SecondTalon wrote:I have a confession. I am steve waterman

No -- I'm Steve Waterman! And so's my wife.

steve waterman wrote:I must assume at this point, that since I have not heard back from Schrollini, that he has no plans to make any of my requested augmentations to this applet. [ re my post on Tue Oct 08, 2013 9:31 am UTC addressed to lokar ]

I dunno why you'd trust me to implement anything else, when you obviously don't believe me when I say what I've already done. But here's a point-by-point rejection of your requests, if that makes you feel any better. (The code is released under the BSD license, so you or anyone is welcome to take it an modify it to their heart's content.)

steve waterman wrote:1 instructions for use

This is the one reasonable suggestion on the list. I'm resisting it, because I prefer to have something for people to play with and discover things on their own than a strict set of things to do.

steve waterman wrote:2 the blue sensors ( not with their own origin and coordinates ) with coordinates that also use the origin as do the red sensors. Thus, they would be at (3,0) (4,0) and (3,1) wrt to red origin.

Then the blue sensors would be working differently than the red sensors, which defeats the purpose of the applet.

Besides, the only way to do this would be to do one of those coordinate transformations that you have so rigorously proven to be wrong.

steve waterman wrote:3 mentioning that the red readouts and blue readouts are solely based upon the math for Relativity

This is untrue.

steve waterman wrote: a) that when v = 0, both the red and blue readouts manifest the exact transmission site and time

This is obvious.

steve waterman wrote: b) that when v > 0, only the red readouts manifest the exact transmission site and time

This is untrue.

steve waterman wrote: c) if both the red and the blue sensors are assigned v > 0,

then neither readout will manifest the exact transmission time and exact transmission time.

This is untrue.

steve waterman wrote:4 I would LOVE to see the intersection method calculated (x,y,t) results shown/posted on the applet page for the following TOO!...

a) the red circles

b) the blue circles

c) the red hyperbola

d) the blue hyperbola

The math for the circle intersections and the hyperbola intersections is exactly the same, and it's what's implemented in the code. You can disbelieve it all you like, but it's true.

steve waterman wrote:5 a note stating the following parameters

a) while the above depiction only allows for either set of sensors to remain in relative position to one another, this

is not a requirement. All that IS required is that at the INSTANT of transmission receipt, we know the present

universal location and the present universal time for each of any three sensors at THEIR OWN moment of receipt.

This assumes the existence of a universal coordinate system, which the applet clear demonstrates is a fallacy.

steve waterman wrote: b) any three sensors can be used ( 2 red and a blue ) or ( 2 blues and a red )

But only if you use relativistic coordinate transformations, which you take issue with.

steve waterman wrote:6 grid lines per unit distance of 1.00.

If we knew how to draw such grid lines, we wouldn't need to do this multilateralization.

steve waterman wrote:7 all values specified as n.xx or even n.xxx [ x,y,t ]

What purpose would this possibly serve? We're not arguing about effects on the 1% scale.

steve waterman wrote:8 some acknowledgment that the intersection methods/equation/logic were my contribution to this collaborative applet.

You are hardly the first person to come up with multilateraliztion. And despite my repeated requests for you to give me a formula to implement (still an open offer!), you never did.