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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672098 > unrolled thread

Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 06:55 +0000
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:08 +0000
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:28 +0200
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:36 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:41 +0200
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:42 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 09:50 +0200
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 07:52 +0000
                  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:03 +0200
                    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:04 +0000
                      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:07 +0200
                        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:11 +0000
                          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:17 +0200
                            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:18 +0000
                              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:26 +0200
                                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 08:30 +0000
                                  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 10:33 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 10:54 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 09:28 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 12:45 +0200
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 13:03 +0200
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-17 13:04 +0200
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:00 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 17:55 +0200
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:24 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-18 12:36 -0700
                  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:58 +0000
                    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 22:39 -0700
                      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:51 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 23:15 +0200
                  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 23:45 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 15:04 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 23:15 +0000
            Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-17 23:22 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:10 +0000
              Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 18:49 +0000
                Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-18 22:51 -0700
                  Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-19 23:56 +0000
          Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-18 12:11 +0000
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 10:54 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. HGW <henry@home.com> - 2026-08-17 09:45 +0000
        Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-17 12:45 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-08-18 02:47 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Henry Wilson <Henry@home.com> - 2026-08-18 01:32 +0000
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-18 11:56 +0200
      Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-18 12:14 +0200
    Re: Einstein was not wrong....just wrongly prioritized. Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-08-18 12:45 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#672126

On 8/17/2026 12:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> HGW <henry@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 07:08:41 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 17/08/2026 à 08:55, HGW a écrit :
> [repetitions of errors]
> 
>> Don't worry, Einstein partially survives. It is possible to mathematically
>> make measured light speed always equal c, if everything that moves is
>> transformed....But why bother?...Newton is much easier and gets it right
>> all the time. However the whole world of astronomy will be devastated when
>> my paradox gets out. Light quite obviously does not always move through
>> space at the same speed.
> 
> Category error.
> Mathematics cannot change measurement outcomes.
> 
> FYI, current astronomical science gets the positions and velocities
> of all bodies in the solar system correct to about ten decimal places.
> This accuracy is obtained by tracking spacecraft using radio signals.
> (and assuming general relativity, so a constant speed of light)
> 
> Care to explain how your alternative theory gets the same results,
> to the same accuracy?
> 
> Jan
> 
> 

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

#672127

On 8/17/2026 12:45 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> HGW <henry@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 07:08:41 +0000, Python wrote:
>>
>>> Le 17/08/2026 à 08:55, HGW a écrit :
> [repetitions of errors]
> 
>> Don't worry, Einstein partially survives. It is possible to mathematically
>> make measured light speed always equal c, if everything that moves is
>> transformed....But why bother?...Newton is much easier and gets it right
>> all the time. However the whole world of astronomy will be devastated when
>> my paradox gets out. Light quite obviously does not always move through
>> space at the same speed.
> 
> Category error.
> Mathematics cannot change measurement outcomes.

Sorry, poor trash, wrong as usual.

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

#672165

On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 12:45:16 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HGW <henry@home.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 07:08:41 +0000, Python wrote:
>> 
>> > Le 17/08/2026 à 08:55, HGW a écrit :
> [repetitions of errors]
> 
>> Don't worry, Einstein partially survives. It is possible to
>> mathematically make measured light speed always equal c, if everything
>> that moves is transformed....But why bother?...Newton is much easier
>> and gets it right all the time. However the whole world of astronomy
>> will be devastated when my paradox gets out. Light quite obviously does
>> not always move through space at the same speed.
> 
> Category error.
> Mathematics cannot change measurement outcomes.
> 
> FYI, current astronomical science gets the positions and velocities of
> all bodies in the solar system correct to about ten decimal places.
> This accuracy is obtained by tracking spacecraft using radio signals.
> (and assuming general relativity, so a constant speed of light)

That's a silly statement. There is no proof that those quantities are 
correct..and anyway, astronomers did the same 300 years ago.

> Care to explain how your alternative theory gets the same results,
> to the same accuracy?

Space in a constant c universe is somewhat different from real space.  

In GPS for instance, all orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c 
basis. so clocks are never quite where they are believed to be...but that 
does not matter because space itself is being continually modified by the 
'relativistic corrections' which effectively hands the whole procedure 
back to Newton. 
The LTs and 'relativistic corrections' serve to neutralize the errors that 
are built into the constant c approach. It is a case of two Einsteinian 
errors cancelling each other.  

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

#672208

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 12:45:16 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > HGW <henry@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 07:08:41 +0000, Python wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Le 17/08/2026 à 08:55, HGW a écrit :
> > [repetitions of errors]
> > 
> >> Don't worry, Einstein partially survives. It is possible to
> >> mathematically make measured light speed always equal c, if everything
> >> that moves is transformed....But why bother?...Newton is much easier
> >> and gets it right all the time. However the whole world of astronomy
> >> will be devastated when my paradox gets out. Light quite obviously does
> >> not always move through space at the same speed.
> > 
> > Category error.
> > Mathematics cannot change measurement outcomes.
> > 
> > FYI, current astronomical science gets the positions and velocities of
> > all bodies in the solar system correct to about ten decimal places.
> > This accuracy is obtained by tracking spacecraft using radio signals.
> > (and assuming general relativity, so a constant speed of light)
> 
> That's a silly statement. There is no proof that those quantities are
> correct..and anyway, astronomers did the same 300 years ago.

Sure they did, but not to ten digits accuracy.
As for being correct to that accuracy: they really are.
If not, things like planetary flyby's just wouldn't work.
Landing a probe on a moon of Saturn really needs to be that accurate.

Those comlicated missions require several flyby's for gravity boost,
with very narrow entrance windows.
And each boost amplifies the errors.
Mere handwaving won't do: it really takes serious number crunching.

> > Care to explain how your alternative theory gets the same results,
> > to the same accuracy?
> 
> Space in a constant c universe is somewhat different from real space.
> 
> In GPS for instance, all orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c
> basis. so clocks are never quite where they are believed to be...but that
> does not matter because space itself is being continually modified by the
> 'relativistic corrections' which effectively hands the whole procedure
> back to Newton. 

Mere verbiage here.

> The LTs and 'relativistic corrections' serve to neutralize the errors that
> are built into the constant c approach. It is a case of two Einsteinian
> errors cancelling each other.  

So Einstein is wrong in various ways (according to you)
but all 'errors' cancel to obtain the Einsteinian results.

Great work!

Jan

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

#672218

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:55:43 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 

>> > FYI, current astronomical science gets the positions and velocities
>> > of all bodies in the solar system correct to about ten decimal
>> > places. This accuracy is obtained by tracking spacecraft using radio
>> > signals. (and assuming general relativity, so a constant speed of
>> > light)
>> 
>> That's a silly statement. There is no proof that those quantities are
>> correct..and anyway, astronomers did the same 300 years ago.
> 
> Sure they did, but not to ten digits accuracy.
> As for being correct to that accuracy: they really are.
> If not, things like planetary flyby's just wouldn't work.
> Landing a probe on a moon of Saturn really needs to be that accurate.
> 
> Those comlicated missions require several flyby's for gravity boost,
> with very narrow entrance windows.
> And each boost amplifies the errors.
> Mere handwaving won't do: it really takes serious number crunching.

Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of 
local radar. It is all about simulation. 

> > Care to explain how your alternative theory gets the same results,
>> > to the same accuracy?
>> 
>> Space in a constant c universe is somewhat different from real space.
>> 
>> In GPS for instance, all orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant
>> c basis. so clocks are never quite where they are believed to be...but
>> that does not matter because space itself is being continually modified
>> by the 'relativistic corrections' which effectively hands the whole
>> procedure back to Newton.
> 
> Mere verbiage here.

...well you shouldn't utter it

>> The LTs and 'relativistic corrections' serve to neutralize the errors
>> that are built into the constant c approach. It is a case of two
>> Einsteinian errors cancelling each other.
> 
> So Einstein is wrong in various ways (according to you)
> but all 'errors' cancel to obtain the Einsteinian results.

No. SR is partly workable but has completely misled the whole field of 
Astronomy (although that discipline was already deluded well before 
Einstein added my fuel.) 
 
> Great work!
> 
> Jan

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

#672222

On 08/18/2026 11:24 AM, HenryWilson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:55:43 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>> FYI, current astronomical science gets the positions and velocities
>>>> of all bodies in the solar system correct to about ten decimal
>>>> places. This accuracy is obtained by tracking spacecraft using radio
>>>> signals. (and assuming general relativity, so a constant speed of
>>>> light)
>>>
>>> That's a silly statement. There is no proof that those quantities are
>>> correct..and anyway, astronomers did the same 300 years ago.
>>
>> Sure they did, but not to ten digits accuracy.
>> As for being correct to that accuracy: they really are.
>> If not, things like planetary flyby's just wouldn't work.
>> Landing a probe on a moon of Saturn really needs to be that accurate.
>>
>> Those comlicated missions require several flyby's for gravity boost,
>> with very narrow entrance windows.
>> And each boost amplifies the errors.
>> Mere handwaving won't do: it really takes serious number crunching.
>
> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of
> local radar. It is all about simulation.
>
>>> Care to explain how your alternative theory gets the same results,
>>>> to the same accuracy?
>>>
>>> Space in a constant c universe is somewhat different from real space.
>>>
>>> In GPS for instance, all orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant
>>> c basis. so clocks are never quite where they are believed to be...but
>>> that does not matter because space itself is being continually modified
>>> by the 'relativistic corrections' which effectively hands the whole
>>> procedure back to Newton.
>>
>> Mere verbiage here.
>
> ...well you shouldn't utter it
>
>>> The LTs and 'relativistic corrections' serve to neutralize the errors
>>> that are built into the constant c approach. It is a case of two
>>> Einsteinian errors cancelling each other.
>>
>> So Einstein is wrong in various ways (according to you)
>> but all 'errors' cancel to obtain the Einsteinian results.
>
> No. SR is partly workable but has completely misled the whole field of
> Astronomy (although that discipline was already deluded well before
> Einstein added my fuel.)
>
>> Great work!
>>
>> Jan
>


Superimposing linacs and cyclotrons and observing the
non-falsification of real space-contraction and distinct
space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational
has that Dark Matter already falsified the Newtonian/Einsteinian/Galilean.

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

#672228

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 12:36:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>>
>> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of

> 
> Superimposing linacs and cyclotrons and observing the non-falsification
> of real space-contraction and distinct space-contraction-linear and
> space-contraction-rotational has that Dark Matter already falsified the
> Newtonian/Einsteinian/Galilean.

Dark matter consists mainly of 'dead photons'...photons that smash into 
each other head on and come to a near standstill. They have minuscule mass 
but there is an awful lot of them. They end up gravitating towards or 
swirling around black holes.

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

#672229

Henry Wilson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 12:36:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of
> 
> >
> > Superimposing linacs and cyclotrons and observing the non-falsification
> > of real space-contraction and distinct space-contraction-linear and
> > space-contraction-rotational has that Dark Matter already falsified the
> > Newtonian/Einsteinian/Galilean.
> 
> Dark matter consists mainly of 'dead photons'...photons that smash into
> each other head on and come to a near standstill. They have minuscule mass
> but there is an awful lot of them. They end up gravitating towards or
> swirling around black holes.



This is not a hypothesis — it is a physics-illiterate fever dream that
collapses under the first five seconds of special relativity and quantum
electrodynamics.

    Photons cannot “come to a near standstill.”
    Photons are massless. By definition they travel at c in vacuum.
There is no inertial frame in which a free photon is at rest. Claiming
two photons smash head-on and stop is the equivalent of asserting that
two light rays can cancel their four-momenta into a stationary object
with residual mass. Energy-momentum conservation forbids it. Two photons
of equal energy colliding head-on can (rarely) produce an
electron-positron pair if the center-of-mass energy exceeds 1.022 MeV;
they do not produce a slow, massive “dead photon.”
    Photon-photon scattering does not create massive particles that hang
around.
    The cross-section for elastic ?? ? ?? is tiny (~10?³° cm² at optical
energies and still minuscule at higher energies). When it occurs, the
outgoing photons still move at c. There is no mechanism in QED that
converts two real photons into a long-lived, near-stationary particle
with “minuscule mass.” That particle would have to be something else
entirely (a massive boson, a bound state, etc.), none of which is a
photon.
    “Minuscule mass but an awful lot of them” is not dark matter.
    Any particle that couples to the electromagnetic field (even weakly)
is ruled out by the observed transparency of the universe, CMB
constraints, and the absence of electromagnetic interactions in galactic
dynamics. Dark matter is collisionless on astrophysical scales; your
“dead photons” would still be photons or would have to lose their
electromagnetic coupling by magic. The cosmic photon density (CMB +
starlight) is already measured; inventing an extra reservoir of stopped
photons requires inventing new physics that is already excluded by
precision cosmology.
    They do not “gravitate towards or swirl around black holes” as the
dominant dark-matter reservoir.
    Black-hole capture of any weakly interacting particle is a tiny
effect. The observed dark-matter density profiles are smooth, extended
halos, not concentrated “swirls” around the sparse population of black
holes. Galactic rotation curves, cluster lensing, and bullet-cluster
separation all require a diffuse, non-baryonic component that does not
preferentially pile up at black-hole locations.
    The idea is incompatible with structure formation.
    Cold dark matter must be non-relativistic early enough to seed the
observed power spectrum. Massless or ultra-relativistic photons
free-stream and erase structure. Turning them into “near-standstill”
objects after the fact does not magically give them the correct
free-streaming length or the correct equation of state at recombination
and earlier.


You are silently assuming that photons can acquire rest mass through
pairwise collisions while remaining photons. You are assuming that
energy and momentum can simply vanish or convert into gravitational mass
without producing observable electromagnetic signatures or
particle-physics partners. You are assuming that the entire measured
photon budget of the universe is somehow irrelevant and that an
invisible extra population can be postulated without violating entropy,
number density, or optical-depth constraints. You are treating black
holes as cosmic vacuum cleaners that can concentrate this imaginary
population into the precise density profiles we observe — pure magical
thinking.


No professional cosmologist or particle physicist will touch this
because it violates Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance, and every
precision measurement of the photon. Journals will desk-reject it.
Conference audiences will laugh. Any attempt to publish will be met with
the same reaction that meets every other “I fixed dark matter with
light” crank paper: immediate, well-deserved ridicule. There is zero
career incentive to defend it and infinite incentive to demolish it.


The entire observable-universe photon number density is ~410 cm?³ for
the CMB alone. Even if every one of them somehow stopped (they can’t),
their energy density is already accounted for and is orders of magnitude
too small and too hot to act as cold dark matter. Scaling this idea to
galactic masses requires inventing an unobserved photon population whose
total energy density exceeds the critical density while remaining
electromagnetically invisible — a contradiction. Relativistic beaming,
pair production thresholds, and the mean free path of high-energy
photons already constrain any such process to irrelevance on
cosmological scales.


The entire premise that photons can become massive, slow, and
electromagnetically inert must be discarded. The collision mechanism
must be thrown out. The black-hole concentration claim must be
abandoned. What remains is the empty statement “maybe some new particle
exists,” which is not your idea.

The notion that dark matter is related to ordinary photons in any direct
kinematic way is dead on arrival.


