Strange

If you want to communicate here then you need to improve your English. You take offence when people point put how poor your English is. But they are just being honest and trying to help you.

In the coming years I think that Chinese will be an increasingly important language. But you also need to improve your English. I can comfortably read a French newspaper but cannot speak a word of French. I speak Japanese but can barely read a newspaper.

I have no dog in this race and don't know terribly much about American history or politics, but as far as I can tell the OP is complete and utter nonsense of the highest order.

The concept of infinity is very well defined. How are you able to say that if the concept is irrational and undefinable? Although you are correct. (Presumably it was a lucky guess.) The universe may not be infinite. And we are able to rationalise infinity. (See also Cantor.)

I find that hard to believe. Do you have any data to back this up? Number of researchers in fields like neuroscience and psychology, vs things like physics, biology, etc? Although it got off to a shaky start with people like Freud and Jung, my impression is that psychology is now largely a serious science. There are a few exceptions, of course. Do you have any evidence that psychology is not, in general, a scientific discipline? (I know it is hard to prove a negative but perhaps the absence of peer-reviewed journals, no data analysis used in research, etc). As they explicitly talk about science and data collection, this would not seem to support your position. You seem to be saying that psychoanalysis is better because it is not scientifically based. That is, to put it bluntly, an idiotic proposition. It is also very dangerous. If science shows that an alternative therapy is better but you (or people like you) ignore that better treatment because it is "too scientific" then you are putting people's health and maybe even lives at risk.

No one quite knows. The "zero point energy" that is represented by the virtual particles is much, much larger than the cosmological constant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

Figure what out?

1. All frames of reference in relativity are 4D. None of them are absolute. (Note: an absolute frame of reference is one that can be distinguished physically from others. The most sensitive experiments have failed to find any evidence for this. And theory, such as Maxwell's equations, imply that no such thing exists). 2. This is an example of "begging the question" - by assuming (with no evidence) an absolute frame of reference you can conclude there is an absolute frame of reference. 3. And again: by assuming that everything is moving at c (with no evidence) you conclude that everything is moving at c. 4. If something is "in motion" in your 4D environment then you need an extra time dimension to define that. There is no evidence for such a second time dimension. (And good theoretical reasons to think it can't exist.) 5. If your model results in the equations of SR then it proves there is no absolute frame. You prove yourself wrong by reductio ad absurdum. In short: no.

If this is true (*) it is more likely to be a clever trick by the (English, human) authors. (*) And it doesn't seem to be: http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_WordCount.htm The moral of this is: don't believe everything you see on yootoob. Because God speaks English. Obviously.

OK "Maintained"? Not by any definition of that word I can think of. No. This is a description of the contents of space.

So your method is: guess what the picture is, make up some numbers for the Voynich symbols and then look for a numerological (i.e. meaningless) coincidence that matches your guess. And that is exactly why numerology is nonsense: you have turned it into a one-to-many mapping and so there is no uniques translation or decoding as you claim. And that is what is required to claim that you have decided the language of the Voynich manuscript. Guessing what some pictures are doesn't really count.

Shame. You missed the don't know and don't care options.

Indeed. And another good test would be for Tom to give someone else a selection of "words" from Voynich plus his method, and have them translate the words into Welsh. Needless to say, I am pretty confident that would not work.

You might be interested in some of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_descriptor https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-algorithm-used-by-Googles-reverse-image-search-i-e-search-by-image (searching images is just a special case of searching video) http://innovation.columbia.edu/technologies/cu12269_indexing-and-searching-algorithm-for-video-content-on-consumer-video-sites

Most email clients store a copy locally as well. (For speed.) How many and how long for is usually configurable (but I doubt many "normal" people ever look at those settings).

True but irrelevant.

They are more likely to understand if they do it themselves.

You seem to have forgotten to include the explanation. Why is that? OK. I see you included the text in a PDF (for some stupid reason). You ramble on about Pythagoras. This is completely irrelevant as he is dead. (And numerology is still meaningless nonsense even if he was stupid enough to believe it.) Again: Q1. where did the table of symbols come from? Q2a. HOW did you "assign the Voynich glyph’s to equal numbers first based on the garlic picture in folio 99r of the Voynich Manuscript" ? So you made them up. Q7. Why do you say that the second symbol is an H with value 8 but the (nearly identical) symbol in the 3rd column, 1st row of your table has the value 3? Q8. Why does the symbol in the 3rd column, 1st row of your table has the value 3? Q9. Why do you equate the fourth symbol in this group with 'e' when it looks nothing like it? (For example, do you have examples of writing from the period where an 'e' is written like that?) Q10. Why do you have a 'J' in the table of English letters when that letter did not exist at the time. (Someone else has already mentioned the fact you are not using the Welsh alphabet; you are not even using the correct English one.) Q11. You keep making vague references to the zodiac. What part does that play in your method? In other word HOW EXACTLY did you build this system? Q.16 How many other words equal 1? (And please don't use the word "math" for this insane mumbo-jumbo) Q.17 Why do you use the wrong word (scorpion) instead of the correct world (scorpio)? A.17 Because "scorpio" does not equal 1 and would prove your method doesn't work. So craf = scorpion? Would you be happy to put chopped scorpion in your tomato sauce? Doesn't seem like much of a code. I didn't ask you to confirm that you have cheated to make it look like your system works. We can all see that. I asked WHY you cheat so blatantly? No science just numerological BS. So apart from confirming that you cheat to make it work, you still haven't answered any questions.

The clock in motion with the light source will be time-dilated by exactly the same amount as the frequency of the light. So that clock will show the same period of the wave, regardless of the state of motion relative to the observer. Time dilation is a relative thing. So it is only a difference in the measurements made by the observer's clock and the moving clock. So there is only red-shift when measured by the other clock.

Hmmmm. I don't feel that way about Fortran or Cobol ...

Wrong?

I haven't really looked at it, but this might do: http://www.amnh.org/our-research/hayden-planetarium/digital-universe

I think Basic is a terrible first language. Possibly the worst. You will learn really bad habits.

I can't complete the survey because it requires a Google account.

Yes. No. Any observer's time is always the same (unchanged). An observer with the light source would see the other observer's time slowed (and hence redshifted). The observer will always measure the frequency with their unchanged clock. You seem to be mixing frames of references, by trying to apply the time dilation seen by the light source to the observer.