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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #407553 > unrolled thread

Michelson confirms anisotropic light

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

Contents

  Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-01 20:13 -0800
    Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-01 20:18 -0800
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-01 22:02 -0800
        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 07:06 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 15:39 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 16:03 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 16:16 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 16:40 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 22:18 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 04:52 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 05:02 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 05:36 -0800
                  Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 16:05 -0800
                    Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-04 19:46 -0800
                      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 20:52 -0800
                        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 04:51 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:35 -0600
                  Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-04 16:01 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-04 06:26 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 16:08 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-06 22:25 -0800
            Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-04 17:34 -0600
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 08:00 +0100
        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 01:40 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 11:18 +0100
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 08:57 -0600
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 08:58 -0800
        Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 09:28 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 18:19 -0800
          Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 17:36 +0100
      Re: Cretin Peter Riedt hard at work alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-02 18:37 -0800
    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 09:30 -0600
      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 15:47 -0800
        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-02 21:24 -0600
          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 20:13 -0800
            Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-02 21:00 -0800
              Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-02 23:14 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 23:18 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 04:19 -0800
                Re: Cretin Peter Riedt perseveres "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-03 06:28 -0800
            Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-06 09:39 -0600
              Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-06 20:35 -0800
                Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 06:50 +0100
                Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 05:22 -0800
                  Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 16:27 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:15 -0800
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-07 18:21 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 18:34 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 19:55 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 06:48 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:38 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 07:37 +0100
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 17:26 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:02 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:22 +0100
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:41 -0800
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-07 23:39 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:36 -0600
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:37 -0600
              Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 16:58 -0800
                Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-02-08 20:15 -0500
                  Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 18:46 -0800
                    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:39 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-08 22:56 -0800
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 07:58 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:32 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:40 +0100
                      Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2017-02-08 23:36 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:42 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:43 +0100
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:53 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 08:59 +0100
                          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-09 00:20 -0800
                        Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2017-02-09 07:22 -0800
          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-02-02 22:55 -0800
          Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-03 12:15 -0800
            Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 12:36 -0800
    Re: Michelson confirms anisotropic light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 12:32 -0800

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#408492

On 2/8/2017 7:58 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40:00 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
>>> MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.
>>
>> Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.
>>
>>> Why does it
>>> have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not accepted (c+v and c-v
>>> refuted by experiment). Without the variation of the speed of light the logic
>>> of Michelson and his rationale for finding the aether is null and void.
>>
>> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
>>
>> Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related)
>> experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE
>> EXPERIMENTS.
>>
>> The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.
>>
>>> Yet
>>> science persists in using MMX and the Lorentz gamma formula arising out of it
>>> as the cornerstore  of a bizarre theory. SR has no legitimate foundation.
>>
>
> According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent perpendicular to the motion it is c.
>
> I would appreciate it if you could clarify how SR reconciles Michelson's c+v and c-v with Einstein's postulate that c is always constant.
>
That's easy. You are just plain wrong. Michelson conducted many 
experiments showing that the velocity of the light sources DOES NOT 
change the speed of the light coming out of it. Get your head around 
that first. Go ask Odd for more details.

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

#408503

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 9:15:07 AM UTC+8, benj wrote:
> On 2/8/2017 7:58 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 11:40:00 PM UTC+8, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 2/2/17 2/2/17 - 10:13 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:R
> >>> MMX is hailed as the most important experiment in modern physics.
> >>
> >> Hmmm. It's certainly one of the most important ones.
> >>
> >>> Why does it
> >>> have this status when its logic of c+v and c-v is not accepted (c+v and c-v
> >>> refuted by experiment). Without the variation of the speed of light the logic
> >>> of Michelson and his rationale for finding the aether is null and void.
> >>
> >> Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
> >>
> >> Yes, the THEORY which motivated Michelson to perform this (and related)
> >> experiments has been refuted. THAT'S BECAUSE WE LEARNED SOMETHING FROM THE
> >> EXPERIMENTS.
> >>
> >> The experiment itself does not depend on the theory that motivated it.
> >>
> >>> Yet
> >>> science persists in using MMX and the Lorentz gamma formula arising out of it
> >>> as the cornerstore  of a bizarre theory. SR has no legitimate foundation.
> >>
> >
> > According to Michelson the speed of light depends on the motion of the target. If light is sent in the direction of motion the speed is c-v, if against the direction of motion it is c+v and only if sent perpendicular to the motion it is c.
> >
> > I would appreciate it if you could clarify how SR reconciles Michelson's c+v and c-v with Einstein's postulate that c is always constant.
> >
> That's easy. You are just plain wrong. Michelson conducted many 
> experiments showing that the velocity of the light sources DOES NOT 
> change the speed of the light coming out of it. Get your head around 
> that first. Go ask Odd for more details.

It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.

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

#408515

Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
> It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.

It was thought in his time the velocities obey
the rule of vector addition.

It was realized later they do obey it
just approximately, for speeds << c.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408519

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 07:39:08 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> It was realized later they do obey it
> just approximately, for speeds << c.

It wasn't realized. It was imagined by an
insane crazie and repeated by brainwashed
halfbrains. 

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

#408520

Dne 09/02/2017 v 07:39 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>
>> It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.
> 
> It was thought in his time the velocities obey
> the rule of vector addition.
> 
> It was realized later they do obey it
> just approximately, for speeds << c.
> 
Let there are 3 objects along the line

----A-------B---------C---------

B is in rest,
A moves left with speed va,
C moves right with speed vc

For reference frame where A is in rest,
B moves at speed va.

But C DOES NOT moves with speed va + vc.

