On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > The experiment couldn't be more simple.
> >
> > In 22.2 meters, a 10.0000000000 Ghz signal WOULD SUFFER a change in frequency of about 0.000025 Hz.
> The timing signals that you use, based on Internet Time, will
> experience frequency shifts in EXACT proportion to your oscillator
> signal shifts.
> > To measure it directly, you need a frequency counter of 16 digits, that counts 0.1 nanosec pulses during 1,000,000 seconds.
> >
> > If gravitational shift is real, in such time lapse you should have counted
> >
> > 9,999,999,999,999,975 pulses.
> >
> > It means ONE PULSE INCREMENT, in the difference with 10,000,000,000,000,000 pulses at ground level, of 1 pulse every 40,000 sec.
> >
> > It's due to the basic nature of digital frequency measurement, universally used since the first digital counters were available,
> > around 1960, due to the advances in digital electronics and exact oscillators (from crystal to atomic).
> EVERYBODY agrees that your results will be negative.
> A negative outcome won't prove anything at all about relativity.

Stop with the Internet time shift, You are being ridiculous. Using the protocol NTP, in your country your PC
can be connected to public NTP servers like:

pool.ntp.org NTP Pool Address
time-a.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
time-b.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
time-a.timefreq bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado
time-b.timefreq bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado

The above is advised by Microsoft.

The arrangement uses, as I wrote here, a clock extracted from the signals and being:

Tᴳ = 2³²/10,000,000,000 seconds = 0.429496729634 sec FOR BOTH BOXES, WITH AN ERROR LOWER THAN 38 PICOSECONDS.

Read it again. I can't be more clear than this:

https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2023/03/box-1-contains-10.html

I proposed to make a lab based measurement of a frequency of 9,999,999,999.999975 Hz derived, by synthesis,
from a cesium atomic clock during multiple instances of 40,000 seconds.

This is high school electronics. If you still don't get it, then you have a severe problem of understanding. Very severe.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:25:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Tᴳ = 2³²/10,000,000,000 seconds = 0.429496729634 sec FOR BOTH BOXES, WITH AN ERROR LOWER THAN 38 PICOSECONDS.

Dumbesfuck,

Time passes at different rates at different altitudes. Your imbecility is that you ASSume Newtonian time. So, your "experiment" is incapable of measuring gravitational redshift. By your own inept design.

On 3/15/2023 3:05 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-03-14 19:55:15 +0000, RichD said:
>
>> On March 13, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On the other hand you're certainly right that leaving
>>> Argentina will have a positive effect on the average intelligence there.
>>
>> How would his exit affect the IQ of the average Argentine?
>
> Suppose we consider just five people with the following IQ values:
>
>   Richard Hertz     65
>   Volney           125
>   Dono.            120
>   Pentcho Valev     60
>   Richard Hachel    75
>
> (These numbers are made up. Perhaps I've exaggerated those for Pentcho
> and the Richards, but no matter: the conclusion works as long as the
> first number is smaller than the meabn of the other four.)
>
> Total = 445, mean = 445/5 = 89
>
> Remove Richard Hertz, then
>
> Total = 380, mean = 380/4 = 95
>
> Is that so difficult to understand?

The expression "mean" still grates on me. It first came into popular
use when I was just out of high school and in those days it was the same
as "median" or the middle number. Somewhere along the line it has
replaced the term "average." The median number for the set above is 75.

Median is ok so long as you're dealing with a very large sample and the
distribution isn't very skewed. Otherwise it has often been used to
make statistics lie, a trait for which statistics is well known.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 2:29:45 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> Dumbesfuck,
>
> Time passes at different rates at different altitudes. Your imbecility is that you ASSume Newtonian time. So, your "experiment" is incapable of measuring gravitational redshift. By your own inept design.

Your OWN gravitational shift theory affirms the equality of these three absolute magnitudes:

|Δf₁|/f₁ = |Δλ₁|/λ₁ = |ΔT₁|/T₁ = f₁gh/c² = 2.49E-15

But, by dividing both frequencies f₁ and f₂ by 2³² = 4,294,967,296, the result is (with decimals) 2.32830643653869 Hertz, which
is used AS GATING FREQUENCY.

Digital electronics take this gating signal as an integer of 2.0000 Hertz, which produces two readings per second, exactly.

Your relativistic shift, if existed, is buried 4 billion times down 2 Hertz..

For any practical purpose, both counters ARE IN SYNC when they read data, up to picosecond levels.

And that ABSOLUTE CLOCK is embedded into each packet coming out from Box 1 and Box 2, stored in DIGITAL STONE.

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 18:29:45 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 10:25:31 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > Tᴳ = 2³²/10,000,000,000 seconds = 0.429496729634 sec FOR BOTH BOXES, WITH AN ERROR LOWER THAN 38 PICOSECONDS.
> Dumbesfuck,
>
> Time passes at different rates at different altitudes.

Dumbesfuck, anyone can check GPS, no, it isn't.

On 2023-03-15 18:02:01 +0000, whodat said:

> On 3/15/2023 3:05 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-03-14 19:55:15 +0000, RichD said:
>>
>>> On March 13, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On the other hand you're certainly right that leaving
>>>> Argentina will have a positive effect on the average intelligence there.
>>>
>>> How would his exit affect the IQ of the average Argentine?
>>
>> Suppose we consider just five people with the following IQ values:
>>
>>   Richard Hertz     65
>>   Volney           125
>>   Dono.            120
>>   Pentcho Valev     60
>>   Richard Hachel    75
>>
>> (These numbers are made up. Perhaps I've exaggerated those for Pentcho
>> and the Richards, but no matter: the conclusion works as long as the
>> first number is smaller than the meabn of the other four.)
>>
>> Total = 445, mean = 445/5 = 89
>>
>> Remove Richard Hertz, then
>>
>> Total = 380, mean = 380/4 = 95
>>
>> Is that so difficult to understand?
>
> The expression "mean" still grates on me. It first came into popular
> use when I was just out of high school

Are you about 150 (years, not IQ)?

> and in those days it was the same
> as "median" or the middle number.

Nonsense. Never.

> Somewhere along the line it has
> replaced the term "average."

Yes, because "average" is too vague. It has at least five meanings --
arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, median, mode.

> The median number for the set above is 75.

Yes, and ... ?
>
> Median is ok so long as you're dealing with a very large sample and the
> distribution isn't very skewed.

You have it exactly the wrong way round. Suppose you have a population
in which 10% of people have annual incomes of $10000000 or more, and
60% have less than $2000. The mean of such a population will be
absurdly high, but the median will be something sensible.

> Otherwise it has often been used to
> make statistics lie, a trait for which statistics is well known.

All subjects are misused by incompetents. It doesn't take long in this
group to realize that there are lots of people who don't understand
physics but imagine that they do.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > > The experiment couldn't be more simple.
> > >
> > > In 22.2 meters, a 10.0000000000 Ghz signal WOULD SUFFER a change in frequency of about 0.000025 Hz.
> > The timing signals that you use, based on Internet Time, will
> > experience frequency shifts in EXACT proportion to your oscillator
> > signal shifts.
> > > To measure it directly, you need a frequency counter of 16 digits, that counts 0.1 nanosec pulses during 1,000,000 seconds.
> > >
> > > If gravitational shift is real, in such time lapse you should have counted
> > >
> > > 9,999,999,999,999,975 pulses.
> > >
> > > It means ONE PULSE INCREMENT, in the difference with 10,000,000,000,000,000 pulses at ground level, of 1 pulse every 40,000 sec.
> > >
> > > It's due to the basic nature of digital frequency measurement, universally used since the first digital counters were available,
> > > around 1960, due to the advances in digital electronics and exact oscillators (from crystal to atomic).
> > EVERYBODY agrees that your results will be negative.
> > A negative outcome won't prove anything at all about relativity.
> Stop with the Internet time shift, You are being ridiculous. Using the protocol NTP, in your country your PC
> can be connected to public NTP servers like:
>
> pool.ntp.org NTP Pool Address
> time-a.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
> time-b.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
> time-a.timefreq bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado
> time-b.timefreq bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado
>
> The above is advised by Microsoft.
>
> The arrangement uses, as I wrote here, a clock extracted from the signals and being:
>
> Tᴳ = 2³²/10,000,000,000 seconds = 0.429496729634 sec FOR BOTH BOXES, WITH AN ERROR LOWER THAN 38 PICOSECONDS.
>
> Read it again. I can't be more clear than this:
>
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2023/03/box-1-contains-10.html
>
> I proposed to make a lab based measurement of a frequency of 9,999,999,999.999975 Hz derived, by synthesis,
> from a cesium atomic clock during multiple instances of 40,000 seconds.
>
> This is high school electronics. If you still don't get it, then you have a severe problem of understanding. Very severe.

Unfortunately, the defect in understanding is on your side.
The dissemination of time via the internet is not immune
from the laws of physics. You seem to think that it is. Sorry.