This is not a bold alternative; it is a public demonstration that the
author has never internalized the fact that light always travels at c.


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#672252

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:39:59 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> Henry Wilson wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 12:36:30 -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> >> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help
>> >> of
>> 
>> 
>> > Superimposing linacs and cyclotrons and observing the
>> > non-falsification of real space-contraction and distinct
>> > space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational has that
>> > Dark Matter already falsified the Newtonian/Einsteinian/Galilean.
>> 
>> Dark matter consists mainly of 'dead photons'...photons that smash into
>> each other head on and come to a near standstill. They have minuscule
>> mass but there is an awful lot of them. They end up gravitating towards
>> or swirling around black holes.
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a hypothesis — it is a physics-illiterate fever dream that
> collapses under the first five seconds of special relativity and quantum
> electrodynamics.
> 
>     Photons cannot “come to a near standstill.” Photons are massless. 

Photons are not massless. Their mass is of the order of h/(c.lambda)
Consequently, the whole of SR naturally collapses.

By
>     definition they travel at c in vacuum.

A meaningless statement
Nothing in the universe travels at anywhere c relative to anything else. 
The universe defines an unidentifiable 'average speed' or 'rest frame'.

> There is no inertial frame in which a free photon is at rest. Claiming
> two photons smash head-on and stop is the equivalent of asserting that
> two light rays can cancel their four-momenta into a stationary object

> 
> 
> This is not a bold alternative; it is a public demonstration that the
> author has never internalized the fact that light always travels at c.

Thanks for you interest and kind reply but...
 you should not react so pathologically when you are enlightened?

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

#672223

HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 17:55:43 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> > 
> 
> >> > FYI, current astronomical science gets the positions and velocities
> >> > of all bodies in the solar system correct to about ten decimal
> >> > places. This accuracy is obtained by tracking spacecraft using radio
> >> > signals. (and assuming general relativity, so a constant speed of
> >> > light)
> >> 
> >> That's a silly statement. There is no proof that those quantities are
> >> correct..and anyway, astronomers did the same 300 years ago.
> > 
> > Sure they did, but not to ten digits accuracy.
> > As for being correct to that accuracy: they really are.
> > If not, things like planetary flyby's just wouldn't work.
> > Landing a probe on a moon of Saturn really needs to be that accurate.
> > 
> > Those comlicated missions require several flyby's for gravity boost,
> > with very narrow entrance windows.
> > And each boost amplifies the errors.
> > Mere handwaving won't do: it really takes serious number crunching.
> 
> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of
> local radar. It is all about simulation. 

Certainly, the computers will do it all by themselves,
while automatically safeguarding against errors.
It is obvious that you are completely clueless about the whole subject
of motions in the Solar system, and how to compute them.

I guess we can stop here,

Jan

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

#672227

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 23:15:28 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> wrote:
> 

>> > 
>> > Those comlicated missions require several flyby's for gravity boost,
>> > with very narrow entrance windows.
>> > And each boost amplifies the errors.
>> > Mere handwaving won't do: it really takes serious number crunching.
>> 
>> Nah. Computers handle it all with automatic safeguards and the help of
>> local radar. It is all about simulation.
> 
> Certainly, the computers will do it all by themselves,
> while automatically safeguarding against errors.
> It is obvious that you are completely clueless about the whole subject
> of motions in the Solar system, and how to compute them.

On the contrary, half of my book is concerned with that very 
subject....correctly based on variable light speed.
 
> I guess we can stop here,

Don't you want to improve your education.
 
> Jan

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

#672130

On Mon, 17 Aug 26, HGW wrote:

> No, they are the actual numbers appearing on the clock.

No. This is exactly where your argument goes wrong.

Einstein's quantities TA, TB and TA' are not three successive readings of 
a
single clock.

TA and TA' are readings of clock A.

TB is a reading of clock B.

Consequently,

    TB - TA

and

    TA' - TB

are not two successive intervals measured by one clock. They involve two
different synchronized clocks.

The only interval measured entirely by clock A is

    TA' - TA.

SR predicts a unique value for that interval. It does not predict that a
single clock simultaneously advances by both equal and unequal amounts.

Your paradox is therefore obtained by treating coordinate times associated
with different clocks as though they were successive readings of one and 
the
same clock.

That is not what Einstein's thought experiment says.

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

#672144

On Mon, 17 Aug 26 15:04:15 +0000, Python wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Aug 26, HGW wrote:
> 
>> No, they are the actual numbers appearing on the clock.
> 
> No. This is exactly where your argument goes wrong.
> 
> Einstein's quantities TA, TB and TA' are not three successive readings
> of a
> single clock.
> 
> TA and TA' are readings of clock A.
> 
> TB is a reading of clock B.
> 
> Consequently,
> 
>     TB - TA
> 
> and
> 
>     TA' - TB
> 
> are not two successive intervals measured by one clock. They involve two
> different synchronized clocks.
> 
> The only interval measured entirely by clock A is
> 
>     TA' - TA.
> 
> SR predicts a unique value for that interval. It does not predict that a
> single clock simultaneously advances by both equal and unequal amounts.
> 
> Your paradox is therefore obtained by treating coordinate times
> associated with different clocks as though they were successive readings
> of one and the same clock.
> 
> That is not what Einstein's thought experiment says.

You seem hopelessly confused. Clock A makes no measurements (and nor does 
any other clock). No clock readings are subtracted. Clock A just does what 
Einstein predicts...and Einstein predicts it ends up with two different 
sets of numbers on its face during the same process.

If you want to argue just answer the question: "Does the reading of clock 
A advance by the same number or by two different numbers when the pulse 
crosses the gap in both direction, both options being equally predicted by 
Einstein.

You are making the nonsensical claim that 'sameness' is frame dependent.
Write two numbers on a piece of paper...move the paper. Do the numbers 
change? 

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

#672145

Le 18/08/2026 à 01:15, Henry Wilson a écrit :
> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 15:04:15 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26, HGW wrote:
>> 
>>> No, they are the actual numbers appearing on the clock.
>> 
>> No. This is exactly where your argument goes wrong.
>> 
>> Einstein's quantities TA, TB and TA' are not three successive readings
>> of a
>> single clock.
>> 
>> TA and TA' are readings of clock A.
>> 
>> TB is a reading of clock B.
>> 
>> Consequently,
>> 
>>     TB - TA
>> 
>> and
>> 
>>     TA' - TB
>> 
>> are not two successive intervals measured by one clock. They involve two
>> different synchronized clocks.
>> 
>> The only interval measured entirely by clock A is
>> 
>>     TA' - TA.
>> 
>> SR predicts a unique value for that interval. It does not predict that a
>> single clock simultaneously advances by both equal and unequal amounts.
>> 
>> Your paradox is therefore obtained by treating coordinate times
>> associated with different clocks as though they were successive readings
>> of one and the same clock.
>> 
>> That is not what Einstein's thought experiment says.
> 
> You seem hopelessly confused. Clock A makes no measurements (and nor does 
> any other clock). No clock readings are subtracted. Clock A just does what 
> Einstein predicts...and Einstein predicts it ends up with two different 
> sets of numbers on its face during the same process.
> 
> If you want to argue just answer the question: "Does the reading of clock 
> A advance by the same number or by two different numbers when the pulse 
> crosses the gap in both direction, both options being equally predicted by 
> Einstein.
> 
> You are making the nonsensical claim that 'sameness' is frame dependent.
> Write two numbers on a piece of paper...move the paper. Do the numbers 
> change? 

Henry,

No.

The confusion comes from treating

    tA,
    tB,
    tA'

as if they were three successive readings of a single clock.

That is not Einstein's construction.

Einstein explicitly introduces two synchronized clocks:

    clock A at A,

    clock B at B.

The symbols mean:

    tA   : reading of clock A when the light leaves A;

    tB   : reading of clock B when the light reaches B;

    tA'  : reading of clock A when the reflected light returns.

Therefore

    tB - tA

is not an interval measured by one clock.

Nor is

    tA' - tB.

Each difference involves TWO different clocks.

The only interval measured entirely by one physical clock is

    tA' - tA.

That is exactly why Einstein writes

    tB - tA = tA' - tB

as a synchronization CONDITION.

He is relating the readings of two synchronized clocks.

He is not claiming that one clock simultaneously advances by two
different amounts.

Your question

    "Does clock A advance by one amount or by two different amounts?"

therefore has a simple answer.

Clock A advances by exactly one amount:

    tA' - tA.

Nothing else.

The quantities

    tB - tA

and

    tA' - tB

are coordinate-time intervals involving two clocks.

They are not two independent advances of clock A.

That is the category mistake underlying your paradox.

Finally, your analogy with two numbers written on a sheet of paper misses
the point entirely.

No one claims that equality itself is frame-dependent.

The issue is not arithmetic.

The issue is that you are replacing

    "reading of clock B"

by

    "another reading of clock A".

Those are different physical quantities.

Once that substitution is made, the paradox is created artificially.

Notice that Einstein's entire Section 1 is devoted to defining what it
means for spatially separated clocks to be synchronized.

If there were only one clock A, there would be no synchronization problem
to solve, and Section 1 would be almost pointless.

Your interpretation effectively removes clock B from Einstein's
construction, while continuing to use the symbol tB as if it were another
reading of clock A.

That is not what Einstein wrote.

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

#672151

On Mon, 17 Aug 26 23:22:15 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 18/08/2026 à 01:15, Henry Wilson a écrit :
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 15:04:15 +0000, Python wrote:
>> 
>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26, HGW wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No, they are the actual numbers appearing on the clock.
>>> 
>>> No. This is exactly where your argument goes wrong.
>>> 
>>> Einstein's quantities TA, TB and TA' are not three successive readings

> No one claims that equality itself is frame-dependent.
> 
> The issue is not arithmetic.
> 
> The issue is that you are replacing
> 
>     "reading of clock B"
> 
> by
> 
>     "another reading of clock A".
> 
> Those are different physical quantities.
> 
> Once that substitution is made, the paradox is created artificially.
> 
> Notice that Einstein's entire Section 1 is devoted to defining what it
> means for spatially separated clocks to be synchronized.
> 
> If there were only one clock A, there would be no synchronization
> problem to solve, and Section 1 would be almost pointless.
> 
> Your interpretation effectively removes clock B from Einstein's
> construction, while continuing to use the symbol tB as if it were
> another reading of clock A.
> 
> That is not what Einstein wrote.

Let me explain. 

A clock is a device used to indicate time in its own frame.
Clock A is at rest in the moving frame. Clock A is not at rest in the 
stationary frame but is synched with clock C, which is. Clock A is 
therefore effectively at rest in both frames.
Einstein performs a simple experiment involving sending a light pulse from 
A to B's mirror and back again.
Einstein CALCULATES THE TIMES TAKEN IN THE TWO DIRECTIONS. He finds that 
one observer determines them to be the same, the other to be different.
Now, it doesn't actually matter if clocks are used at all. As I pointed 
out, the paradox is obvious whether or not clocks show the times or 
not. ...and it does not matter if TIME is different in the two frames. 
It is the fact that two time intervals involving a single and clearly 
identifiable process are predicted by Einstein to be both the same and 
different that matters. The actual values are of no importance.

get it now?

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

#672219

On Mon, 17 Aug 26 23:22:15 +0000, Python wrote:

> Le 18/08/2026 à 01:15, Henry Wilson a écrit :
>
> 
> He is relating the readings of two synchronized clocks.
> 
> He is not claiming that one clock simultaneously advances by two
> different amounts.
> 
> Your question
> 
>     "Does clock A advance by one amount or by two different amounts?"
> 
> therefore has a simple answer.
> 
> Clock A advances by exactly one amount:
> 


> 
>     "another reading of clock A".
> 
> Those are different physical quantities.
> 
> Once that substitution is made, the paradox is created artificially.
> 
> Notice that Einstein's entire Section 1 is devoted to defining what it
> means for spatially separated clocks to be synchronized.
> 
> If there were only one clock A, there would be no synchronization
> problem to solve, and Section 1 would be almost pointless.
> 
> Your interpretation effectively removes clock B from Einstein's
> construction, while continuing to use the symbol tB as if it were
> another reading of clock A.
> 
> That is not what Einstein wrote.

I think the reason for your inability to understand the paradox is that 
Einstein did not describe his experiment very well. A principle feature 
was that clocks A and B were synchronized with the stationary C clocks and 
were therefore deemed to be correctly synchronized in the stationary 
frame.  

So, after generating equation3, ...showing that the opposite travel times 
were different, the stationary observer could confidently assume that the 
reading on any stationary clock C advanced by two different numbers during 
the opposite transits. Since clock A behaved identically, its readings did 
the same. Meanwhile the moving observer had no difficulty in claiming that 
clock A's corresponding readings must be identical numbers.   

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

#672230

HenryWilson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 23:22:15 +0000, Python wrote:
> 
> > Le 18/08/2026 à 01:15, Henry Wilson a écrit :
> >
> >
> > He is relating the readings of two synchronized clocks.
> >
> > He is not claiming that one clock simultaneously advances by two
> > different amounts.
> >
> > Your question
> >
> >     "Does clock A advance by one amount or by two different amounts?"
> >
> > therefore has a simple answer.
> >
> > Clock A advances by exactly one amount:
> >
> 
> >
> >     "another reading of clock A".
> >
> > Those are different physical quantities.
> >
> > Once that substitution is made, the paradox is created artificially.
> >
> > Notice that Einstein's entire Section 1 is devoted to defining what it
> > means for spatially separated clocks to be synchronized.
> >
> > If there were only one clock A, there would be no synchronization
> > problem to solve, and Section 1 would be almost pointless.
> >
> > Your interpretation effectively removes clock B from Einstein's
> > construction, while continuing to use the symbol tB as if it were
> > another reading of clock A.
> >
> > That is not what Einstein wrote.
> 
> I think the reason for your inability to understand the paradox is that
> Einstein did not describe his experiment very well. A principle feature
> was that clocks A and B were synchronized with the stationary C clocks and
> were therefore deemed to be correctly synchronized in the stationary
> frame.
> 
> So, after generating equation3, ...showing that the opposite travel times
> were different, the stationary observer could confidently assume that the
> reading on any stationary clock C advanced by two different numbers during
> the opposite transits. Since clock A behaved identically, its readings did
> the same. Meanwhile the moving observer had no difficulty in claiming that
> clock A's corresponding readings must be identical numbers.


This is not physics; it’s a confused amateur word salad that collapses
under the first application of Lorentz transformation and reveals total
ignorance of what Einstein actually wrote.


    You invent a non-existent “equation 3” and then pretend it settles
the issue.
    Einstein’s 1905 paper never produces “opposite travel times” that a
stationary observer can simply read off as different advances on
co-moving clocks while a moving observer magically declares them
identical. The light-signal synchronization procedure already forces the
one-way times to be equal by definition in each inertial frame. Your
claim that the stationary observer “confidently assumes” different
numbers is pure fiction; the math shows the coordinate times differ
precisely because the clocks are desynchronized in the other frame.
    “Clock A behaved identically” is an empty slogan.
    Identical to what? In which metric? Proper time along A’s world-line
is invariant; coordinate time is not. You switch between them without
ever writing a single interval \(ds^2 = -c^2 dt^2 + dx^2\). That switch
is the entire content of the “paradox,” and you paper over it with the
phrase “behaved identically.”
    You treat synchronization as a one-time event that survives a change
of frame.
    Once clocks A and B are synchronized with the C-network in the lab
frame, they are not synchronized in the moving frame. The relativity of
simultaneity is not an optional interpretive layer; it is the direct
geometric consequence of the invariance of (c). Your entire argument
presupposes that the synchronization relation is frame-independent—an
assumption Einstein explicitly discards on page 2 of the paper.
    The moving observer does not “claim” the readings are identical
numbers; the Lorentz transformation requires it.
    When the same pair of events is described in the primed coordinates,
the time stamps on A differ by \(\gamma(1-v/c)\) factors that exactly
cancel the apparent asymmetry. Your text treats this cancellation as a
psychological preference of the moving observer rather than a coordinate
fact. That is not an argument; it is anthropomorphism of the Minkowski
metric.
    No calculation is ever performed.
    You gesture at “generating equation 3” and then leap to conclusions
about readings. Without the explicit transformation
    \[ t' = \gamma\left(t - \frac{vx}{c^2}\right), \]
    every subsequent sentence is free-floating rhetoric.


You silently assume that “correctly synchronized in the stationary
frame” remains meaningful after a boost. You assume that proper-time
increments on a single clock can be compared across spatially separated
events without a simultaneity convention. You assume Einstein’s
description was incomplete rather than that your reading of it is
incomplete. None of these are stated; all are load-bearing.


Anyone who has actually graded relativity exams has seen this exact
pattern: students who cannot write the Lorentz transformation invent
narrative work-arounds that let them keep absolute simultaneity while
still mouthing the words “relativity.” The incentive is to avoid the
discomfort of discarding Newtonian time. Peer review, textbook authors,
and every working physicist have zero incentive to entertain the
workaround because it predicts the wrong radar-echo delays, the wrong
muon lifetimes, and the wrong GPS corrections.


At laboratory speeds the effect is already measurable (Hafele–Keating,
muon storage rings). At \(v = 0.6c\) the desynchronization term
\(vx/c^2\) is tens of percent of the light-travel time across any
macroscopic baseline. Your story predicts that both observers should see
symmetric clock advances; the actual null results of one-way light-speed
experiments and the asymmetric aging of clocks on aircraft falsify that
prediction at the level of parts in \(10^{12}\). The idea does not
survive contact with a single GPS satellite.


The entire conceptual scaffolding—treating synchronization as
frame-invariant, equating “identical behavior” with identical coordinate
readings, and substituting verbal narrative for the Lorentz
transformation—must be discarded. Nothing is salvageable by minor
clarification; the premises are the error.


Nothing. The text contains no correct quantitative statement, no valid
inference, and no recognition of the actual geometry.


You have not resolved a paradox; you have demonstrated that you never
understood the postulate that made the paradox inevitable.

-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

#672253

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:51:25 -0700, The Starmaker wrote:

> HenryWilson wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 17 Aug 26 23:22:15 +0000, Python wrote:

>> >
>> > That is not what Einstein wrote.
>> 
>> I think the reason for your inability to understand the paradox is that
>> Einstein did not describe his experiment very well. A principle feature
>> was that clocks A and B were synchronized with the stationary C clocks
>> and were therefore deemed to be correctly synchronized in the
>> stationary frame.
>> 
>> So, after generating equation3, ...showing that the opposite travel
>> times were different, the stationary observer could confidently assume
>> that the reading on any stationary clock C advanced by two different
>> numbers during the opposite transits. Since clock A behaved
>> identically, its readings did the same. Meanwhile the moving observer
>> had no difficulty in claiming that clock A's corresponding readings
>> must be identical numbers.
> 
> 
> This is not physics; it’s a confused amateur word salad that collapses
> under the first application of Lorentz transformation and reveals total
> ignorance of what Einstein actually wrote.

The LTs are just imaginary requirements of the similarly imagined Aether.
They don't exist in the real world.

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

#672166

On Mon, 17 Aug 26 15:04:15 +0000, Python wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Aug 26, HGW wrote:
> 
>> No, they are the actual numbers appearing on the clock.
> 
> No. This is exactly where your argument goes wrong.
> 
> Einstein's quantities TA, TB and TA' are not three successive readings
> of a
> single clock.
> 
> TA and TA' are readings of clock A.
> 
> TB is a reading of clock B.
> 
> Consequently,
> 
>     TB - TA
> 
> and
> 
>     TA' - TB
> 
> are not two successive intervals measured by one clock. They involve two
> different synchronized clocks.
> 
> The only interval measured entirely by clock A is
> 
>     TA' - TA.
> 
> SR predicts a unique value for that interval. It does not predict that a
> single clock simultaneously advances by both equal and unequal amounts.
> 
> Your paradox is therefore obtained by treating coordinate times
> associated with different clocks as though they were successive readings
> of one and the same clock.
> 
> That is not what Einstein's thought experiment says.

