non-zero curl(grad) irrelevant here, it would
be to the point to recall also, what Tim Shuba and EL told you on this
subject. It was so nice how you have shut up then. ;-) I do not mention
what I said and explained you, anyway you are unable to grasp and
analyse, as your mathematical abilities clearly do not excess the level
of school for children with mental inability. Helpless to explain. And
now, what a sense is in your writing 0 = 0? You are unable even to
distinct one symbol from another. You mixed camels and horses to one
crowd and sit on your own eggs, as a brood-hen. ;-)

Drink water, it can help. ;-)

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 1, 2005, 8:28:56 AM10/1/05

to

Perspicacious wrote:

> Greetings,
>
> I suspect that many have reached my conclusion.
> I strongly believe that you've spent too much time
> -- and too many pages -- dwelling on what you reject
> instead of revising special relativity and focusing on
> your own axioms and developing a consistent alternative.
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=4305#4305

You are partly right, partly not, dear Perspicacious. We actually are
strong criticists of Relativity, but it does not mean our mind to be
fixed at this subject. You gave me a link to your discussion with Rogue
Physicist, and your discussion appeared no less hard. But if you look
through the contents of our volumes, you will make sure, we have found
solutions for many problems thought insolvable before and described our
original unique experiments. It would be difficult even to list them
all. This is, of course, far from being all, and we would have done
much more, if colleagues be not so much fixed-minded on this silly
conception. So we have to spend some time and pages, critiquing
Relativity. ;-)

I also have read your paper. I think, you are writing the same as we
do, only in a much more complicated way, and in an unjustifiedly
complicated way. And the main difference, you are touching only the
primary Lorentz transformation, while the incomplete group of
automorphisms of Lorentz transformation is solved in the secondary
transformations and in illegal taking of 4-D interval as an invariant.
After this, all paradoxes of Relativity are revealed in full scale and
it is senseless to vary the transformations. If it is of your interest,
I can say it in more details bases on your study. In particular, I
would point the physical grounds of generalisation of Galilean
transformations (13)-(14) in your paper to (15)-(16). ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey

donsto...@hotmail.com

unread,

Oct 1, 2005, 12:15:30 PM10/1/05

to

"Mommy! Look what I found in strata 23, circa 2005!"

**********************

> Greetings,

> I suspect that many have reached my conclusion.
> I strongly believe that you've spent too much time

> -- and too many pages -- dwelling on ....(snip)

****************************************

"It appears to be some sort of communication from the Era of Chaos,
Little One. Please, put it back! We wouldn't want it to infect our
modern Era of Enlightenment and Learning (EEL) here in the year 2011.
Go to http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ and brush up on your cybernetics.
After all, you do want answers and not eternal useless dialectic,
right?????"

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 2:36:02 PM10/2/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1128169659.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Only on threads where people make silly errors and use
these errors to write a ton of pages of garbage that follows
from the errors. You should know that - it is your specialty.

> This does not add you knowledge,
> and this permanent and day-round making a fool of yourself also does
> not facilitate your awareness. ;-) Now again, as far as I can see, you
> are speaking of our formula (11) and even are stating, "is the
> standard transformation for the acceleration of an object going in the
> x-direction". I would mark, you cannot find this derivation in
> relativistic literature, and already this makes it unique.

Idiot, I have the equations in my old Introduction to Relativity
course in a more general form where the object goes in some
arbitrary direction, as opposed to the special case you have
chosen. The derivation was left as an exercise, since it is so
embarassingly simple.

You just deliberately made a 0=0 mistake, covered the tracks,
and then wrote an entire article around it.
You are an imposter - and if you think you can get away with
it, a very stupid one.

Dirk Vdm

Mike

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 5:18:06 PM10/2/05

to

Sergey,

Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
square root function:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b

Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
Have you heard of cycloidal motion?

Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.

But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
appears that Sergey is correct.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone will do the experiment. I am
not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.

Mike

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 5:21:07 PM10/2/05

to

"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

> Sergey,
>
> Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
> arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
> square root function:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
>
> Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
> must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
> acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
> Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
>
> Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
> experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
>
>
> But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
> Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
> appears that Sergey is correct.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone
> will do the experiment. I am
> not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.

