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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463134 > unrolled thread

Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept

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

Contents

  Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-06-30 19:59 -0700
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-06-30 21:55 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 13:09 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 10:58 -0700
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-07 13:12 +0000
            Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-07 21:42 -0700
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-01 04:14 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 13:19 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-01 15:43 +0200
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-01 16:42 +0000
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 10:09 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-02 12:24 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-02 13:02 +0000
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 07:06 +0000
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 13:16 -0700
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 07:03 +0000
    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-01 19:41 +0000
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 13:12 -0700
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 03:24 +0200
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 18:52 -0700
            Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-02 02:07 +0000
              Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-01 19:35 -0700
                Re: Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-07-02 02:46 +0000
                  Re: Re: Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-02 11:27 -0700
            Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-07-02 04:54 +0200
              Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:12 +0200
                Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-02 10:21 +0200
                Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 18:11 +0000
                  Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2018-07-03 22:44 +0200
                    Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-03 21:49 +0000
                      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-03 15:39 -0700
                        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-04 10:33 +0000
                          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-07-04 10:54 -0700
      Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a flawed concept kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-02 06:15 -0700
        Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-02 13:56 +0000
          Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-07-03 07:08 -0700
            Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-07-03 15:32 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#463219

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>> Cite evidence.

>No...

So you don't have any evidence?

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

#463222

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 7:07:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >> Cite evidence.
> 
> >No...
> 
> So you don't have any evidence?

The world of science didn't want to go along
with him. He gave up what he won the Nobel for.
It is recorded. You can find that of your own accord.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463228

mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:

>On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 7:07:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
>> 
>> >> Cite evidence.
>> 
>> >No...
>> 
>> So you don't have any evidence?

>The world of science didn't want to go along
>with him. He gave up what he won the Nobel for.
>It is recorded. You can find that of your own accord.

Logical Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof.

Anyway, it's rather clear you don't have any evidence.

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

#463283

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 7:46:04 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> 
> >On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 7:07:08 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> mitchrae3323@gmail.com writes:
> >> 
> >> >> Cite evidence.
> >> 
> >> >No...
> >> 
> >> So you don't have any evidence?
> 
> >The world of science didn't want to go along
> >with him. He gave up what he won the Nobel for.
> >It is recorded. You can find that of your own accord.
> 
> Logical Fallacy: Shifting the Burden of Proof.
> 
> Anyway, it's rather clear you don't have any evidence.

It is something Einstein did in 1937...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463231

The ignorant Googlodyte mitchrae3323@gmail.com full-quoted again:

> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> for what he called spherical wavelets. He could no
>>> longer reconcile the particle to the wave.
>> Cite evidence.
> 
> No...

Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough around here
(or anywhere).

> Einstein gave up on his Nobel particle of light...

/Ipse dixit/ and /argumentum ad nauseam/ fallacies.

And which part of “learn to quote” did you not understand?

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#463242

Op 02/07/2018 om 04:54 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> The ignorant Googlodyte mitchrae3323@gmail.com full-quoted again:
> 
>> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> for what he called spherical wavelets. He could no
>>>> longer reconcile the particle to the wave.
>>> Cite evidence.
>>
>> No...
> 
> Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough around here
> (or anywhere).

Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless
stream of volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into
absolute perfection.
Brain farts are the glue of this newsgroup.

Dirk Vdm

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

#463243

Op 02/07/2018 om 10:12 schreef Dirk Van de moortel:
> Op 02/07/2018 om 04:54 schreef Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> The ignorant Googlodyte mitchrae3323@gmail.com full-quoted again:
>>
>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 6:24:11 PM UTC-7, Thomas 'PointedEars' 
>>> Lahn wrote:
>>>> mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> for what he called spherical wavelets. He could no
>>>>> longer reconcile the particle to the wave.
>>>> Cite evidence.
>>>
>>> No...
>>
>> Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough around 
>> here
>> (or anywhere).
> 
> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless
> stream of volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into
> absolute perfection.
> Brain farts are the glue of this newsgroup.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Actually, nowadays brain farts are even enough to infest
sci.physics.research :-)
See for instance Ed Lake's tread
   "Simplifying Einstein's Thought Experiments"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What happened to the moderators there?

Dirk Vdm

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

#463355

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>> Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough around
>> here (or anywhere).
> 
> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless stream of
> volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into absolute perfection.
> Brain farts are the glue of this newsgroup. Dirk Vdm

You definitely love farts. Indicates a clinically knowledgeable laboratory 
experimenter.

