On 29 Jun 2003 14:36:06 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

What means your "if"? If an elephant flies, I don't envy your hat. If
your conception doesn't stand the discussion even of statement of
problem, blame no one other than yourself. If you are sure that it is
good for a conception if it begins with an unsubstantiated phenomenon,
this is really undiscussable FOR YOU. Fortunately, you are not the
entire physics.

Sergey.

Sergey, even your poor English wont save you. You are talking nonsense.



HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 14:28:10 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..


But you are summing the velocities of light and source! So you
disprove yourself.

I have never said that long range source-dependency is a fact.
My only claim is that source dependency occurs over short distances.

You said it a few lines above that this is your only equation. Liar.

Sergey, you seem very confused.

My 'source dependency' demo is not related to my claims about 'short range'
source dependency.

It is a simple animation showing how a series of wave fronts would move from a
rotating star or two, IF COMPLETE SOURCE DEPENDENCY WAS A FACT OF LIFE. It is
non-controversial and non-negotiable.

There is nothing strange about it.



Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!

And it nearly worked!!!!!

See my newly UPGRADED animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm


Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm