usenet weirdness

I'll agree that there are some examples of "authentic" quantum computers, while yet that they're somewhat contrived, like "teleportation in the lab", and that for the most part are yet fundamentally "analog", then also about that most accounts are yet, "simulated".

Come on, poor trash, your spitting and slandering can't stand against my logic. Have some dignity and face it.

It's of different measurements and assumptions, since the account of light as since "tired light" then today's "redshift distortion", means that the "redshift bias" is everywhere in the terrestrial frame.

So, the "100%" means that sometimes the "true blueshift" was on the order of zero, other times on the order of 14, on the scale

Why to make any room to otherwise dis-believe the otherwise usual account of 99% measured redshift, is since neither the Big Bang nor Steady State theories of cosmology are ultimately falsifiable, so, for example, there must always be a model where the universe is growing or strinking, to the hot or cold or crunch or pop the heat death, about Big Bang models, and also about where the universe is just right and getting along the Steady State model, then about ideas like Cyclic Cosmology which already look to make an account of putting those together, while yet the modern optical astronomy gives that we live in LaniaKea and the wider universe is bigger than that as a jet, and besides, that the universe is billions and billions of years older since last we looked, every time we look.

So, then it's since the '80's otherwise that otherwise the redshift measurements indicate "Dark Energy", where "Dark Matter" is that galaxies are holding together with no visible means of support, and "Dark Energy" is that the galaxies are flying apart with no visible means of locomotion. At various points since the '80's and '90's, saying that DM/DE "exist" and "we're looking for them" is because each sigma of standard deviation of statistical significance leads to that 50/65/85/90/95/99 percent of the observable universe is "statistically insignificant", saying that there's a "quest for dark matter/dark energy" is that there's a "crisis in cosmology", since the theory is _falsified_ so it's wrong.

So, "Lambda Cold Dark Matter", or "Lambda CDM", saying that "Lambda CDM is cosmology's standard model", has that only "Lambda = 0" or as about "Lambda = 0.5" are compatible at all with GR and the Newtonian and the usual accounts of conserved quantities and least action or the energy budget, while these days Lambda is about 0.99 which means that it's statistically insignificant that the "standard model of cosmology" is standard any-more.

So: modern accounts of redshift distortion as models of light traveling according to not merely the geodesy/orbifold yet also as "metered by the aether", since absolute space still exists in the theory, makes for models of space-contraction-rotational and space-contraction-linear to explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and resolve one of the "crises in physics".

Then, a usual account of that is adding another table (column) to "measured redshift", since 0 .. 14 the scale has instead that scale -7 .. 7 or actually variously, since "true blueshift" (and "true redshift") make for the received, sampled, observed, measured values since "tired light", or Erwin Finlay-Freundlich's estimation.

These then are to fit into models of "Lorentzians" these "F-Lorentzians", mostly since FitzGerald and "real space-contraction", then as for Fresnel and "large Fresnel".

Otherwise physics is broken and people who say it isn't are ignorant, or incompetent, as underinformed, or by definition as not being "physicists" (realists) and "scientists" (impartial).

I.e., "true blueshift".

Another mmmh. Red shift for far, far-away galaxies is estimated by colorimetry, because there are no recognizable spectral lines. That opens up a huge can of worms.

Jeroen Belleman

Spectrometry itself has plenty of worms.

Since Newton after thinkers like DesCartes who computed the arc en ciel or rainbow its spectrum, are notions of, "second spectrum", besides the fact that a _spectrum_ is quite usually a _continuum_, about spectra, "spectral _lines_", and spectroscopy.

So, Newton's "second spectrum" is more-than-less an immediate attachment about additive and subtractive colors, since _filters_ and _pigments_ essentially act in two different ways, about usual notions of a "tristimulus color-space", and, here that there's a notion of at least a, "dual tri-stimulus color-space".

Then, besides Newton's "second spectrum", are at least three different kinds of visible radiation: incandescence (mostly about warm, red light), flourescence (ionized plasmas), and phosphorescence (the nuclear's).

Then, besides each these having accounts of "second spectra", and about things like the Lyman account, there's that since Rayleigh-Jeans went to Zeeman to quell the _continuous_ variability of light's frequency, since it can be diffracted, that beyond the hydrogen line (and the usual account of the hydrogen line about transmissibility in the interstellar medium of "standard candles"), is that _Faraday's_ original account what makes for Zeeman, was sodium, and _sodium has at least three spectroscopic lines_.

So, for something like Ogden Rood an account of the prismatic and the chromatic, and about a "dual: tristimulus color-space", and notions like "a real colorless green" the mono-chromatic and "mono-prismatic", the theories of _color_ and light and correspondingly _everything to do with it_,

So, since Rayleigh-Jeans and the usual account of the quantization or removing "infinity" from the theory (since, it was "continuity" and "continuity" always has "infinity"), the "ultra-violet catastrophe", since there are three kinds of purple in the optical, visible light besides the usual account of one red, if you've ever heard of "ultraviolet catastrophe" and know the usual derivations and where food comes from, is as about an "infra-red catastrophe".

The word "catastrophe" means "opening" or "perestroika" in mathematics about basically "widening" the theory, usual accounts of language though often attach it to "crisis", which after Rayleigh-Jeans was made for Zeeman then Lyman as the ostrich inserting its head directly into the sand and counting one granule at a time.

Anyways a "dual-tristimulus color-space" in the middle, then "three purples" besides for beyond the warmth of incandescant light, then about that the infra-red is present in the Cosmic Microwave Background, makes for an "infra-red catastrophe" since today's physics has a crisis about not having a "continuous color-less green".

Then there are various accounts after astronomy of all sorts optical effects after aberrations that generally point to Fresnel as a great optician, then as with regards to the particular energy of the Roentgen and gamma and X-rays, those being rather like visible light, and radio astronomy, that actually being electromagnetic radiation while visible, optical light has no mass nor charge, makes for that the sky survey has been around forever. Also the "gravitational wave astronomy" is a bit more current than usual "show me pictorially" accounts.

Your ============================================================================ 'The consequent tidal forces inside the sun sap kinetic energy from the earth's orbital movement' ============================================================================ is competely wrong.

OK, you don't understand the tides, and you don't want to learn, and you'll never admit to a mistake, no matter what. We can leave it at that,

Jan

PS, and just for s.e.d readers, is he like that over there too?

If earth creates tides in the sun, won't that warm up the sun and slow down earth? Conservation of energy and all that.

Pretty small at this distance, I expect. One estimate is that solar tides increase the earth-sun distance about a micron per year. Not to worry, I guess.

His mission in life is to tell everyone how stupid and wrong they are.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Maybe he was supposed to, really he was a nasty idiot screaming that whoever disagree with him is a wretched antisemite.

Just seems he either doesn't think there's demonstrated competence, or an error occurred without explaining why it's not.

Not so different from usual sock-puppet trolls, who usually fail and bail on their first mis-step, as otherwise all the instances that came before them were immediately sent to the exit state.

What a cruel world it must be.

Being constantly nasty is boring.

John Larkin Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center Lunatic Fringe Electronics

Quite a free of the programmers I've worked with had been as persistent. Some of them managed to transcend their education.

That's not a well-constructed sentence/ You probably meant to write

"you're unable to do anything else after all"

You know no more about my career history than I know about yours, and you don't seem to have the capacity to appreciate what it did involve. If I were silly enough to give you more detail you'd misinterpret and misrepresent it.

But good enough to get primitive low level digital logic to work - so not entirely worthless. The course did go on to predicate calculus.

Example? None of the Einstein anecdotes I've come across fit with that. And he did play the violin.

The moon is moving away from the earth because the tidal bulges and depressions on the earth subtract from the moons kinetic energy - speed in orbit - and add to its gravitational potential energy.

The tidal bulges and depressions on the sun's surface will be having the same effect (if probably much smaller) on the earth.

So my statement isn't completely wrong. Your's is.

I don't understand tides in any great detail, but it is clear that you don't either.

You'd like to leave it at that, having convinced yourself that you had won.

I'm known for not suffering fools gladly.

John Larkin expects to be praised for his genius whenever he posts one of his achievements. He reacts badly to anything that falls short of fulsome flattery.

One time when I posted an example of the classic two-transistor emitter coupled monostable (which has been around since the 1950s), he spent a lot of time telling the group that it couldn't work.

John Larkin is only nasty when he doesn't get the flattery he expects, but that happens quite a lot.

Cite? Gravitational lensing has made a few far,far-away galaxies quite bright, and the Lyman-alpha lines ought to be resolvable.

says the there are example that were only 200 to 600 million years old went their emissions set out.

Incandescence is an emission from a thermal source - which is to say that the emitting atoms are close enough to other atoms that the outer electron orbitals reflect the influence of several adjacent nuclei, and the energy levels are all over the place.

Fluorescence is emission from a single excited atom. So is phosphorescence, but it's by a forbidden transition and much less likely to happen, so phosphoerescence life-times can be much longer than fluoresence lifetimes which tend to be in the nanoseconds.