Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Sergey Karavashkin wrote in message
m...
greywolf42 ) wrote in thread "Myth or Science?
(Tired Light)"

{snip the references to the other thread, addressed in the other
thread}
.
You arranged such ceremonies, as if this is
of the most importance - and I wonder, what for? What guides your
choose when you reject my grounded explanation and mathematical
substantiation which you cannot, as far as I know, find in other
publications? Or, none the less, you are feeling a wish to find
something at least outwardly alike, in order to prove at least
yourself that the authorship isn't mine? ;-) Well, Joseph Lazio
said
you clearly in your thread, there is no phenomenological
substantiation for the light 'ageing'. One of attempts to
substantiate
belongs to V.A. Atsukovsky and is based on his supposition of the
aether viscosity. We analyse this substantiation in our paper "On
the
nature of red shift of Metagalaxy"


http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selft...s3.html#hubble

to which I referred you, and you shouldn't ignore it. In the view
of
scientific objectivity, you can only find our mistake,
substantiate
and show me, in what specifically are we wrong. I'm not Henri
Wilson,
I will not clutch at a wrong derivation. But I will substantiate.

If you are pro such SCIENTIFIC approach, please do answer. I will
be
pleased to hear from you.

I intentionally put these questions to your thread and make a new
one,
"Little Red Riding Hood asks Grey Wolf", as I want much to hear
your
answer.

First off, I have no desire to tie up my phone line for hours
reading
your
missive. Might I suggest you provide an acrobat version? I did
copy
the
pages one at a time -- then copied the figures. After killing a
half
hour
this way, I noted that your equations are all graphics, too.

Yes I can send it, though in future you may be interesting to know
that there exists an option "Save as html". Copy each page and then
walk through the paper to your heart's content, as all links will be
inside your machine.

If one "saves as html" one does indeed get the text. That's what I
started
by doing. However, the "links" in that html document are links to the
equation graphics. Which do NOT get downloaded when one "saves as
html."

Of course, you had to choose in "save as" the option "save as a whole"
or "save as a frame".

Those two options do not exist on my web browser.

About two thousand people have loaded pages from
our journal to their machines, but you are the first who had such
problems.

Then you certainly don't need my review.

But I suspend, not this is a problem... You are
saying, you are Wolf, but play cunning as Fox.

Your attitude is showing.

You yet have responded no questions you were asked, but already
created so many problems lest to respond or to get off with chatter,
as you used to. My attitude is in full accordance with such behaviour.
;-)

I do not need to answer your request. You were asking me to do you a favor.

We intentionally divide
our papers into logic fragments, light and immediately appearing at
your screen. Could you explain, how have you succeed to copy first
pages, then figures? You turned off the pictures? But you know, the
pictures and formulas will be for certain in a paper. Why do you
accuse me that you had to copy again with figures?

I'm not "accusing" you of anything. I merely pointed out that your
method
of displaying a paper as a web page, with equations inserted as graphics
forces one to either read on-line (tying up a phone line for however
long it
takes to read the document), or to spend a long time downloading each
equation one at a time. I simply refuse to invest that amount of time.

It's an usual way - to put the formulas as gif files, only you have
these difficulties.

Perhaps I'm not the only one. Maybe I'm the only one who bothered to
complain.

Why? ;-) There simply is no way to type the
formulas for sites in a normal appearance. If you have some difficulty
with your software, this is not my guilt but your difficulty. Rather,
you have a great wish to do not see this paper, but this is another
matter.

I have no difficulty with my software. I merely refuse to tie up my phone
line for hours, while reading your website.

So I read your abstract, and your abstract contained a very
elementary
logical flaw. You reference a proof in your paper based on "The
alternative
theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the necessary rigour
of
the
red shift substantiation, since, on one hand, it contradicts the
postulates
of photon hypothesis..." This is not a scientific argument.

From which moon have you fallen, Wolf? You don't think a scientific
argument the substantiation that there is a mistake in the
conventional statement of problem? Terrific!! It remains only to speak
a little of your objective estimations. Though, when looking through
your thread, I already have convinced that you haven't it. Could you
explain me for example, why have you cut the citation from our
abstract:

"The alternative theory of the quanta ageing also cannot provide the
necessary rigour of the red shift substantiation, since, on one hand,
it contradicts the postulates of photon hypothesis..."

(of course, this is yet not argument as such, but it was necessary to
mention it, or in the view of conventional paradigm our statement
would be incomplete), just cutting our

"...and on the other hand, it is unable to substantiate the consistent
mechanism of ageing. The mechanism suggested by Atsukovsky (grounded
on the viscosity of the aether) does not provide the regularity of the
shift of light frequency with the growing distance from the source.

In the course of additional analysis of the properties of interstellar
medium, we have revealed the necessary and sufficient conditions of
spontaneous radio luminescence excitation..."

This is just because of what you dispense virtual encouragement to
your like-minded colleagues. You point-blank don't see what is
disadvantageous for you? Maybe, this was the real reason, why you had
problems with copying our paper? But one oughtn't to be so biased.


I didn't cut anything from you abstract. I simply pointed out that one
piece of your abstract contains a very elementary logical flaw. And it
remains a very elementary logical flaw -- and you have not even
attempted to
address a response to my point. You simply diverted into other parts of
your abstract.

If you begin your paper with elementary errors of logic, my motivation
to
continue through your paper is seriously reduced.

This is not "other part of my abstract", these are just next words of
the same sentence to which you refer and which you have actually cut,
in order to obtain the "logic flaw" which is factually absent.

The logic flaw exists, regardless of whether you tag on additional
information.

I
understand so that you have read the paper without any difficulty, but
you felt it disadvantageous for you, and you are unable to disprove it
by way of honest criticism.

But I have no need to "disprove" it.

This is why you are ready to 'invent'
however incredible reasons to excuse, why you 'didn't read' it and
have no intention to read. You can speak however much of MY attitude,
but I have sent this paper to your e-mail box on 16 July, what are the
next problems?

What prevents you now to discuss our results that hit
just the nail of your scientific interest, as you ought being a
professional? I don't see you discussing this material which you
already have in your machine, even not an acknowledgement, but again
the 'reasons', why you will not read it. When the scientist rejects to
take disadvantageous arguments into consideration, he stops to be a
scientist, all the rest is playing cunning.

I thank you for the e-mail attachment with the figures. The only "problem"
that exists is my finding the time to wade through your missive. Your
missive is a low priority for me, and I've had many other "real world"
activities to keep me busy.


Hence, rather than spend another half-hour or 45 minutes trying to
download
the pieces of your webpages, could you just send me an e-mail with
the
equation graphics?

Well, find this paper in your e-mail box. Please reply here on thread.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas