🚀 go-pugleaf

the formalism of relativity isn't needed, if
one does not presume that Pascal's vacuum was perfect
(and still is) a la "Newtonian optics" or ray-tracing.

> This is a remarkable statement. What do you think the principle of
> relativity says, exactly?

thus:
how about this:
show us that your theory agrees with Sophie Germaine; then,
tackle the remaining primes.

thus:
NB, Lanczos used quaternions in _Variational Mechanics_
for special relativity, and it's just "real time" and
"three ('imaginary') axes of space;" but,
this is just the original "vectors."

compare Lanczos' biquaternions
with the "Cayley-Dickerson doubling" procedure,
to go from real to complex to quaternion to octonion.

"wroldlines" are just the crappola in Minkowski's "pants,"
totally obfuscatory outside of a formalism --
time is not a dimension; time is awareness & mensurability
(of dimensionality !-)

thus:
try a search on Gauss & Ceres. or
"go" to wlym.com.
> This problem and its solution are found in a paper by Ceplecha,  1987,

thus:
the problem appears to be,
"some observers measure the angle to the marker,
relative to the other observers,"
which would not give you the distance *on a plane*,
because of similar trigona.  Gauss meaasured the curvature
of Earth with his theodolite *and* a chain measure
of distance (working for France in Alsace-Lorraine,
triangulatin' that contested area .-)

thus:
notice that no-one bothered with the "proofs" that I've seen, and
the statute of limitation is out on that, but, anyway,
I think it must have been Scalia, not Kennedy,
who changed his little, oligarchical "Federalist Society" mind.

thus:
sorry; I guess, it was Scalia who'd "mooted" a yea on WS-is-WS, but
later came to d'Earl d'O. ... unless it was Breyer, as I may
have  read in an article about his retirement.

> I know of at least three "proofs" that WS was WS, but
> I recently found a text that really '"makes the case,"
> once and for all (but the Oxfordians, Rhodesian Scholars, and
> others brainwashed by British Liberal Free Trade,
> capNtrade e.g.).
>     what ever it says, Shapiro's last book is just a polemic;
> his real "proof" is _1599_;
> the fans of de Vere are hopelessly stuck-up --
> especially if they went to Harry Potter PS#1.
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://entertainment.timesonline.co....

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Waxman's capNtrade#2 [*]:
"Let the arbitrageurs raise the cost of your energy as much as They
can ?!?"
* His first such bill was in '91 under HW on NOx & SO2 viz acid rain;
so?