The same laws of physics holds for signals from the
oscillator as for signals from the internet.

If the ratio of oscillator counts and internet time stamps
equals 10,000,000,000 at one position in a gravitational
potential well, the same ratio will hold when the signals
are transmitted to a different position in the gravitational
potential well.

On Wednesday, 15 March 2023 at 21:33:12 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 12:25:31 PM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 1:54:03 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 9:00:41 AM UTC-5, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > > The experiment couldn't be more simple.
> > > >
> > > > In 22.2 meters, a 10.0000000000 Ghz signal WOULD SUFFER a change in frequency of about 0.000025 Hz.
> > > The timing signals that you use, based on Internet Time, will
> > > experience frequency shifts in EXACT proportion to your oscillator
> > > signal shifts.
> > > > To measure it directly, you need a frequency counter of 16 digits, that counts 0.1 nanosec pulses during 1,000,000 seconds.
> > > >
> > > > If gravitational shift is real, in such time lapse you should have counted
> > > >
> > > > 9,999,999,999,999,975 pulses.
> > > >
> > > > It means ONE PULSE INCREMENT, in the difference with 10,000,000,000,000,000 pulses at ground level, of 1 pulse every 40,000 sec.
> > > >
> > > > It's due to the basic nature of digital frequency measurement, universally used since the first digital counters were available,
> > > > around 1960, due to the advances in digital electronics and exact oscillators (from crystal to atomic).
> > > EVERYBODY agrees that your results will be negative.
> > > A negative outcome won't prove anything at all about relativity.
> > Stop with the Internet time shift, You are being ridiculous. Using the protocol NTP, in your country your PC
> > can be connected to public NTP servers like:
> >
> > pool.ntp.org NTP Pool Address
> > time-a.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
> > time-b.nist.gov NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland
> > time-a.timefreq bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado
> > time-b.timefreq bldrdoc.gov NIST, Boulder, Colorado
> >
> > The above is advised by Microsoft.
> >
> > The arrangement uses, as I wrote here, a clock extracted from the signals and being:
> >
> > Tᴳ = 2³²/10,000,000,000 seconds = 0.429496729634 sec FOR BOTH BOXES, WITH AN ERROR LOWER THAN 38 PICOSECONDS.
> >
> > Read it again. I can't be more clear than this:
> >
> > https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2023/03/box-1-contains-10.html
> >
> > I proposed to make a lab based measurement of a frequency of 9,999,999,999.999975 Hz derived, by synthesis,
> > from a cesium atomic clock during multiple instances of 40,000 seconds.
> >
> > This is high school electronics. If you still don't get it, then you have a severe problem of understanding. Very severe.
> Unfortunately, the defect in understanding is on your side.
> The dissemination of time via the internet is not immune
> from the laws of physics.

Sorry, trash, the only thing your mumble can really
affect are poor victims listening to you.

On March 15, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On the other hand you're certainly right that leaving
>>> Argentina will have a positive effect on the average intelligence there.
>
>> How would his exit affect the IQ of the average Argentine?
>
> Suppose we consider just five people with the following IQ values:
> Richard Hertz 65
> Volney 125
> Dono. 120
> Pentcho Valev 60
> Richard Hachel 75
> Total = 445, mean = 445/5 = 89
> Remove Richard Hertz, then
> Total = 380, mean = 380/4 = 95

Consider two statements:
o If he emigrates, how does that affect the average IQ of the country?
o If he emigrates, how does that affect the IQ of the average citizen?

A subtle distinction.

Now a pop quiz: mexicans have been pouring into USA for decades.
They largely end up in low wage jobs. The anti-immigration crowd,
the Rio Grande Wall Trumpkins, cavil that they take jobs from Red
Blooded Merikuns, and lower the average wage. Is that so?
[ ] Agree
[ ] Disagree
[ ] Don't know
[ ] Don't care

Think before you answer -
https://www.amazon.com/stores/Darrell-Huff/author/B000AQ478U

This academic question has large scale political ramifications,
and on topic because it involves rational thinking.

--
Rich

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 5:33:12 PM UTC-3, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:

<snip>

> Unfortunately, the defect in understanding is on your side.
> The dissemination of time via the internet is not immune
> from the laws of physics. You seem to think that it is. Sorry.
>
> The same laws of physics holds for signals from the
> oscillator as for signals from the internet.
>
> If the ratio of oscillator counts and internet time stamps
> equals 10,000,000,000 at one position in a gravitational
> potential well, the same ratio will hold when the signals
> are transmitted to a different position in the gravitational
> potential well.