Dirk Vdm

Perspicacious

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 6:34:25 PM10/2/05

to

Thank you Sergey. I'm especially curious to know what your axioms are.

brian a m stuckless

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 9:47:50 PM10/2/05

to

> > Sergey, > > For me, relativity is dead.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> > Sergey,

> > But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
> > Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it

> > not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
>
> Dirk Vdm

The Ghost In The Machine

unread,

Oct 2, 2005, 11:00:06 PM10/2/05

to

In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote
on Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:21:07 GMT
<7bY%e.10566$Wv2.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:

>
> "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
>> Sergey,
>>
>> Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
>> arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
>> square root function:
>>
>>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
>>
>> Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
>> must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
>> acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
>> Have you heard of cycloidal motion?

Of what?

[1] The light source?
[2] The observer?
[3] The train's wheels carrying light source or observer?

>>
>> Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
>> experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
>>
>>
>> But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
>> Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
>> appears that Sergey is correct.
>>
>> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone
>> will do the experiment. I am
>> not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
>
> For me, Mike aka Eleatis aka Bill Smith aka Undeniable
> is very much alive and entertaining:

He'd be more entertaining if he weren't so damned repetitious. :-)

--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 12:18:23 PM10/3/05

to

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message news:ijg613-...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...

> In sci.physics, Dirk Van de moortel
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote
> on Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:21:07 GMT
> <7bY%e.10566$Wv2.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>:
> >
> > "Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1128287886.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Sergey,
> >>
> >> Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
> >> arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
> >> square root function:
> >>
> >>
> >
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b
> >>
> >> Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
> >> must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
> >> acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
> >> Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
>
> Of what?
>
> [1] The light source?
> [2] The observer?
> [3] The train's wheels carrying light source or observer?

[4] of his brain functions
http://www.psycom.net/depression.central.cyclothymia.html

Dirk Vdm

oriel36

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 1:30:55 PM10/3/05

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

Funny,funny,funny .

In that you did not recognise the words of Albert's 1905 garbage is
something in itself,to actually say that it is 'shit' is a bonus.

It was not a quote of some post like you thought but an excerpt from
this hilarious 1905 science fiction narrative -

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

_______________________

Oriel36" <geraldkelle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:273f8e06.02072...@posting.google.com...
> >Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
> Newtonian >mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation
> more precise and to >distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
> from others which will be >introduced hereafter, we call it the
> ``stationary system.''

What is this?
Some kind of quote of some post?
An introduction to the shit you produce later on?
Shit that you expect someone will bother reading?

[snip]

So let's have a look at the conclusion:

> We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following
> line of thought

> WE (you won't find two scientist who will go along with you)ARRIVE AT
> A MORE PRACTICAL DETERMINATION (you depart from every practical
> determination ever imagined) ALONG THE FOLLOWING LINE OF THOUGHT( the
> vulgar mistake relative measures for actual quantities with no harm
> done but you would need to be subhuman to ....)

Brilliant conclusion.
Most revealing.

Dirk Vdm

http://groups.google.ie/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/1b62b4a5ce3cf11f/bc1d98d1ed5173a6?lnk=st&q=memorable+fancy&rnum=1&hl=en#bc1d98d1ed5173a6

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't hold you to the error but to the accuracy of what you really
think of the material.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 1:42:28 PM10/3/05

to

"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1128360655.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> > "Perspicacious" <iperspi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1127491523.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > None wrote:
> > > > Dear Colleagues,
> > > >
> > > > We are pleased to draw your attention to our new paper
> > > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
> > > > We will be pleased to hear your responds.
> > > >
> > > > Best to you all,
> > > > Sergey B. Karavashkin
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > I suspect that many have reached my conclusion.
> > > I strongly believe that you've spent too much time
> > > -- and too many pages -- dwelling on what you reject
> > > instead of revising special relativity and focusing on
> > > your own axioms and developing a consistent alternative.
> >
> > No, he spent too much time on not understanding the
> > physical meanings of the variables in the equaitons.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Funny,funny,funny .
>
> In that you did not recognise the words of Albert's 1905 garbage is
> something in itself,to actually say that it is 'shit' is a bonus.
>
> It was not a quote of some post like you thought but an excerpt from
> this hilarious 1905 science fiction narrative -
>
> http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Covered and beaten to death on
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/RegurShit.html

Meanwhile it seems that even a fart like Androcles dropped
you like a stone. So, how does it feel at the bottom? Lonely?

