Seeing galaxies in there infancy - how?

On Feb 5, 8:51*pm, David Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:42:36 -0800, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:18*pm, David Hatunen wrote:

You've introduced relativity to the questio0n, a subject far beyond the
scope of this newsgroup.

Not at all,relativity is simply a formal version of a science fiction
narrative that could be found in the science fiction section of any
bookstore in 1898 -

"‘Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’
continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness.
‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It
is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between
time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our
consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of
the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say
about this Fourth Dimension?’" Well 1898

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

All that tells me is that you ought to read about relativity rather than
19th century science fiction. You apparently don't even know what you
don't know.


This is fine,I am not anti-relativistic as I like the story and all
that hoopla of absolute/relative time,space and motion which far
exceeds in entertainment value the 1898 'Time Machine' novel
itself,some readers would probably be puzzled momentarily as how the
narrative necessity of a fictional novel made it into something that
is considered a human accomplishment 9 years later but we like in a
world where fiction and fact are incidental in the empirical mind,I
even believe that they now consider that we can control global
temperatures along with controlling time.


All those pseudo-intellectual junkies in alt.english.usage who cannot
spot that they ruined a decent science fiction novel by actually
believing in 'time travel' as something actual.

I can't alt.english,usage on my news provider; I just get
alt.usage.english.
4

What's next ?, a geological treatment of Verne's 'Journey To The Center
Of The Earth' !.

I'm not sure what this has to do with special and general relativity both
of which have to do with your comments about traveling out into space.


I know that Special K is a breakfast cereal,as for Special
Relativity,well,that is merely a story cobbled together from Newton's
all-singing/all dancing Principia and that is where the real fiction
is.I wrote recently that explaining what Isaac was up to is similar to
explaining how a magician pulls of tricks rather than explaining how
some genuine process works where all his followers look like their are
minions from the wizard of Oz -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA

When readers here of relativity initially they are generally spooked
as Dorothy as they actually can't tell you what it is supposed to do
other than time travel,warped space and what have you but relativity
itself pales in comparison to the original late 17th century toxic
strain of empiricism created by Newton or rather.relativity borrows
the worst parts of Isaac's work and packages it in an entirely vapid
form.

You are unlikely to venture into relativity and are content to cast
the same old nonsense about some special ability to comprehend its
workings thereby saving yourself a headache,but 'time travel' !,give
me a break as I like the ending of the fictional version whereas the
formal version goes on and on,100 year a'counting.







--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Arizona, out where the cacti grow

On Feb 5, 9:22*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 5, 8:51*pm, David Hatunen wrote:









On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:42:36 -0800, oriel36 wrote:
On Feb 5, 7:18*pm, David Hatunen wrote:

You've introduced relativity to the questio0n, a subject far beyond the
scope of this newsgroup.

Not at all,relativity is simply a formal version of a science fiction
narrative that could be found in the science fiction section of any
bookstore in 1898 -

"‘Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’
continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness..
‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It
is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between
time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our
consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of
the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say
about this Fourth Dimension?’" Well 1898

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

All that tells me is that you ought to read about relativity rather than
19th century science fiction. You apparently don't even know what you
don't know.

This is fine,I am not anti-relativistic as I like the story and all
that hoopla of absolute/relative time,space and motion which far
exceeds in entertainment value the 1898 'Time Machine' novel
itself,some readers would probably be puzzled momentarily as how the
narrative necessity of a fictional novel made it into something that
is considered a human accomplishment 9 years later but we like in a
world where fiction and fact are incidental in the empirical mind,I
even believe that they now consider that we can control global
temperatures along with controlling time.

All those pseudo-intellectual junkies in alt.english.usage who cannot
spot that they ruined a decent science fiction novel by actually
believing in 'time travel' as something actual.

I can't alt.english,usage on my news provider; I just get
alt.usage.english.
4

What's next ?, a geological treatment of Verne's 'Journey To The Center
Of The Earth' !.

I'm not sure what this has to do with special and general relativity both
of which have to do with your comments about traveling out into space.

I know that Special K is a breakfast cereal,as for Special
Relativity,well,that is merely a story cobbled together from Newton's
all-singing/all dancing Principia and that is where the real fiction
is.I wrote recently that explaining what Isaac was up to is similar to
explaining how a magician pulls of tricks rather than explaining how
some genuine process works where all his followers look like their are
minions from the wizard of Oz -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZR64EF3OpA

When readers here of relativity initially they are generally spooked
as Dorothy as they actually can't tell you what it is supposed to do
other than time travel,warped space and what have you but relativity
itself pales in comparison to the original late 17th century toxic
strain of empiricism created by Newton or rather.relativity borrows
the worst parts of Isaac's work and packages it in an entirely vapid
form.

You are unlikely to venture into relativity and are content to cast
the same old nonsense about some special ability to comprehend its
workings thereby saving yourself a headache,but 'time travel' !,give
me a break as I like the ending of the fictional version whereas the
formal version goes on and on,100 year a'counting.







--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Arizona, out where the cacti grow

Sorry for the poor proofreading.

On Feb 5, 8:57*pm, "Androcles"
wrote:
"David Hatunen" wrote in message

...
| On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 11:42:36 -0800, oriel36 wrote:
|
| On Feb 5, 7:18 pm, David Hatunen wrote:
|
| You've introduced relativity to the questio0n, a subject far beyond the
| scope of this newsgroup.
|
| Not at all,relativity is simply a formal version of a science fiction
| narrative that could be found in the science fiction section of any
| bookstore in 1898 -
|
| "‘Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’
| continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness..
| ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
| people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It
| is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between
| time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our
| consciousness moves along it. But some foolish people have got hold of
| the wrong side of that idea. You have all heard what they have to say
| about this Fourth Dimension?’" Well 1898
|
| http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html
|
| All that tells me is that you ought to read about relativity rather than
| 19th century science fiction. You apparently don't even know what you
| don't know.
|

All this tells me is you don't know relativity is19th century science
fiction
that Einstein read at age 16. You obviously don't even know what you
don't know.

--
"Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L as
measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine
the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of
co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with
velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then
imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod" --
Einstein
"The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call ``the length
of the (moving) rod in the stationary system.''"-- Einstein

"This we shall determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall
find that it differs from L." -- Einstein.

AND THE ANSWER IS...

"xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" -- Einstein.

Yep, xi differs from L, Greek letters differ from Roman letters.

In agreement with experience we further assume the deranged babbling
incompetent cretin couldn't answer his own inquiry, he was too stupid
to realise xi is greater than L when he wrote *'for v=c all moving
objects--viewed from the "stationary'' system--shrivel up into plane
figures', whereas his own equation shows they stretch to infinity...
sqrt(1-c^2/c^2) = 0.

"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in
the stationary system, with the velocity c-v" - Einstein
"the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an
infinitely great velocity" - Einstein.
"In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A -tA) = c to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in
empty space." -- Einstein
He was right. The distance from A to A divided by the time it takes
to get there is undefined. Anyone that divides by zero is a lunatic.

Parker,like all shills you are a nuisance in making things worse
rather than better,some might even believe that Albert has a case the
way you carry on for when confronted with Isaac's fiction your shut up
fairly quickly and this is easily done with imaging.Readers believe
that equations are more accurate than the language of geometry but
that is just empirical fiction,the antecedent astronomical insights
were all based on normal judgments that everyone possesses except
mathematicians.

I recommend Pascal's comments on mathematicians before listening to
them as more often than not,mathematicians can't see what is in front
of them hence we are stuck with science fiction junk like 'time
travel'.When readers hear about Newton's empiricism or relativity,all
they are hearing is the painful contortions of mathematicians lacking
any interpretative restraint rather than the human achievement that it
was believed to be for 3 centuries.Anyone who has ever had to suffer
through the idea that mathematicians have some insight denied the rest
of humanity had better read comments similar to Pascal's -

"The reason, therefore, that some intuitive minds are not mathematical
is that they cannot at all turn their attention to the principles of
mathematics. But the reason that mathematicians are not intuitive is
that they do not see what is before them, and that, accustomed to the
exact and plain principles of mathematics, and not reasoning till they
have well inspected and arranged their principles, they are lost in
matters of intuition where the principles do not allow of such
arrangement. They are scarcely seen; they are felt rather than seen;
there is the greatest difficulty in making them felt by those who do
not of themselves perceive them. These principles are so fine and so
numerous that a very delicate and very clear sense is needed to
perceive them, and to judge rightly and justly when they are
perceived, without for the most part being able to demonstrate them in
order as in mathematics, because the principles are not known to us in
the same way, and because it would be an endless matter to undertake
it. We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a
process of reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is
rare that mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for
the expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it."
Pascal

http://www.leaderu.com/cyber/books/p...s-SECTION.html