You're heavily stubborn. The only clock for measurement is Tᴳ = 0..429496729600000 sec ≈ 0.4295 sec.

Due to the impressive time filtering obtained by dividing f₁ and f₂ by 2³², Tᴳ is ABSOLUTE for both boxes, disregarding ANY
ALLEGED GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION EFFECT.

Read these ELEMENTARY calculations:

f₁ = 10,000,000,000.0000000 Hz
T₁ = 0.1E-09 sec
Tᴳ₁ = T₁ . 2³² = T₁ . 4,294,967,296 = 0.429496729600000 sec

f₂ = f₁ + Δf = f₁ - 0.0000249 Hz = 9,999,999,999.9999751 Hz
T₂ = 1/(f₁ + Δf) = 1/f₁ (1 - 2.49E-15) sec = T₁ (1 + 2.49E-15) sec = 0.1E-09 sec + 2.49E-25 sec
Tᴳ₂ = T₂ . 2³² = T₂ . 4,294,967,296 = 0.429496729600000 sec + 1.069446857E-15 sec

ΔTᴳ = Tᴳ₂ - Tᴳ₁ = 1.069446857E-15 sec (≈ 1 femtosecond)

For any practical purpose, Tᴳ₂ = Tᴳ₁ = Tᴳ = 0.429496729600000 sec ≈ 0.4295 sec

Newton or Einstein theories are IRRELEVANT for Tᴳ. This is BASIC ARITHMETIC.

On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 11:17:26 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Your OWN gravitational shift theory affirms the equality of these three absolute magnitudes:
>
> |Δf₁|/f₁ = |Δλ₁|/λ₁ = |ΔT₁|/T₁ = f₁gh/c² = 2.49E-15
>

Dumbestass

When you try to use math is when you make the most hilarious mistakes.
..

On 3/15/2023 8:46 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 15, 2023 at 4:26:13 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/14/2023 10:33 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 14, 2023 at 5:00:40 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2023 11:31 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> There is an EVIL DARK SIDE OF PHYSICS:
>>>>
>>>> That is so stupid, even for you. There is only physics, which is the set of rules of how the universe works.
>>>> It's the side where satanists believe
>>>>
>>>> There are no satanists in physics. Just scientists trying to learn more on how the universe works. That's it.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> There is an EVIL DARK SIDE OF PHYSICS: It's the PHYSICS OF THE DEATH.
>> There is no "physics of death". There are only the ways the universe
>> works, and our models of that as we try to understand that.
>>>
>>> But hyprocrites like you turn the head to the other side: "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil".
>> And following are a list of evil use of technology created from neutral
>> physics.
>>>
>>> - Deadly lasers, going up to X-rays.
>>> - GNSS subsystems mounted on shells, rockets and missiles. Current field tests in Ukraine.
>>> - INS for submarines and torpedoes.
>>> - Satellites for espionage and further, more accurate, destruction and death.
>>> - MW, IR and visible light radars and lidars subsystems to aim with precision, killing at a distance.
>>> - Nuclear weapons.
>>> - Non-ballistic, multiple heads ICBM and SLBM.
>>> - Sonic and EM warfare bioweapons.
>>> - Weather conditioning warfare.
>>> - Quantum encrypted comms, for secrecy, with death lying beneath them.
>>> - IR optics for snipers.
>>> - ANY PHYSICAL THEORY THAT MIGHT BE APPLIED TO WARFARE.
>> And just about all of these are or could be used for good. Even nuclear
>> explosives, pretty much the only exception, was considered for large
>> scale blasting of harbors and such. (Not practical not because of evil
>> but that tends to make everything radioactive in the process). I think
>> the Soviet Union actually tried digging canals with nukes.
>>
>> Let's look at what Athel mentioned, the Haber process. Maybe you think
>> it's good because it destroyed Chile's nitrate industry, and apparently
>> Argentina and Chile didn't/don't exactly get along. But ignore that.
>>
>> The Haber process fixed nitrogen from the air. Which could be a very
>> good thing, because that produces lots of cheap nitrogen fertilizers
>> which help feed the world. However, nitrates are the basis for nearly
>> all non-nuclear explosives, and countless war deaths can be indirectly
>> attributed to the Haber process producing the explosives which killed
>> them. It greatly affected WW1.
>>
>> Is the Haber process good (feeding the world) or evil (killing so many
>> soldiers and civilians via explosives) ?
>>
>> How about the chemistry behind the Haber process? Combining nitrogen
>> with hydrogen producing ammonia which is easily converted into many
>> other chemicals, including fertilizers and explosives?
>>
>> How about the physics of heat and pressure which is part of the Haber
>> process? Good or evil physics?
>>
>> The GPS/GNSS systems can guide lost people home (good) or help Russia
>> guide a missile into an apartment building (evil). Are GNSS systems good
>> or evil because of that? Originally for the military it's easy to claim
>> evil but they do lots of good these days.
>>
>> Is relativity good or evil because it allows GNSS systems to work?
>>>
>>> And I didn't include anything of the OTHER DEADLY SCIENCE: CHEMISTRY (WWI, 100,000 deaths, Fritz Haber started it in April 1915).
>> Oh I didn't see this line before I typed this book. I won't delete it.
>> Why is it evil since the Haber process helps to feed the world? There's
>> nowhere near enough nitrogen fertilizers without it to feed everyone.
>
> Knowing what he husband did, Haber's wife confronted him about his work and the horrible death toll he caused.