Dirk Vdm

oriel36

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 2:38:21 PM10/3/05

to

Dirk

I praise you for your accurate statement that relativity is shit that
you would not expect anyone to read and this is how you respond.

I genuinely agree with you and maybe someday the rest of humanity will
also.

The real stuff is back at Isaac and I would now be embarrassed to be
seen arguing with a guy who operates of a 1898 science fiction
narrative by H.G. Wells.

" 'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the
pause required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well
that Time is only a kind of Space."

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

How does it feel to adhere to a concept that could be found in any
science fiction section of a bookstore in 1898 ?.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 2:44:04 PM10/3/05

to

"oriel36" <geraldk...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1128364701.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> Dirk
>
> I praise you for your accurate statement that relativity is shit

Your way of writing a message is what I called shit.
So, I will merely repeat:

oriel36

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 3:05:00 PM10/3/05

to

Dirk

Spot the difference -

"'Scientific people,' proceeded the Time Traveller, after the pause
required for the proper assimilation of this, 'know very well that
Time is only a kind of Space. "

"THE NON-MATHEMATICIAN is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he
hears of "four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that
awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more
common-place statement than that the world in which we live is a
four-dimensional space-time continuum."

http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html

Funny,funny,funny.

I would not call it shit for obviously Albert is just paraphrasing a
wonderful fictional 1898 novel but hey !, maybe you should come up
with a geological concept by basing it on 'Journey To The Center Of The
Earth'. Funny,funny,funny and you guys still are serious about it.

beda pietanza

unread,

Oct 3, 2005, 6:16:50 PM10/3/05

to

None ha scritto:

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:31:43 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129469080.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Your toilet paper died in its very first section, just like
your toilet paper with the non-zero curl(grad):
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author%3Asergey+grad+curl
Face it, imposter - you are not smart enough for this kind
of deception. You must try much harder to hide your errors.

Dirk

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:32:05 AM10/16/05

to

Mike wrote:
> Sergey,
>
> Dirk has a rudimentary mind that cannot go beyond elementary school
> arithmetic. he has spent a lot of effort trying to understand the
> square root function:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_frm/thread/b95730383f6692b1/28e1c228c606611b?lnk=st&q=square+root+dirk&rnum=2&hl=en#28e1c228c606611b

An anecdote from life. A student was asked to write a^2. He long

thought, wrote A and contoured with a square.
>

> Silly, pathetic, moron, idiot Dirk. He things that everything in life
> must be uniform. He believes that when the velocity is zero, the
> acceleration must also be zero. I got bad news, once again, idiot Dirk.
> Have you heard of cycloidal motion?
>
> Yes, it is true that relativists, through the rudimentary throught
> experiments have superimposed a naive conception of reality on physics.
>
>
> But to get to the point, by considering a more complicated motion that
> Dirk did not "studied" in his elementary school, like cycloidal, it
> appears that Sergey is correct.
>
> Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, I hope someone will do the experiment. I am
> not interested myself in it. For me, relativity is dead.
>
> Mike

Dear Mike, relativity is dead of course, but this does not mean that we

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:35:13 AM10/16/05

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

All ability of this doltish Dirk is to copy posts from forums,
selecting them with all his stupidity and misunderstanding of the
meaning. And after this he says, he has some introduction to the course
of relativity! You Dirk are unable to compose something except of a
collection of your own silliness.

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:37:05 AM10/16/05

to

Perspicacious wrote:

> Thank you Sergey. I'm especially curious to know what your axioms are.

They are very simple, dear Perspicacious: these are axioms of classical
physics. No additions, except our method. We solve the problems not as
'a carbon copy' but noting the features of specific models. This
especially visually reveals the buds of development. However strange it
can seem, this is so. ;-) And I would like to add: when you develop
these buds, you actually find that some of conventional equations and
conservation laws are incomplete. In particular, when we analysed the
issue of divergence of vector in dynamic fields, we have found, in
dynamic fields it is non-zero. This derivation went through peer review
process and was published internationally,

"Transformation of divergence theorem in dynamical fields"

http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#div

We also checked it experimentally and produced on this basis
longitudinal EM wave.

Alike, we have found the generalisation for vector circulation, but did
not finish this problem, only showed it for a vector orthogonal to the
wave propagation. Because we did not finish, Dirk pursues me on
threads, saying, we made an error in calculation. There is no error,
but in generalisation for gradient of scalar, the solution for
circulation even more complicates (and generalises) in comparison with
what we have found. I explained it to Dirk, but he demonstrates his
stupidity and confines himself to striving to defile everything
constructive and to make a scandal of every creative discussion, not
only for me but for other colleagues.

By these two typical examples I would like to say you, we need not new
axioms to advance to high speeds. All axioms of classical mechanics are
self-consistent and complete. But they are not generalised -we have
to generalise. We have available the basic materials for this trend.

Kind regards,

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:38:43 AM10/16/05

to

Colleagues can discuss, disprove each other, I also disproved
Androcles, only this will never concern you, Dirk. You already have
been downed and beaten by your own silliness and malice. You cannot
find real arguments to reply Oriel and other colleagues, me in that
number, all what you are able to is to refer to your cesspit Pandora.
And this corroborates what I said.

You cannot understand a simple thing: only that makes no mistakes who
makes nothing. So it is senseless to speak with you. And you are rude
to people beyond any limits. Go to your Pandora!

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:39:29 AM10/16/05

to

Bravo, Oriel! I got so much pleasure that you recalled Wells. This
tells again how much 'new' and 'unexpected' was Einstein's
theory in 1905. Perhaps because of it Einstein did not refer to the
sources from which he formulated his rotten postulates. ;-)

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:40:31 AM10/16/05

to

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

All your arguments, Dirk, are usual relativistic - they are mud in
absence of arguments. I discussed with Androcles and proved, he was
mistaken, pity that he stopped discussion instead to clear things, he
went away to think alone, but you have no concern. Don't mud
Androcles' name!

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:41:33 AM10/16/05

to

beda pietanza wrote:

> In my opinion the interactions between the ether and different
> commoving clocks made of different materials would result in different
> time rates dilatations.
> As well for rulers made of different materials, they would contract
> differently.
>
> Does this fit in your theory ????
>
> regards
>
> beda pietanza

Yes, surely so. I can say more: already Miller and some other
colleagues that experimented after interferometric method understood
it. You can find it in the papers to which I can refer you, when the
interferometers were made with account of specially selected materials
whose reduction was minimal. Just so Miller used a cube of concrete,
which is known to have no crystal structure. And namely on this device
he has obtained his famous results.

Best to you,

Sergey

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:47:35 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1129469080.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Key point you've made, Sergey:
"So the dialog with you [Dinky van der mumble] was and is senseless".
Why do you bother with the troll? It's senseless, by your own
assessment.
Androcles.

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:50:35 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129469825.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Perspicacious wrote:
>
> > Thank you Sergey. I'm especially curious to know what your axioms are.
>
> They are very simple, dear Perspicacious: these are axioms of classical
> physics. No additions, except our method. We solve the problems not as
> 'a carbon copy' but noting the features of specific models. This
> especially visually reveals the buds of development. However strange it
> can seem, this is so. ;-) And I would like to add: when you develop
> these buds, you actually find that some of conventional equations and
> conservation laws are incomplete. In particular, when we analysed the
> issue of divergence of vector in dynamic fields, we have found, in
> dynamic fields it is non-zero. This derivation went through peer review
> process and was published internationally,
>
> "Transformation of divergence theorem in dynamical fields"
>
> http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#div
>
> We also checked it experimentally and produced on this basis
> longitudinal EM wave.
>
> Alike, we have found the generalisation for vector circulation, but did
> not finish this problem, only showed it for a vector orthogonal to the
> wave propagation. Because we did not finish, Dirk pursues me on
> threads, saying, we made an error in calculation. There is no error,

The error is described and debunked right here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/7b3453d44e95f268
I'm sure that even Eugene Perspicacious Shubert can see it.
This also shows that you quoted me incorrectly to cover up
your mistake, and then doing so, introduced a new mistake.
Face it, crackpot, you suck ;-)

Dirk Vdm

None

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:51:35 AM10/16/05

to

It seems, Dirk, you are at the last stage of this desease. This is
already dangerous for your health. I am very pity that our works so
badly affect the rest of your brain. But this is physics. It is
impossible here to have such feeble brain as yours. All what you can at
your brain level is to wash toilets. Perhaps this is just what you are
doing, as only toilet themes are in your mind.

Sergey
>
> Dirk

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 9:57:43 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1129470695.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

I must admit, the toilet you have chosen to deposit your
droppings, stank like hell. Fortunately the stench was so
overwhelming that it didn't take much effort to find and
flush the source.

Dirk Vdm

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 10:01:34 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1129469525....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

| Dear Mike, relativity is dead of course, but this does not mean that
we
| need not experiments. If you or someone other prompt, how can we carry
| out the experiment with a double quadrant described in the last item
of
| our paper "On light aberration",
|
| http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#aberration

Hi Sergey: Much work, excessive analysis. Many agree that relativity is
a dead duck.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a duck to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a duck our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity
of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely
great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a duck.
Oops!... Did I say 'a duck'? Sorry...'light'.
Same math, though.

|
| it would be a progress in cognition. So I ask you and all colleagues
| understanding the necessity to develop, out of this dead relativistic
| conception. Let us join our efforts and scope, doing not confining
| ourselves to claims that relativity is dead.
| Sergey

Already begun.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 10:03:56 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1129469713.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

"So the dialog with you [Dinky van der mumbler] was and is
enseless." -Sergey.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 10:07:36 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1129469825.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

You will discover, should you continue, that dialog with "Perspicacious"
(self-important Eugene Shubert) is as senseless as dialog with moortel.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 10:13:49 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1129469969.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

You will discover, should you continue, that "Oriel36" (Gerald
Kellerher)
is as useless as moortel and Shubert. Kellerher doesn't understand why
a sidereal day 23 h 56 m 4.1 s is 4 minutes short of a solar day.
Androcles.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 10:21:41 AM10/16/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1129470093.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

You will discover, should you continue, that beda pietanza is of the
opinion
that aether exists, in flagrant violation of all evidence to the
contrary.

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

(Or stars explode twice in three months).

Thus pietanza, moortel, Kelleher, Shubert and many others all have their
own pet theories and are ignorant of empirical data.
Androcles.

Rod Ryker

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 10:27:35 AM10/16/05

to

"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:I8t4f.128583$RW.2...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

>
> You will discover, should you continue, that dialog with "Perspicacious"
> (self-important Eugene Shubert) is as senseless as dialog with moortel.
> Androcles.
>

Rod: Mooooootel is my bitch, so lay off!
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.

Androcles

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 11:32:12 AM10/16/05

to

"Rod Ryker" <rry...@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:e312c$43526351$d8442a7c$16...@FUSE.NET...

And you are welcome to it.
Androcles.

Uncle Al

unread,

Oct 16, 2005, 3:03:45 PM10/16/05

to

unread,

Oct 17, 2005, 12:38:23 PM10/17/05

to

None ha scritto:

please which is the paper and briefly what were the conclusion of his
famous results.

many thanks

beda pietanza

None

unread,

Oct 24, 2005, 3:54:32 AM10/24/05

to

You are right, Androcles. Why take seriously this troll? And I don't.
The more when we already see, this is a girl to order and not only he
but those who order his trolling are seized with powerless malice (see
the post of Rod Ryker 16 Oct 17:27 here). As we Russians say, they
cannot hide an awl in a bag. ;-)

I am very glad that you are continuing your study; let me few days to
read your updated web site. The more that it is my interest, how much
you advanced your understanding of the issue after our discussion. But
as to the aether, I would advice you to be not so categorical. If you
remember, I showed you some time ago that we may not think the space of
universe to be empty or immaterial, because it has quite specific
physical properties: dielectric and diamagnetic factors and wave
impedance. Until these properties are inherent in space, we may not
call 'nothing' something having these properties, may we? ;-)

