Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #475042 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-10-29 17:26 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 150 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:12 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-17 08:56 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-17 16:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-17 18:58 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 10:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 22:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 15:54 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 00:37 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 20:05 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 18:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-18 19:07 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 07:53 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:29 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:19 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 02:32 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 23:04 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:11 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 13:25 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-19 08:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-22 08:14 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-19 11:17 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:50 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-19 07:53 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 14:16 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-20 15:10 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 08:37 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 07:27 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 17:31 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 18:40 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 21:56 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 22:04 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 00:05 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 06:52 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 13:06 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-21 01:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 16:03 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 02:17 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 02:21 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 10:09 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 17:32 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 09:15 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-22 20:38 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 08:09 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 15:34 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-23 23:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-23 18:21 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-24 09:16 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 19:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-21 19:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-22 20:43 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:30 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 09:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 10:17 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 18:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 20:09 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-23 01:38 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:25 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:23 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 07:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 15:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-23 09:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-23 18:47 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> - 2018-10-23 23:01 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-24 06:15 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-24 11:33 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-24 13:36 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Gil Callow <snam@nawem.co> - 2018-10-24 20:41 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-22 09:04 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:32 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-22 10:34 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-23 13:08 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-23 13:15 +0200
Yet Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 14:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 13:45 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 19:18 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:18 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 12:40 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-25 20:39 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-21 01:56 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 06:40 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 16:42 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 19:34 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-19 19:35 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 21:08 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:46 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 02:37 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 23:08 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 09:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 06:52 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:31 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:42 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:15 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 04:42 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:40 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-19 22:00 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:38 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 20:37 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:53 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:53 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 11:01 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 12:48 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 13:39 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-20 20:15 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 22:35 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-21 00:09 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:12 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 09:16 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 22:26 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-20 22:11 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 23:10 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-21 09:38 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 16:51 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2018-10-22 19:09 +1100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 10:12 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 15:46 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 15:41 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 23:42 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 08:46 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-21 17:25 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-21 11:03 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-20 02:36 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2018-10-19 07:59 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 19:43 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-10-22 15:11 -0500
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-26 18:47 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-26 19:34 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 16:55 -0400
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-27 18:42 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-26 22:45 +0000
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-26 15:56 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 09:14 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-10-27 08:31 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-27 16:45 +0200
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-27 08:11 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-28 16:08 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-10-28 16:48 +0100
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 11:55 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-10-28 11:53 -0700
Re: Another Reason Why the "Medium" Matters Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-10-29 17:26 +0100
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-25 20:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <g3egudFn47eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #475495 |
Am 22.10.2018 um 19:40 schrieb Tom Roberts: > On 10/20/18 10:18 PM, benj wrote: >> On 10/20/2018 8:18 PM, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 10/20/18 12:45 PM, benj wrote: >>>> The question is really how can a particle be a wave? >>> >>> No. The ACTUAL question is: how can "particles" have wave-LIKE >>> behavior? And this is answered directly by QFT. >>> >>> Hint: there are no particles, there are just quantum fields >>> that have excitations that act like particles in some >>> physical situations, and like waves in others. We often >>> call these excitations "particles", but that is a very >>> non-classical meaning, quite different from how you use >>> the word. >> >> In other words, all you have is hand waving and babbling nonsense. > > Not at all! I "have" a complete physical theory that passes all > experimental tests so far: the standard model. But around here it is not > possible to discuss it in detail. > Well, actually I think it's wrong. (the so called standard model of QM). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model My main argument against the standard model: Growing Earth! As you may eventually know, I'm a proponent of the 'Growing Earth' hypothesis, which was developed by the German geologist Ott Christoph Hilgenberg in about 1930 in Berlin. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ott_Christoph_Hilgenberg (Hilgenberg worked at the University of Charlottenburg, which later became the Technical University of Berlin. The building - btw- where he worked became later the building 'BH' of the TU-Berlin, which is where I spent most of my time when I was student of TU-Berlin). And if the Earth would grow from within, then the entire idea of elementary particles must be wrong. The reason: the Earth grows from within and gains mass over long periods of time from the inside. And the inner Earth is a region, where such particles cannot come from outer space, hence the components of matter must be created from nothing in the inner Earth. And that would be a large problem for the entire idea of particles (and for the standard model). >> What are "quantum fields" exactly? It's just so much fantasy and jargon. > > Not true. It's just that you have never bothered to STUDY and LEARN what > they are. Well, 'what are they ? ' is not such a stupid question. (And not even Stephan Weinberg knows.) I think, that nature must be pretty simple on the lowest levels, because on the lowest levels you would expect nothing else than something very simple. The 'mechanics' can be quite different from what we usually think. But it must be simple, obvious and perfect, since the entire universe depends on such principles. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqg1ui$nje$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475246 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/10/2018 13:53, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/19/18 3:50 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>> I start from the most reasonable, and find >>> no reason to reject it eh! >> >> That is, of course, not science. Not physics. > > Do you really think it better to start from > the less reasonable, Mr.Roberts ? Less intuitive? Yes, quite often that is exactly the right thing to do. > >> To do science you must follow EXPERIMENTS, not your personal armchair >> musings. Experiments show that light is not a wave. > > Explain to me how a diffraction grating works Mr.Roberts. > > In fact every experiment at the macroscopic scale clearly > shows that, at the macroscopic level, LIGHT IS A WAVE. > >> And experiments show >> SR to be valid, locally. > > No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is > the same in all inertial frames of reference, Mr. Roberts, > and indeed none every will, because it's bullshit eh! > > keith stein > >> Tom Roberts > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqg1ui$nje$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475235 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/10/2018 01:17, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 19/10/2018 10:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > >>> Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel >>> relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true >>> for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. >> >> You're assuming what you're trying to prove. > > Perhaps you are right there Sylvia, but i > would rather put it like this. > I start from the most reasonable, and find > no reason to reject it eh! That’s not how to do science. > > keith stein > >> Sylvia. > > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-21 01:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62b70eb1-3015-4a97-889f-75104c37ce61@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475363 |
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 22:07:49 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 19/10/2018 01:17, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 19/10/2018 10:37 AM, Keith Stein wrote: > > > >>> Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel > >>> relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true > >>> for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. > >> > >> You're assuming what you're trying to prove. > > > > Perhaps you are right there Sylvia, but i > > would rather put it like this. > > I start from the most reasonable, and find > > no reason to reject it eh! > > That’s not how to do science. Because the idiot woodworker is an expert of how to do science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 01:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqbaq3$16es$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475211 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, >>>> >>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; >>> >>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? >>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's >>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! > >> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what >> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? > > > Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel > relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true > for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. And your reasons for believing this are what? > > It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, > rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! Not obvious to me. Convince me it must be true. > > What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two. > > keith stein > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 06:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <%6eyD.68872$RM7.65303@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #475218 |
On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, >>>>> >>>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >>>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; >>>> >>>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? >>>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >>>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's >>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! >> >>> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what >>> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? >> >> >> Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel >> relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true >> for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. > > And your reasons for believing this are what? Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference. Will you believe me ? And your reasons for not believing me are.......... the same as my reasons for not believing Einstein eh! >> It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, >> rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! > > Not obvious to me. Convince me it must be true. I doubt i will be able to convince you Mr.Bodkin, but to me it is obvious that ALL Waves travel relative to the stuff they are traveling through, and i would believe that whatever Maxwell said eh! Indeed i did believe it before i ever read Maxwell's Treatise, and discovering that Maxwell was of the same opinion only confirmed my already firmly held belief. >> What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. > > I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two. Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd, that's the problem eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 16:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqd1i1$1vba$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475233 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 18/10/2018 23:34, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 18/10/2018 00:58, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>>>> On 10/17/18 7:34 AM, Keith Stein wrote: >>>>>>> Both light and sound require a medium, >>>>>> >>>>>> So you claim but have failed to show. All you have are your own claims, >>>>>> and a few ambiguous quotes; >>>>> >>>>> How ambiguous is this Mr.Roberts ? >>>>> "A MEDIUM NECESSARY" >>>>> which is the title of the final chapter in Maxwell's >>>>> "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism" eh! >>> >>>> Why would you insist that what is true for both light and sound is what >>>> someone thought to be true 150 years ago? >>> >>> >>> Waves don't travel relative to the observer, Mr.Bodkin. They travel >>> relative to the stuff they are traveling through. That is just as true >>> for electromagnetic waves as it is for sound waves. >> >> And your reasons for believing this are what? > > Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the > same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference. Dogs can’t travel at c. Nothing with nonzero mass can. Apples and oranges. > > Will you believe me ? > > And your reasons for not believing me are.......... > the same as my reasons for not believing Einstein eh! > >>> It is not because Maxwell said it that i believe it is true, Odd, >>> rather it is because it is obviously true that i must believe it eh! >> >> Not obvious to me. Convince me it must be true. > > I doubt i will be able to convince you Mr.Bodkin, > but to me it is obvious that ALL Waves travel relative > to the stuff they are traveling through, and i would > believe that whatever Maxwell said eh! Indeed i did believe > it before i ever read Maxwell's Treatise, and discovering > that Maxwell was of the same opinion only confirmed my > already firmly held belief. That’s not a good way to do science. What you are doing is staring with some pre-conceived notions and insisting that anything that conflicts with those pre-conceived notions is nonsense. Sense and nonsense is not determined my intuition, world-view, or gut feel. So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct? I presume you know the answer to this question. > >>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. >> >> I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two. > > Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd, > that's the problem eh! > > keith stein > > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 19:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5tpyD.84215$QD7.48221@fx44.am4> |
| In reply to | #475255 |
On 19/10/2018 17:42, Odd Bodkin wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 19/10/2018 02:08, Odd Bodkin wrote: >>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote: >> Suppose i tell you i have a dog which travels at exactly the >> same speed relative to all inertial frames of reference. > > Dogs can’t travel at c. That is true Mr.Bodkin, but then i never said it traveled at c eh! >> Will you believe me ? >> >> And your reasons for not believing me are.......... >> the same as my reasons for not believing Einstein eh! > That’s not a good way to do science. What you are doing is staring with > some pre-conceived notions and insisting that anything that conflicts with > those pre-conceived notions is nonsense. > Sense and nonsense is not determined my intuition, world-view, or gut feel. But i know of no reliable experiment, or observation, which conflicts with Maxwell's (and my) view that the speed of light is appropriate to, AND RELATIVE TO, the "medium". Certainly the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment is exactly what we would expect. > So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark > conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct? Right you are Mr.Bodkin. Let's suppose that i say the speed of light is relative to the medium, and you say "No rather is the speed of light ie the same in ALL inertial frames of reference." Then i would suggest we perform the following experiment Mr.Bodkin >> A B >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >> tA tB >> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >> >> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >> >> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! >>>> What Maxwell wrote makes sense. What Einstein wrote makes nonsense. >>> >>> I don’t know how you are distinguishing the two. >> >> Indeed no relativists can distinguish sense from nonsense, Odd, >> that's the problem eh! >> >> keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 19:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqdblq$947$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475261 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 19/10/2018 17:42, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark >> conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct? >Right you are Mr.Bodkin. Let's suppose that i say the speed of light is >relative to the medium, and you say "No rather is the speed of light ie >the same in ALL inertial frames of reference." Yes, and that experiment has been done. Fizeau was the first to do something like that, although his question was just whether the speed of light is relative to the medium, and he found the answer was 'no'. >So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly >depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds >your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! You are assuming your conclusion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 21:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <SQqyD.91144$F96.65055@fx40.am4> |
| In reply to | #475266 |
On 19/10/2018 20:35, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 19/10/2018 17:42, Odd Bodkin wrote: > >>> So the question to you is this: given two hypotheses that are in stark >>> conflict to each other, how does science resolve which one is correct? > >> Right you are Mr.Bodkin. Let's suppose that i say the speed of light is >> relative to the medium, and you say "No rather is the speed of light ie >> the same in ALL inertial frames of reference." >> Then i would suggest we perform the following experiment Mr.Bodkin >> A B >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >> tA tB >> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >> >> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >> >> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearlyM depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds your hypothesis > Yes, and that experiment has been done........ Excellent Mr. Moroney. Then you can confirm c+v >> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly >> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds >> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! > > You are assuming your conclusion. No Mr.Moroney, relying on your experimental result when you did "that experiment" eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 22:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8539ca83-ba8f-5c9c-c62f-05c4c81270d2@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475268 |
Keith Stein wrote: > So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearlyM > depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds > your hypothesis The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT. First you need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 22:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <RgsyD.108744$px6.79956@fx41.am4> |
| In reply to | #475271 |
On 19/10/2018 21:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Keith Stein wrote:
>> A B
>> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s
>> tA tB
>>
>> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s
>>
>> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s
>> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving,
>> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m,
>> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B
>>
>> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v
>> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly
>> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds
>> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh!
> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT.
Not clear why you would say that Mr.Lahn. FACT IS
The speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly
depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds
your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh!
> First you need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
FACT IS:
Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v eh!
keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pqe4ce$8up$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #475273 |
Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: >On 19/10/2018 21:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: > >> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly > >> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds > >> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! >> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT. >Not clear why you would say that Mr.Lahn. FACT IS > The speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly > depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds > your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! Facts are determined by observations and experimental results, NOT what you say they are. And experimental results ALWAYS agree with what Tom wrote. >> First you need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. >FACT IS: > Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v eh! Again, facts are NOT determined by what you say. Facts are determined by what we observe, and we NEVER observe the speed of light as c+v. Never.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-19 23:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pqe66h$1nac$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #475288 |
On 10/19/2018 10:37 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 19/10/2018 21:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>> Keith Stein wrote: > >>>> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly >>>> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds >>>> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! > >>> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT. >> Not clear why you would say that Mr.Lahn. FACT IS >> The speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly >> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds >> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! > > Facts are determined by observations and experimental results, NOT > what you say they are. And experimental results ALWAYS agree with > what Tom wrote. > >>> First you need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. > >> FACT IS: >> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v eh! > > Again, facts are NOT determined by what you say. Facts are determined > by what we observe, and we NEVER observe the speed of light as c+v. > Never. > Well, except in this newsgroup where nearly everybody observes it that way (in their minds).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 10:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0o6dnQUEQtdS2lbGnZ2dnUU7_81i4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #475295 |
On 10/19/18 10:08 PM, benj wrote: > On 10/19/2018 10:37 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Facts are determined >> by what we observe, and we NEVER observe the speed of light as c+v. >> Never. >> > Well, except in this newsgroup where nearly everybody observes it that > way (in their minds). That is FANTASY, not "observation". And it applies only to the idiots who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d7647e64-f66c-4a49-bf6a-1bd5df9cf9f2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475326 |
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 17:20:53 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote: > That is FANTASY, not "observation". And it applies only to the idiots > who cannot distinguish fact from fantasy. Sure, poor idiot, it applies to idiots very well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 06:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5ozyD.96126$1C7.13486@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #475288 |
On 20/10/2018 03:37, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein wrote: >> A B >> light-----><--------L----------> <--YOU v m/s >> tA tB >> >> Speed of light in lab = Distance/Time = L/(tB-tA) = c m/s >> >> Now YOU walk towards B from the right at v m/s >> Note that in your frame of reference the point B is moving, >> and therefore the light travels an extra distance = v(tB-tA) m, >> which is the distance traveled by B as the light travels from A to B >> >> Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v > ................ Facts are determined > by what we observe, and we NEVER observe the speed of light as c+v. Try walking towards the light Michael. > Never. None so blind as them that will not see eh! keith stein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 12:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <8342632b-aba1-c408-0dc9-279cb8f12a21@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475303 |
Keith Stein wrote: > Try walking towards the light Michael. That does not change the speed of light in the slightest. Walking towards the light has decreased both the distance to the light (source), and the time that it takes light to reach (from the source) the person walking towards the light, in equal proportions. So the light will reach the observer earlier, but not because it is faster than before, but because the distance that it has to travel to them is less than before. (“Closing speed” is not a real speed.) This situation is very different in the analysis from when the observer is considered to be at rest and the light source is considered moving relative to them. However, it turns out experimentally that it makes no difference who or what is considered to be in motion here: the speed of light is constant and the same in all directions, in all inertial frames of reference, given either no medium (ideal vacuum) or a homogeneous medium. The relative speed of the light source, v, and the speed of light, c, do not add; instead, the wavelength λ and the frequency f of the observed light, for visible light the color, change (relativistic Doppler effect) as c = λ f = const. Therefore the second postulate of SR in OEDoMB §2. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 02:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c8e5411-109a-4b8d-9888-013233cd48a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #475288 |
On Saturday, 20 October 2018 04:37:04 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote: > Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes: > > >On 19/10/2018 21:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > >> Keith Stein wrote: > > > >> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly > > >> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds > > >> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! > > >> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT. > >Not clear why you would say that Mr.Lahn. FACT IS > > The speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly > > depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds > > your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! > > Facts are determined by observations and experimental results, So we can check at GPS that the moronic delusion of your moronic bunch are just some moronic delusions of a moronic bunch. > what you say they are. And experimental results ALWAYS agree with > what Tom wrote. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-20 12:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <668432c6-b217-beb0-2e22-647bbe119cb8@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #475273 |
Keith Stein wrote: > On 19/10/2018 21:45, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> Keith Stein wrote: >>> So the speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly >>> depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds >>> your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! >> The, perhaps counter-intuitive, FACT is that IT DOES NOT. > Not clear why you would say that Mr.Lahn. Because it is so, as observed. Observation trumps hypothesis. > FACT IS > The speed of light relative to the observer (YOU) clearly > depends on how fast you walk towards the light, which confounds > your hypothesis, and is in agreement with mine eh! No. >> First you need to GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. > > FACT IS: > Speed of light relative to YOU = Distance/ Time = c + v eh! That is not a fact; it is a hypothesis and it is falsified by all observations. You are merely arguing from your ignorance of (well-known) facts. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web