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

#463364

Op 03-jul-2018 om 20:11 schreef Oren Woodcock:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 
>>> Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough around
>>> here (or anywhere).
>>
>> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
>> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless stream of
>> volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into absolute perfection.
>> Brain farts are the glue of this newsgroup. Dirk Vdm
> 
> You definitely love farts. Indicates a clinically knowledgeable laboratory
> experimenter.
> 

Where is Tom Potter when you need him?

Dirk Vdm

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

#463372

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Op 03-jul-2018 om 20:11 schreef Oren Woodcock:
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> 
>>>> Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough
>>>> around here (or anywhere).
>>>
>>> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
>>> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless stream of
>>> volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into absolute perfection. Brain
>>> farts are the glue of this newsgroup. Dirk Vdm
>> 
>> You definitely love farts. Indicates a clinically knowledgeable
>> laboratory experimenter.
> 
> Where is Tom Potter when you need him? Dirk Vdm

You love farts alot. Too late now getting it back. Let's talk about 
something else. For instance Newton sneaked away with his "force of 
gravity", which is fictitious, not existent.

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

#463379

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:49:23 PM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> 
> > Op 03-jul-2018 om 20:11 schreef Oren Woodcock:
> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> Then your claim stands unsupported.  Brain farts are not enough
> >>>> around here (or anywhere).
> >>>
> >>> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
> >>> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless stream of
> >>> volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into absolute perfection. Brain
> >>> farts are the glue of this newsgroup. Dirk Vdm
> >> 
> >> You definitely love farts. Indicates a clinically knowledgeable
> >> laboratory experimenter.
> > 
> > Where is Tom Potter when you need him? Dirk Vdm
> 
> You love farts alot. Too late now getting it back. Let's talk about 
> something else. For instance Newton sneaked away with his "force of 
> gravity", which is fictitious, not existent.

Gravity and magnetism define the central forces.
Forces change speed and direction of light and atom
and as gravity and magnetism can also give weight...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463410

mitchrae3323 wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:49:23 PM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
>> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: 
>> > Op 03-jul-2018 om 20:11 schreef Oren Woodcock:
>> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: 
>> >>> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
>> >>> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless stream of
>> >>> volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into absolute perfection.
>> >>> Brain farts are the glue of this newsgroup. Dirk Vdm
>> >> 
>> >> You definitely love farts. Indicates a clinically knowledgeable
>> >> laboratory experimenter.
>> > 
>> > Where is Tom Potter when you need him? Dirk Vdm
>> 
>> You love farts alot. Too late now getting it back. Let's talk about
>> something else. For instance Newton sneaked away with his "force of
>> gravity", which is fictitious, not existent.
> 
> Gravity and magnetism define the central forces.
> Forces change speed and direction of light and atom and as gravity and
> magnetism can also give weight... Mitchell Raemsch

And therefore we need to be careful about what we write in here. It can 
easily be misinterpreted. Use words wisely.

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

#463428

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 3:33:25 AM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> mitchrae3323 wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 2:49:23 PM UTC-7, Oren Woodcock wrote:
> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: 
> >> > Op 03-jul-2018 om 20:11 schreef Oren Woodcock:
> >> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote: 
> >> >>> Oh, but brain farts *are* enough around *here*.
> >> >>> One fart is all one has to produce to mobilize an endless stream of
> >> >>> volunteers, helping one to squeeze it into absolute perfection.
> >> >>> Brain farts are the glue of this newsgroup. Dirk Vdm
> >> >> 
> >> >> You definitely love farts. Indicates a clinically knowledgeable
> >> >> laboratory experimenter.
> >> > 
> >> > Where is Tom Potter when you need him? Dirk Vdm
> >> 
> >> You love farts alot. Too late now getting it back. Let's talk about
> >> something else. For instance Newton sneaked away with his "force of
> >> gravity", which is fictitious, not existent.
> > 
> > Gravity and magnetism define the central forces.
> > Forces change speed and direction of light and atom and as gravity and
> > magnetism can also give weight... Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> And therefore we need to be careful about what we write in here. It can 
> easily be misinterpreted. Use words wisely.

Forces are changers of motion and can create weight...
Speed can be added or subtracted to
direction can be redirected
and weight can manifest...

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#463248

On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 3:41:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> > 
> > Why?
> > 
> > The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
> > claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of
> > particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the
> > sun to reach us on earth.
> 
> Why not? Protons also lens around the sun. Why not light particles?

That means that material particles (including proton) are confined to follow the geometry of the E-Matrix. The confinement of material particle to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix is the essential part of gravity....it enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.

> 
> > 
> > Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted
> > by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix
> > is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved
> > geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of 
> > lensing and aberration.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#463250 — Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 3:41:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
>>> 
>>> Why?
>>> 
>>> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
>>> claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of
>>> particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the
>>> sun to reach us on earth.
>> 
>> Why not? Protons also lens around the sun. Why not light particles?
> 
> That means that material particles (including proton) are confined to
> follow the geometry of the E-Matrix. The confinement of material particle
> to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix is the essential part of
> gravity....it enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.

So now you are saying that particles CAN lens around the sun after all, but
you want your explanation to be the one taken. Sorry, there’s already a
good and QUANTITATIVE explanation that matches observations. One that the
originators did actual calculations with that you can’t do with yours. 

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted
>>> by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix
>>> is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved
>>> geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of 
>>> lensing and aberration.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#463333 — Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept

On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 9:56:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 3:41:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> >>> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
> >>> 
> >>> Why?
> >>> 
> >>> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
> >>> claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of
> >>> particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the
> >>> sun to reach us on earth.
> >> 
> >> Why not? Protons also lens around the sun. Why not light particles?
> > 
> > That means that material particles (including proton) are confined to
> > follow the geometry of the E-Matrix. The confinement of material particle
> > to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix is the essential part of
> > gravity....it enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
> 
> So now you are saying that particles CAN lens around the sun after all, but
> you want your explanation to be the one taken.

Particles  are formed by the orbiting motion of its S-Particle around an E-String. That means that if the E-Stings are deformed (curved) the particles will follow the geometry of the E-Strings to the target.This proved that space is a continuous structured medium that can be deformed. Material particles and light wave-packs are confined to follow the geometry of the E-Strings as they travel in the E-Matrix.


> Sorry, there’s already a
> good and QUANTITATIVE explanation that matches observations. One that the
> originators did actual calculations with that you can’t do with yours. 
> 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted
> >>> by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix
> >>> is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved
> >>> geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of 
> >>> lensing and aberration.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#463341 — Re: Einstein’s light-particle (the photon) is a fl awed concept

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Monday, July 2, 2018 at 9:56:12 AM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, July 1, 2018 at 3:41:36 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> Einstein’s light-particle (he photon) is a flawed concept.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why?
>>>>> 
>>>>> The observed phenomenon of gravity lensing and aberration refute the
>>>>> claim of light-particle. Why? Because if light were  make up of
>>>>> particles, light from distance star will not be able to lense around the
>>>>> sun to reach us on earth.
>>>> 
>>>> Why not? Protons also lens around the sun. Why not light particles?
>>> 
>>> That means that material particles (including proton) are confined to
>>> follow the geometry of the E-Matrix. The confinement of material particle
>>> to the divergent structure of the E-Matrix is the essential part of
>>> gravity....it enables the moon to maintain a stable orbit.
>> 
>> So now you are saying that particles CAN lens around the sun after all, but
>> you want your explanation to be the one taken.
> 
> Particles  are formed by the orbiting motion of its S-Particle around an
> E-String. That means that if the E-Stings are deformed (curved) the
> particles will follow the geometry of the E-Strings to the target.This
> proved that space is a continuous structured medium that can be deformed.
> Material particles and light wave-packs are confined to follow the
> geometry of the E-Strings as they travel in the E-Matrix.

There’s already a particle theory. And it’s quantitative, and the
originators of the theory calculated actual numbers, as is expected from
anyone who claims to have physical insight. You have not done this. It is
therefore not ready for prime time. Get it more ready. 

> 
> 
>> Sorry, there’s already a
>> good and QUANTITATIVE explanation that matches observations. One that the
>> originators did actual calculations with that you can’t do with yours. 
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Instead, light is composed of wave-packets.....they are being transmitted
>>>>> by a continuous medium called the E-Matrix. The geometry of the E-Matrix
>>>>> is curved around the sun and these light-wave packets follows the curved
>>>>> geometry of the E-Matrix around the sun and give the observed effect of 
>>>>> lensing and aberration.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web