First, there is only speculation why they had a fight and she committed
suicide.

Second, you (deliberately) left out what the horrible work he did which
would be more likely to horrify his wife -- development of poison war
gases as a weapon. Specifically chlorine. And he even went to the front
lines to "inaugurate" its first use in warfare.

Third, we're discussing evil physics, if there even is such a thing, not
the engineers who developed such awful weapons.

So is the Haber process (not Haber himself) evil because it helps
produce explosives while that same Haber process helps feed most of the
world?

> Haber answered that it was the right thing to do, to help Germany in the war effort. She committed suicide shortly
> after, not being able to live with such a monster anymore.

That's what he said about poison gas in warfare. He defended its use,
saying that dead is dead whether by gas or bullet.
>
> Haber was the first Jew that used his scientific know-how for MASS EXTERMINATION. (Oppenheimer and the whole Manhattan club).

Why does being a Jew matter or the Manhattan Project scientists, other
than a variant of another of his creations (Zyklon A to kill insects)
would have been used against him had he stuck around and lived long
enough? (it was used against family members)
>
> Haber, a true psychopath, enjoyed a prosperous career until Hitler's 1933 ascension to power. Oh, the irony!

He was disappointed he wasn't considered a hero of Germany for help
keeping Germany with enough explosives in WW1. And the gas thing. And
worse under Hitler.

Back to the Haber process: Is the Haber process to make ammonia from
nitrogen and hydrogen itself evil? Haber process, not Haber himself.

On 3/13/2023 5:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 5:52:49 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 3/13/2023 11:22 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 13, 2023 at 12:06:39 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Speaking of collective IQs, you should move from Argentina to Russia,
>>>> you will raise the collective IQs of both countries.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't have a chance of moving to Russia, you know, because of the gay thing.
>>>
>> What, Russia only wants gay people? Certainly excludes me! Which is a
>> good thing, who would ever want to move to Russia? Not only an up and
>> coming third world country but they are already mobilizing men my age
>> for cannon fodder.
>
> Bakhmut is the grave of Ukraine.

More like the grave of some 20,000 Russians and the nazi Wagner
fighters. Ukraine has been playing Russia like a fiddle there, with a
casualty ratio of between 7:1 and 10:1, Ukraine has been staying put to
keep grinding Russia down as Russia tries to take Bakhmut for some 9
months now. (Bakhmut must be Ukrainian for Verdun)

On 3/14/2023 3:55 PM, RichD wrote:
> On March 13, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On the other hand you're certainly right that leaving
>> Argentina will have a positive effect on the average intelligence there.
>
> How would his exit affect the IQ of the average Argentine?
>
I said his exit would raise the collective IQ of Argentina, not the IQ
of the average Argentinian. Although I should have said his exit would
raise the _average_ IQ of Argentina as a whole (which is not the same as
the IQ of the average Argentinian)

On 2023-03-16 04:45:32 +0000, Volney said:

> On 3/14/2023 3:55 PM, RichD wrote:
>> On March 13, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On the other hand you're certainly right that leaving
>>> Argentina will have a positive effect on the average intelligence there.
>>
>> How would his exit affect the IQ of the average Argentine?
>>
> I said his exit would raise the collective IQ of Argentina, not the IQ
> of the average Argentinian. Although I should have said his exit would
> raise the _average_ IQ of Argentina as a whole (which is not the same
> as the IQ of the average Argentinian)

Yes. I understood that from the beginning, but apparently others didn't.

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots