Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #617207 > unrolled thread

Quasar redshift

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Quasar redshift vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-02-06 14:45 +0000
    Re: Quasar redshift kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-06 10:35 -0500
      Re: Quasar redshift john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 07:50 -0800
      Re: Quasar redshift vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2017-02-06 16:28 +0000
        Re: Quasars are dying out because gravity itself is evaporating away. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-06 18:23 +0000
          Re: Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-06 21:47 +0000
            Re: Entropy increases, eternally, without beginning or end. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:59 -0800
          Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 16:31 -0500
            Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-08 13:04 -0500
              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 12:34 -0800
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-02-08 16:22 -0800
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:08 -0800
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 22:00 -0800
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 17:33 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 15:07 -0800
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 18:30 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-02-09 15:31 -0800
                        whence clocks whould tickenn noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 19:58 -0800
                          Re: whence clocks whould tickenn noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-15 00:35 -0800
              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 17:14 -0800
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-09 21:05 -0500
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 08:54 -0800
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-11 17:54 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 00:58 -0800
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 03:25 -0800
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-13 16:04 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 03:26 -0800
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-13 16:05 -0500
              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:11 +1100
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-10 23:35 -0800
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 18:55 +1100
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 00:11 -0800
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 19:46 +1100
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 00:50 -0800
                          Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:07 +1100
                            Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 01:12 -0800
                              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:15 +1100
                                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 01:19 -0800
                                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 20:26 +1100
                                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2017-02-11 01:32 -0800
                Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 05:06 -0500
                  Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-11 22:26 +1100
                    Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 06:44 -0500
                      Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 00:11 +1100
                        Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 20:54 +0000
                          Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 09:45 +1100
                            Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-11 23:17 +0000
                              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. Kadaitcha Man <nospam.nospam.nospam@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 15:43 +1100
                              Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2017-02-12 05:09 -0500
    Quasar redshift HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 08:56 -0800
      Quasar redshift john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 09:12 -0800
      Re: Quasar redshift benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-07 16:53 -0500
        Re: Quasar redshift noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 15:47 -0800
      Re: Quasar redshift Serg Io <invliad@invalid.com> - 2017-02-07 18:47 -0600
        The dopplerianS noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 19:20 -0800

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#618062 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/11/2017 2:11 AM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> kensi, thou damnable base Sir Knob. Ye qualling wicked varlet, ye
> bugged:
>
>> the thermodynamic arrow of time
>
> BWAHAHAHAHA! A self-proclaimed quantum physicist uses a quasiclassical
> definition of time.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Ko0ky Man thinks quantum physics isn't time-reversible. 
It is.

Well, it is if you don't believe in non-linear, non-unitary, 
non-differentiable, non-local, CPT-violating, 
Liouville's-theorem-violating, acausal collapse fairies, anyway.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618067 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

kensi, a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of
work art thou. Ye elf-skinned logger-headed and unpolished groom, ye
lamented:

> On 2/11/2017 2:11 AM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> kensi, thou damnable base Sir Knob. Ye qualling wicked varlet, ye
>> bugged:
>>
>>> the thermodynamic arrow of time
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHA! A self-proclaimed quantum physicist uses a quasiclassical
>> definition of time.
>
> BWA<COCKSLAP>

> Ko0ky Man thinks quantum physics isn't time-reversible.
> It is.

The statement I made implies no such thing, you head fucked cuntwipe.
Atomic clocks are quasiclassical.

quasiclassical: Having certain aspects of classical physics.

You are, as always, far wide of the mark with your physics bullshit, you
know-nothing suckpoppet. Look up CPT symmetry and Lorentz violation and
learn that some equations and quantum phenomena behave differently if
they are time-reversed, but not under CPT.

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/472/2185/20150670

BTW, you still have this problem, fuckhead:

σxσp ≥ ħ/2

You have no idea what it is, do you! That would be because you're a
fucking Derebyshire suckpoppet, not a physicist.

-- 
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618068 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/11/2017 6:26 AM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> BTW, you still have this problem, fuckhead:
>
> σxσp ≥ ħ/2
>
> You have no idea what it is, do you!

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in the specific case of the 
momentum/position couplet? Of course I do. The very question is insulting.

It's also not relevant to your k'lame of time-irreversibility of quantum 
physics, which you backpedaled on sneakily by burying an admission that 
quantum physics is CPT-symmetric in the midst of your mass of ko0KscRe3d.

Nonetheless, you did imply the k'lame you later walked back, when you 
reacted to the concept of a "thermodynamic arrow of time" by calling it 
quasi-classical, implying you thought there was a non-thermodynamic, 
quantum-level arrow of time -- likely arising from some variation on the 
tired, hackneyed old theme of "wavefunction collapse". Of course, in the 
absence of magical collapse fairies making all the other Everett 
branches go away, there is a quantum arrow of time, but it's 
thermodynamic: branch decoherence is thermodynamically irreversible, as 
once the number of particles in different states/positions gets past a 
handful getting the two branches to exchange any significant amplitude 
ever again is like unscrambling an egg. (To the point that the math for 
that is very similar to that for unscrambling an egg.)

P.S. Quit trying to block replies to this article by sneakily adding 
extra froups and then hiding them "below the fold" in my client's UI. If 
your arguments require you to use such tactics to escape rebuttal, then 
you deserve to lose.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618069 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

kensi, thou tassel of a prodigal's purse. Ye balloon-headed disguised
cheater, ye exclaimed:

> Ubon 2/11/2017 6:26 UbaM, Kubadubaubitchuba Muban wrubotube:
>
>> BTW, you still have this problem, fuckhead:
>>
>> σxσp ≥ ħ/2
>>
>> You have no idea what it is, do you!
>
> Thube Hubeubisubenbuberg ubuncubertubaubinty prubincubiplube, ubin
> thube spubecubifubic cubasube ubof thube
> mubomubentubum/pubosubitubiubon cuboubuplubet? Ubof cuboubursube Ubi
> dubo. Thube vubery qubuubestubiubon ubis ubinsubultubing.
>
> Ubit's ubalsubo nubot rubelubevubant tubo yuboubur k'lubamube ubof
> tubimube-ubirrubevubersubibubilubity ubof qubuubantubum physubics,
> whubich yuboubu bubackpubedubalubed ubon snubeubakubily by
> buburyubing uban ubadmubissubiubon thubat qubuubantubum physubics
> ubis CPT-symmubetrubic ubin thube mubidst ubof yuboubur mubass ubof
> kubo0KscRube3d.
>
> Nubonubethubelubess, yuboubu dubid ubimply thube k'lubamube yuboubu
> lubatuber wubalkubed buback, whuben yuboubu rubeubactubed tubo thube
> cuboncubept ubof uba "thubermubodynubamubic ubarrubow ubof tubimube"
> by cuballubing ubit qubuubasubi-clubassubicubal, ubimplyubing
> yuboubu thuboubught thuberube wubas uba nubon-thubermubodynubamubic,
> qubuubantubum-lubevubel ubarrubow ubof tubimube -- lubikubely
> ubarubisubing frubom subomube vubarubiubatubiubon ubon thube
> tubirubed, hubacknubeyubed ubold thubemube ubof
> "wubavubefubunctubiubon cubollubapsube". Ubof cuboubursube, ubin
> thube ubabsubencube ubof mubagubicubal cubollubapsube
> fubaubirubiubes mubakubing uball thube ubothuber Ubevuberubett
> brubanchubes gubo ubawubay, thuberube ubis uba qubuubantubum
> ubarrubow ubof tubimube, bubut ubit's thubermubodynubamubic:
> brubanch dubecubohuberubencube ubis thubermubodynubamubicubally
> ubirrubevubersubiblube, ubas uboncube thube nubumbuber ubof
> pubartubiclubes ubin dubiffuberubent stubatubes/pubosubitubiubons
> gubets pubast uba hubandfubul gubettubing thube twubo brubanchubes
> tubo ubexchubangube ubany subignubifubicubant ubamplubitubudube
> ubevuber ubagubaubin ubis lubikube ubunscrubamblubing uban ubegg.
> (Tubo thube puboubint thubat thube mubath fubor thubat ubis vubery
> subimubilubar tubo thubat fubor ubunscrubamblubing uban ubegg.)
>
> P.S. Qubuubit tryubing tubo blubock rubeplubiubes tubo thubis
> ubartubiclube by snubeubakubily ubaddubing ubextruba fruboubups
> uband thuben hubidubing thubem "bubelubow thube fubold" ubin my
> clubiubent's UbuUbi. Ubif yuboubur ubargubumubents rubequbuubirube
> yuboubu tubo ubusube subuch tubactubics tubo ubescubapube
> rubebubuttubal, thuben yuboubu dubesubervube tubo lubosube.

You blithering idiot, Derbyshire.

-- 
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618150 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 00:11:38 +1100, KOOKYitchy Man wrote:

> kensi, thou tassel of a prodigal's purse. Ye balloon-headed disguised
> cheater, ye exclaimed:
> 
>> On 2/11/2017 6:26 AM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, you still have this problem, fuckhead:
>>>
>>> σxσp ≥ ħ/2
>>>
>>> You have no idea what it is, do you!
>>
>> Thube Hubeu

Dishonest quote-editing? How lame. Restoring what kensi *actually* said:

>> The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in the specific case of the
>> momentum/position couplet? Of course I do. The very question is insulting.
>> 
>> It's also not relevant to your k'lame of time-irreversibility of quantum
>> physics, which you backpedaled on sneakily by burying an admission that
>> quantum physics is CPT-symmetric in the midst of your mass of ko0KscRe3d.
>> 
>> Nonetheless, you did imply the k'lame you later walked back, when you
>> reacted to the concept of a "thermodynamic arrow of time" by calling it
>> quasi-classical, implying you thought there was a non-thermodynamic,
>> quantum-level arrow of time -- likely arising from some variation on the
>> tired, hackneyed old theme of "wavefunction collapse". Of course, in the
>> absence of magical collapse fairies making all the other Everett
>> branches go away, there is a quantum arrow of time, but it's
>> thermodynamic: branch decoherence is thermodynamically irreversible, as
>> once the number of particles in different states/positions gets past a
>> handful getting the two branches to exchange any significant amplitude
>> ever again is like unscrambling an egg. (To the point that the math for
>> that is very similar to that for unscrambling an egg.)
> 
> You blithering idiot

After restoring what kensi *actually* wrote, I don't see anything that
remotely resembles either "blithering" or "idiocy" -- just you getting
your ass handed to you in spectacular fashion as kensi proves you sadly
mistaken in your belief that she wouldn't recognize that inequality you
posted, *and* sees past that deflection and continues to press her
original point re: time's arrow.

That you have to resort to dishonest tactics such as quote editing
proves you have an empty quiver, and proves that you *know* it's empty.
As kensi put it, "if your arguments require you to use such tactics to
escape rebuttal, then you deserve to lose."

Well, guess what, kooky? You just lost. Big time.

Ironic that your insult-generator accused *kensi* of being a "cheater", by the way.

Now quit trying to wriggle out of your SPNAK! and take it like an adult.

-- 
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618175 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

Nadegda, away, ye depender on a thing that leans. Ye fool-born don
worm, ye frothed:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 00:11:38 +1100, KOOKYitchy Man wrote:
>
>> kensi, thou tassel of a prodigal's purse. Ye balloon-headed disguised
>> cheater, ye exclaimed:
>>
>>> On 2/11/2017 6:26 AM, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTW, you still have this problem, fuckhead:
>>>>
>>>> σxσp ≥ ħ/2
>>>>
>>>> You have no idea what it is, do you!
>>>
>>> Thube Hubeu
>
> Dishonest quote-editing? How lame. Restoring what kensi *actually* said:
>
>>> The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, in the specific case of the
>>> momentum/position couplet? Of course I do. The very question is insulting.
>>>
>>> It's also not relevant to your k'lame of time-irreversibility of quantum
>>> physics, which you backpedaled on sneakily by burying an admission that
>>> quantum physics is CPT-symmetric in the midst of your mass of ko0KscRe3d.
>>>
>>> Nonetheless, you did imply the k'lame you later walked back, when you
>>> reacted to the concept of a "thermodynamic arrow of time" by calling it
>>> quasi-classical, implying you thought there was a non-thermodynamic,
>>> quantum-level arrow of time -- likely arising from some variation on the
>>> tired, hackneyed old theme of "wavefunction collapse". Of course, in the
>>> absence of magical collapse fairies making all the other Everett
>>> branches go away, there is a quantum arrow of time, but it's
>>> thermodynamic: branch decoherence is thermodynamically irreversible, as
>>> once the number of particles in different states/positions gets past a
>>> handful getting the two branches to exchange any significant amplitude
>>> ever again is like unscrambling an egg. (To the point that the math for
>>> that is very similar to that for unscrambling an egg.)
>>
>> You blithering idiot
>
> After restoring what kensi *actually* wrote, I don't see anything that
> remotely resembles either "blithering" or "idiocy" -- just you getting
> your ass handed to you in spectacular fashion as kensi proves you sadly
> mistaken in your belief that she wouldn't recognize that inequality you
> posted, *and* sees past that deflection and continues to press her
> original point re: time's arrow.
>
> That you have to resort to dishonest tactics such as quote editing
> proves you have an empty quiver, and proves that you *know* it's empty.
> As kensi put it, "if your arguments require you to use such tactics to
> escape rebuttal, then you deserve to lose."
>
> Well, guess what, kooky? You just lost. Big time.
>
> Ironic that your insult-generator accused *kensi* of being a "cheater", by the way.
>
> Now quit trying to wriggle out of your SPNAK! and take it like an adult.

You left this bit out, Derbyshire:

>
> P.S. Quit trying to block replies to this article by sneakily adding
> extra froups and then hiding them "below the fold" in my client's UI.
> If your arguments require you to use such tactics to escape rebuttal,
> then you deserve to lose.

Quit trying to fuck with your newsreader? BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA! You
fucking idiot, Derbyshire.

-- 
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618204 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:45:10 +1100, Kadaitcha Man wrote:

> Nadegda, away, ye depender on a thing that leans. Ye fool-born don worm,
> ye frothed:
> 
>>>> P.S. Quit trying to block replies to this article by sneakily adding
>>>> extra froups and then hiding them "below the fold" in my client's UI.
>>>> If your arguments require you to use such tactics to escape rebuttal,
>>> then you deserve to lose.
> 
> Quit trying to fuck with your newsreader?

Not *my* newsreader, *kensi*'s newsreader. She uses a mobile device, 
probably without much screen real-estate. My guess is it only shows so 
many newsgroups, and sneakily adding a group AIOE doesn't allow posting to 
in a far enough position in the groups list hides that group from her and 
then makes AIOE reject her followups.

But you knew all that already, since it says right in her headers what 
news agent kensi is using, and you were deliberately exploiting that to 
annoy her and/or prevent her from successfully replying to spank you silly.

Futilely, as it turns out, as you only got spanked all the harder for it.

-- 
Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Nadegda

Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct
question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618261 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

Nadegda, vile fiend and shameless courtesan. Thou art a vile foul
offender, a spongy juggling fiend, a bum-faced latten bilbo, an
unemployed filthy rogue, ye upbraided:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 09:45:10 +1100, Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>
>> Nadegda, away, ye depender on a thing that leans. Ye fool-born don worm,
>> ye frothed:
>>
>>>>> P.S. Quit trying to block replies to this article by sneakily adding
>>>>> extra froups and then hiding them "below the fold" in my client's UI.
>>>>> If your arguments require you to use such tactics to escape rebuttal,
>>>> then you deserve to lose.
>>
>> Quit trying to fuck with your newsreader?
>
> Not *my* newsreader, *kensi*'s newsreader. She uses a mobile device,
> probably without much screen real-estate. My guess is it only shows so
> many newsgroups, and sneakily adding a group AIOE doesn't allow posting to
> in a far enough position in the groups list hides that group from her and
> then makes AIOE reject her followups.
>
> But you knew all that already, since it says right in her headers what
> news agent kensi is using, and you were deliberately exploiting that to
> annoy her and/or prevent her from successfully replying to spank you silly.

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt

2.2.3. Long Header Fields

Each header field is logically a single line of characters comprising
the field name, the colon, and the field body.  For convenience
however, and to deal with the 998/78 character limitations per line,
the field body portion of a header field can be split into a multiple
line representation; this is called "folding".  The general rule is
that wherever this standard allows for folding white space (not
simply WSP characters), a CRLF may be inserted before any WSP.  For
example, the header field:

Subject: This is a test

can be represented as:

Subject: This
is a test

Note: Though structured field bodies are defined in such a way that
folding can take place between many of the lexical tokens (and even
within some of the lexical tokens), folding SHOULD be limited to
placing the CRLF at higher-level syntactic breaks.  For instance, if
a field body is defined as comma-separated values, it is recommended
that folding occur after the comma separating the structured items in
preference to other places where the field could be folded, even if
it is allowed elsewhere.

The process of moving from this folded multiple-line representation
of a header field to its single line representation is called
"unfolding". Unfolding is accomplished by simply removing any CRLF
that is immediately followed by WSP.  Each header field should be
treated in its unfolded form for further syntactic and semantic
evaluation.

> Futilely, as it turns out, as you only got spanked all the harder for it.

Shove that up your fucking exhaust pipe and set fire to it, you duff cunt.

-- 
Before you fucking well complain about the fucking swearing in my
fucking posts, read this fucking article, you fucking dipshit whiner:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170117105107.htm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#618287 — Re: Clocks tick _forward, not backwards.

On 2/11/2017 6:17 PM, Nadegda wrote:

> Not *my* newsreader, *kensi*'s newsreader. She uses a mobile device,
> probably without much screen real-estate. My guess is it only shows so
> many newsgroups,

You guess correctly. It shows three at a time. And the k00k kept adding 
the problem group in position 4.

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617381

vallor
Hey, I had an astrophysics question, and I understand there are 
astrophysicists roaming these hallowed halls... 

I'm wondering if the redshift seen with quasars might be due to something 
other than distance, such as perhaps the gravity of their black holes? 
----------

Redshift isn't a measurement of distance per se. It is a measurement of relative speed. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617386

And relative frequency 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617444

On 2/7/2017 11:56 AM, HVAC wrote:
> vallor
> Hey, I had an astrophysics question, and I understand there are
> astrophysicists roaming these hallowed halls...
>
> I'm wondering if the redshift seen with quasars might be due to something
> other than distance, such as perhaps the gravity of their black holes?
> ----------
>
> Redshift isn't a measurement of distance per se. It is a measurement of relative speed.
>
No.

My BBB theory.

The Redshift of Quasars is to to their position outside of our 
Hypersphere manifold. Simple.

HVAC knows no science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617463

you shouldn't j0ke about it ... defining it will be that

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617475

On 2/7/2017 10:56 AM, HVAC wrote:
> vallor
> Hey, I had an astrophysics question, and I understand there are
> astrophysicists roaming these hallowed halls...
>
> I'm wondering if the redshift seen with quasars might be due to something
> other than distance, such as perhaps the gravity of their black holes?
> ----------
>
> Redshift isn't a measurement of distance per se. It is a measurement of relative speed.
>

nope.   it is a measurement of "red shift".

how much a spectral line has shifted to the red.


BUT WAIT !!

ALSO Redshift is a British electronic music group, founded in 1996 by 
Mark Shreeve. Their musical style is rooted in the early to mid 1970’s 
German electronic music era, often described as Berlin School, and 
transcends the genre using musical originality, multi-instrumentation, 
and complex harmonic arrangements using analogue sequencing.


*check it out*, music for astronomers and physicists;

https://redshift2.bandcamp.com/track/glide

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#617499 — The dopplerianS

must be transcendental

> https://redshift2.bandcamp.com/track/glide

there is no pascalian\absolute vacuum, but
I don't know, when he got the memo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web