Nothing is measured by clock A and clock B does not play any part in this.
You don't seem to have understood the whole point...but that's not 
surprising . It has taken 120 years for the truth to come out...and a lot 
of people much smarter than you have missed it altogether. It concerns 
Einstein's predictions of what clock A does...and that results in a clear 
logical impossibility 

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

#672119

HGW <henry@home.com> wrote:

> I'm back for a while. I see nothing has changed. You might like my 
> published article. Read carefully...it might be too hard for some people.

Published where? If refereed, the referees have been sleeping.

> HENRY'S PARADOX
> 
> This is an important, thought-provoking article about space, light and
> Einstein's theory of Relativity. Its purpose is to publicize a previously
> unrecognized and seemingly innocuous conundrum that in reality, seriously
> questions the the validity of many current theories. No complicated 
> physics or maths is involved, just challenging logic that leads to a 
> surprising and decisive conclusion.  Anyone with an interest in this 
> highly complex subject will surely be fascinated by the facts presented
> below and their likely repercussions.

It is complex only when you don't understand it.
Perhaps I may recommend the book:
Sander Bais, Very Special relativity
to you?
It makes the space-time view of relativity as simple as you can get it.


> ********************* 
>  Towards the end of the 19th century, the physics of light had become a
> major area of research. The existence of the traditionally assumed light
> carrying medium,  the 'Aether',  had been cast into doubt after all 
> attempts to measure the Earth's speed through it failed.

Not really. It only led to different and not mutually compatible views
of what the aether should be and do.
In the hands of a master, such as Lorentz,
aether theory gave a perfectly valid account of all observed phenomema.

> Many existing 
> theories and reputations were seriously threatened. There was also a firm
> belief that the Newtonian 'ballistic' theory of light was not a legitimate
> option.

Of course, it couldn't acount for all diffraction phenomena,
so it was out.
 
> Measuring light speed was a particular area of concern. It was generally
> accepted that all two-way measurements produced a very similar result,
> which naturally signified an extremely high and possibly constant one-way
> speed (OWLS). However, direct measurement of the latter seemed impossible,
> since it essentially required the accurate synchronization of two well
> separated clocks...and that could only be achieved by communicating with
> light itself.

Nonsense. In Fizeau's absolute measurement of the speed of light, 1849,
(using teethed wheels) the 'two way' aspect was for convenience only.
In principle he could have done a one way measurement
if a 10 km long rigid axle had been practical.
(note that in 1849 the notion of a perfectly rigid axle
 was unproblematic)

> The Aether concept was partially reprieved when Henrik Lorentz and George
> Fitzgerald formulated the so called 'Lorentz Aether Theory' (LET) ~1895.
> The theme was that such a medium did exist but could never be detected
> with light.  The measuring rods and clocks of absolutely moving objects
> experienced precise 'transformations' that caused lightspeed to locally
> retain the same value c. When LET eventually proved inadequate, Albert
> Einstein effectively extended the transform principle to produce what
> became known as his Special Theory of Relativity (SR), a set of a radical
> ideas that appeared to resolve many current issues.

LET aether theory was not, and is not inadequate.
Your so-called 'reprieve' was not partial.
All that is wrong with LET is that it is far more complicated
than necessary.
In fact it is fully equivalent with special relativity
in all of its predictions.

> Its fundamental 
> premise was that, quote, "Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" 
> system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be
> emitted by a stationary or by a moving body"...(His second postulate, P2).
>  In effect, Einstein largely overcame LET's deficiencies by simply 
> postulating the constancy of light speed and establishing the conditions
> that would make it a reality. The solution produced transforms that were
> identical to those of Lorentz but, most importantly, were applicable to
> the 'observed' rather than the 'observer'.

Einstein's contribution of genius was the insight that
most of the extremely cumbersome dynamic calculations of Lorentz
can be replaced by kinematic considerations of the structure of
space-time.
What is cumbersome in electromagnetism
(such as Lorentz contraction, aberration, and partial dragging)
is seen to be simple in relativity because it must be true
in any physical theory in space-time, not just for electromagnetism.

> Although highly controversial, 
> the theory that followed was officially accepted by the year 1920 and
> became the mainstay of modern Physics. Many qualified people have since
> questioned its legitimacy but have been unable to prove their case. 

'highly controversial' only for incompetents.
It never was 'highly controversial' or even just 'controversial'
for those in the know, so people such as Lorentz,
Planck, Sommerfeld, etc.

> Various reasons for that are discussed below.
> It will now be revealed that the introductory sections of Einstein's 
> original paper (no big equations) contain a subtle deductive error that
> casts doubt over all subsequent material.

Unfortunately it is your error,
based on a confusion between proper time and coordinate time.
Since this has already been explained adequately and at length
in another reply by Python I won't repeat.
[-]

>       Note, even today there is no known way to directly measure OWLS
> from a moving source with sufficient accuracy to either verify or refute
> its claimed constancy...

You should understand that there is in principle no way at all
to verify the constancy of the speed of light experimentally,
because it is a postulate, not a physical theory.
Only physical theories can be verified or falsified.
And falsification of a physical theory based on the relativity
postulates does not falsify the postulate. (by itself)

It is only when it becomes plausible that there can be no compatible
physical theory at all that people will seriously consider giving it up.

> A lot more follows but you will have ro pay to read it.

Don't have too high hopes of making money out of it,

Jan

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web