Also, let me disagree with you that, as you say, many colleagues are
not enough empirically aware - this means, the dialogue is senseless.
We all know not everything, don't we? And we all have some
understanding and ideas, you in that number. Are they right and how
much right - this is checked and substantiated. But just in this
stove our future knowledge is cooked, isn't it? So it seems to me
much more useful to find real arguments and thoroughly to agree our
positions than to pass to fruitless conflicting. We can of course say
many abusive words to each other, but understanding will not come of
it. Every one only will go to their corners to bite lips. ;-) And only
rigorous argumentation and building of logic with account of all
affecting factors will facilitate our advance. With it, every one of us
will make a contribution, which will form the rigour of final
knowledge. This position seems to me more constructive than yours. And
then you will not confront with Uncle Al. See, he is not malicious, he
only fears that people will see, he is defenceless as a lamb. So he
much threatens with 'toxic URL', but factually more feigns and
frowns when necessary and not. ;-) I hope, I persuaded you. ;-)

Kind regards,

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 24, 2005, 3:56:28 AM10/24/05

to

Well, this is your reptile that crawls on threads and scratches the
parquet by its dirty claws? Nice of you to let us know. I can say, your
bugs on Google don't cope with their task and gobble your bread for
nothing. To the point of bread, if you already have enlightened
yourself, could you point those cripples with a groove made by sweaty
cap instead a brain convolution who order this foul music? ;-) Though,
judging by your vile nature, you will hardly dare to be frank. You are
not up to that. ;-) It only remains to you to tug your bitches at their
stinking hood.

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 24, 2005, 3:57:13 AM10/24/05

to

Dear Al, I still am waiting to hear from you about your experiments
with equivalence, only heard that you expect to have results this
autumn. Can I see them?

Thank you kindly,

Sergey

None

unread,

Oct 24, 2005, 3:58:23 AM10/24/05

to

Dear Beda, here is the answer to your question.

1. Dayton C. Miller. The ether-drift experiment and the determination
of the absolute motion of the Earth. Rev. Modern Phys. - 1933 - 5,
No 3, p. 203-343.

The item "Fitzgerald hypothesis" (in reverse translation from
Russian edition):

"If the reduction depended on physical properties of solid body, we
can premise, on the other hand, that the full expected effect being
zero in one device, in the device with different materials can give a
non-zero and, possibly, the opposite-sign effect."

The item "Experiments of Morley - Miller, Cleveland, 1902-1906":

"Professor Morley and the author were present, and in their
discussion with Lord Kelvin, this last definitely insisted to repeat
the experiment on ether wind with better equipment. Morley and Miller
then have constructed the interferometer specially calculated to check
the Lorentz - Fitzgerald hypothesis. The base of this interferometer
was made cross-shaped of white pinewood planks about 430 cm in length,
the light passed along the plank more than trice, the same as it was
made by Michelson and Morley in 1887. There was revealed a slight
positive effect..., which, though it was some more than in previous
experiment, was still too small; this pointed that if we attribute the
lessening of observed speed to the hypothetical reduction of size, pine
is subject to it in the same measure as sandstone. The changes in the
wood supports because of humidity and temperature hampered to obtain
the accurate observations, and it was decided to refuse the pine base
of the instrument and to construct the device with the base of metal to
fix the heavy parts, and such metal, the length of optical path in
which to be determined by different materials - wood either metal -
as desired".

The item "Observations of Morley and Miller in 1904":

"The interferometer with the base of steel trusses was first applied
by Morley and Miller in the preliminary test of Lorentz - Fitzgerald
length reduction hypothesis. For this purpose, the mirrors were erected
so that the distance between them depended on the length of rods made
of pinewood. ... The first observations were made in July, 1904 and
took 260 turns of the interferometer gathered into two series. ... The
report of these experiments published in Philosophical Magazine in May,
1905 includes the following statement: "If the base was subject to
all expected affections, sandstone is subject to the same affections to
the same degree. We might think this experiment to show that the ether
in the capital basement room was dragged by it. We think, it was
because we have to bring the instrument onto the mount, to see, whether
we will be able to reveal the effect there" ".

2. The above report has been published in: E.W. Morley, D.C. Miller.
Report of an experiment to detect the Fitzgerald - Lorentz effect.
Philosophical Magazine, 8 (6), 680-685, 1905.

My comment:
Basically, with the Earth's speed of motion through the aether (with
Sun - about 300 km/s), we can hardly expect a considerable difference
in materials, as the deformation of atom orbits is too small and the
difference in reductions is the second-order effect, at these speed
even of higher order of smallness, in comparison with the length
reduction effect. So the conducted experiments we can think only as
preliminary and requiring to be repeated more accurately with better
techniques.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

The stupid twit Newton decided that you needed to jump to the Sun to
explain retrogrades -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen
direct.."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

No wonder you hate each other with rubbish like that yet you , Dirk ,
Sam and all the rest will be like squirrels running round a specially
designed Newtonian cage.This is the fate you choose and all because
Isaac needed to turn Flamsteed's erroneous proof for a axial
rotational/ stellar circumpolar equivalency into a geocentric
/heliocentric orbital equivalency,this one -

http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG

If you want the Earth to rotate through 360 degrees in 23 hours 56 min
04 sec,you will join a long line of distinguished numbskulls who
justify it astronomically while knowing nothing of astronomy.

You will learn something new today John,you will learn from Kepler that
the 'inferior tribunal of geometers' have indeed hijacked astronomy
while knowing nothing about it methods and principles -

"To set down in books the apparent paths of the planets [viasplanetarum
apparentes] and the record of their motions is especiallythe task of
the practical and mechanical part of astronomy; to dis-cover their true
and genuine path [vias vero veras et genuinas] is . . .the task of
contemplative astronomy; while to say by what circleand lines correct
images of those true motions may be depicted onpaper is the concern of
the inferior tribunal of geometers" Kepler

Not only did the 'inferior tribunal of geometers' convince the
mechanical part of astronomy that they were the rightful inheritors of
astronomical data but they eventually dispensed with geometry
altogether.

Turns out that you are far more destructive than anything the
creationists can come up with,spend your lives screeching in pain at
each other and all because you choose to believe that clocks measure
'time' and rulers measure distance for your H.G.Well's concept.

Sam Wormley

unread,

Oct 26, 2005, 1:32:39 PM10/26/05

to

oriel36 wrote:
>
> The stupid twit [Isaac] Newton decided that you needed to jump to the Sun to
> explain retrogrades -
>

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_motion

"Retrograde motion should not be confused with retrogradation. The
latter term is used in reference to the motion of the outer planets
(Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and so forth). Though these planets appear
to move from east to west on a nightly basis in response to the
spin of Earth, they are most of the time drifting slowly eastward
with respect to the background of stars, which can be observed by
noting the position of these planets for several nights in a row.
This motion is normal for these planets, so it is called direct
motion (not retrograde)".

"However, since Earth completes its orbit in a shorter period of
time than these outer planets, we occasionally overtake an outer
planet, like a faster car on a multiple-lane highway. When this
occurs, the planet we are passing will first appear to stop its
eastward drift, and it will then appear to drift back toward the
west. This is retrogradation, since the planet seems to be moving
in a direction opposite to that which is typical for planets.
Finally as Earth swings past the planet in its orbit, it appears to
resume its normal west-to-east drift on successive nights".

oriel36

unread,

Oct 27, 2005, 11:53:41 AM10/27/05

to

You stupid,stupid,stupid no good for nothing freaks of humanity,you
have this explanation for apparent retrograde motion before you for
hundreds of years and you still stick with a useless Newtonian
resolution that is based on an observer on the Sun while still
retaining the stellar background

You lot are so insane that even while having the explanations of
Galileo and Copernicus before you,you still cannot see that the idiotic
Newtonian maneuver that departed from pure Copernican/Keplerian
heliocentricity -

"For to the earth they appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary,
nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen

direct..."

http://members.tripod.com/~gravitee/phaenomena.htm

A sane person here and I am beginning to doubt if there are any,should
be capable of discerning and without prompting that planetary
retrogrades are resolved by direct perception and by dropping the
stellar background.There is no need for the unecessary and inapropriate
speculative observer on the Sun,that maneuver wrecks the whole point of
Copernican/Keplerian heliocentricity.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

Have a good look at that simulation of the motions of Jupiter and
Saturn and when you find out that the apparent backward arcs are
resolved by direct perception,you will surpass Newton and all the other
idiots who follewed his cartoon principles.

None

unread,

Nov 4, 2005, 9:05:57 AM11/4/05

to

Androcles wrote:
> I gave Uncle Al a taste of his own medicine for two days. He quit,
> complaining of the grapes being sour. You cannot persuade me
> of anything, I'll listen only to reasoned logic.
> Ciao,
> Androcles.

Dear Androcles, I copied Sekerin's paper, but have to distress you.
This is a mere geometrical problem that adds nothing to the issues we
both mean now. In the spring 2003 I had a long discussion on similar
solution advertised by Henri Wilson. I was so much tired then
explaining him his mistakes, let me avoid this procedure again. If you
still are interesting, you can find in sci.physics, sci.astro that
discussion: Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&threadm=3ECCD805.432D70FC%40nbnet.nb.ca&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSergey%2BKaravashkin%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26inlang%3Dru%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd

And as to the matter of our current discussion. I already showed you,
should the space in which EM waves propagate have not three properties
basic for wave physics, there would be no fields, no EM waves. I can
only repeat, the wave impedance of space has been multiply proven in
experiments. No one antenna can be designed in disregard of this
impedance. People write much, write different, write irrelevant. We
have to rely not on what someone wrote but on, how much he
substantiated. In particular, if speaking of possibility to add the
speed of wave propagation with the source speed, we would see double
and triple images in those double stars to which Sekerin refers. Still
it is not observed, so you can put his theory to the very far corner of
the very long box.

Regards,

Sergey

Androcles

unread,

Nov 4, 2005, 9:52:37 AM11/4/05

to

"None" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message

news:1131113157....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

>
> Androcles wrote:
>> I gave Uncle Al a taste of his own medicine for two days. He quit,
>> complaining of the grapes being sour. You cannot persuade me
>> of anything, I'll listen only to reasoned logic.
>> Ciao,
>> Androcles.
>
> Dear Androcles, I copied Sekerin's paper, but have to distress you.
> This is a mere geometrical problem that adds nothing to the issues we
> both mean now. In the spring 2003 I had a long discussion on similar
> solution advertised by Henri Wilson. I was so much tired then
> explaining him his mistakes, let me avoid this procedure again. If you
> still are interesting, you can find in sci.physics, sci.astro that
> discussion: Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&inlang=ru&threadm=3ECCD805.432D70FC%40nbnet.nb.ca&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DSergey%2BKaravashkin%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26inlang%3Dru%26sa%3DG%26scoring%3Dd

I'm not all that interested, and I'm not in the least distressed.
You can go on believing stars blow up twice in 3 months all you want to, I
don't.

>
> And as to the matter of our current discussion. I already showed you,
> should the space in which EM waves propagate have not three properties
> basic for wave physics, there would be no fields, no EM waves.

You didn't show me anything. All you've done is a made a wild claim.

> I can
> only repeat, the wave impedance of space has been multiply proven in
> experiments.

Repeat all you want to, my TV has a vacuum tube in which there is an
electric field to accelerate electrons from cathode to anode and a magnetic
field to deflect the beam. It works, multiply proven by millions of TVs
and computer monitors around the world, whatever your "experiments" say.

> No one antenna can be designed in disregard of this
> impedance.

The impedance to the electron beam of my TV is ZERO, the beam current
is limited by resistance, so I'll disregard your impedance, I have to
distress you.

> People write much, write different, write irrelevant. We
> have to rely not on what someone wrote but on, how much he
> substantiated. In particular, if speaking of possibility to add the
> speed of wave propagation with the source speed, we would see double
> and triple images in those double stars to which Sekerin refers.

Yes. One behind the other, and we do see it.

> Still
> it is not observed,

Yes it is.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap981011.html
You can tell by counting the pixels just how difficult it is, but stars,
especially red giants, are spherical. Gravity says so. What you are
seeing is distortion caused by a variable speed of light.
BTW, straight sticks in water appear bent. You can believe they
bend if you want to, but I don't.

> so you can put his theory to the very far corner of
> the very long box.

I'm not that foolish, I have to distress you.

Androcles.

>
> Regards,
>
> Sergey
>