C moves for him with speed

( va + vc ) / ( 1 + va . vc / c^2 )

if vc = c, then

( va + c ) / ( 1 + va / c ) = c . ( va + c )/( va + c ) = c




-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408521

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:39:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > 
> > It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.
> 
> It was thought in his time the velocities obey
> the rule of vector addition.
> 
> It was realized later they do obey it
> just approximately, for speeds << c.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

c+v does not equal 300000000+30000 but less or more?
c-v does not equal 300000000-30000 but less or more?

Does it matter for MMX? If yes why?

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

#408523

Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:32 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:39:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>> It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.
>>
>> It was thought in his time the velocities obey
>> the rule of vector addition.
>>
>> It was realized later they do obey it
>> just approximately, for speeds << c.
>>
> 
> c+v does not equal 300000000+30000 but less or more?
> c-v does not equal 300000000-30000 but less or more?

Either use c, either use 299792458,
but do not use 300000000,
especially for adding small values to it.

> 
> Does it matter for MMX? If yes why?

Does use MMX light ?

Why not to learn anything about SR,
before making claim about it ?


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408522

On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:39:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > 
> > It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.
> 
> It was thought in his time the velocities obey
> the rule of vector addition.
> 
> It was realized later they do obey it
> just approximately, for speeds << c.
> 
> -- 
> Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> 
> A wise man guards words he says,
> as they say about him more,
> than he says about the subject.

Einstein ruled out 300000000+30000 but not 300000000-30000.

Michelson accepted both, violating Einstein's postulate.

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

#408524

Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:36 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:39:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
>> Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
>>>
>>> It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.
>>
>> It was thought in his time the velocities obey
>> the rule of vector addition.
>>
>> It was realized later they do obey it
>> just approximately, for speeds << c.
>>

> 
> Einstein ruled out 300000000+30000 but not 300000000-30000.

Einstein also derived the role
for velocity additions for high velocities.

> Michelson accepted both, violating Einstein's postulate.
> 
It dos not matter, you accept many things
violating most of fundamental physical laws.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408525

Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:42 Poutnik napsal(a):
> 
> Einstein also derived the role
> for velocity additions for high velocities.

Errata> rule, not role :-)

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408526

Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:36 Peter Riedt napsal(a):

> Michelson accepted both, violating Einstein's postulate.

Michelson was not aware of non additivity of velocities
nor of the c speed limit,
nor of broken invariance of Maxwell equation wrt Galileo transformation.

For both mutually moving objects A and B,
being both simultaneously light source and detector,
incoming and leaving light propagates at speed c.

Deal with that.

-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408528

Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:53 Poutnik napsal(a):
> Dne 09/02/2017 v 08:36 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> 
>> Michelson accepted both, violating Einstein's postulate.
> 
> [...]
> 
> For both mutually *inertially* moving objects A and B,
> being both simultaneously light source and detector,
> incoming and leaving light propagates at speed c.
> 


-- 
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

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

#408535

W dniu czwartek, 9 lutego 2017 08:53:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Poutnik napisał:

> For both mutually moving objects A and B,
> being both simultaneously light source and detector,
> incoming and leaving light propagates at speed c.

No object ever denied it, so it must be true.
Though, of course, if an object denied - it would
only mean that it is a stupid reality denier.

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

#408599

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:36:04 PM UTC-8, Peter Riedt wrote:
> On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 2:39:08 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
> > Dne 09/02/2017 v 03:46 Peter Riedt napsal(a):
> > > 
> > > It may not depend on the speed of the source but he clearly thought it depends on the speed of the target. Please grasp the meaning of c+v and c-v.
> > 
> > It was thought in his time the velocities obey
> > the rule of vector addition.
> > 
> > It was realized later they do obey it
> > just approximately, for speeds << c.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
> > 
> > A wise man guards words he says,
> > as they say about him more,
> > than he says about the subject.
> 
> Einstein ruled out 300000000+30000 but not 300000000-30000.
> 

False.


> Michelson accepted both, violating Einstein's postulate.

False. take your meds. 

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

#407673

W dniu piątek, 3 lutego 2017 04:24:17 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 2/2/17 2/2/17   5:47 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > My post focuses on c+v and c-v which are essential for the logic of MMX.
> 
> Not to the EXPERIMENT, only to the THEORY they used to analyze the experiment, 
> AND IT IS REFUTED BY THE EXPERIMENT.

No, it wasn't. Screaming "REFUTED!!!REFUTED!!!"
won't help.

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

#407746

W dniu piątek, 3 lutego 2017 04:24:17 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 2/2/17 2/2/17   5:47 PM, Peter Riedt wrote:
> > My post focuses on c+v and c-v which are essential for the logic of MMX.
> 
> Not to the EXPERIMENT, only to the THEORY they used to analyze the experiment, 
> AND IT IS REFUTED BY THE EXPERIMENT.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Just the experiments showed: c - v is correct.
The c = const/inv fallacy has been refuted long time ago... in the middle ages or on the earlier stage.. probably in the ancient barbarian's science!

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

#407749

The Null result of MMX is Because the inside of a sphere is always 180 degrees relative to the outside of the same sphere

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/ltrans.html

The acceleration of gravity is the MMX fringe Shift 

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

#407748

Peter



If c - v and c + v are correct, than what use is Michelson's experiment ?Henceforth, the anisotropic effect of light but the basic method using diffraction is also questionable since combining to laser beams does not produce a diffraction effect on a screen but its all good since you are starting two understand the concept of the earth's yearly and daily motions. 


Congratulation

https://www.google.com/search?q=congratulation&biw=1280&bih=907&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlwIin4vTRAhUqwFQKHWbOCfIQ_AUIBigB#imgrc=8nQDw-ST22zPSM:


Ben


.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

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

csiph-web