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

Groups > sci.physics > #679880 > unrolled thread

Re: is space expanding literally everywhere?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-03 23:42 -0700
    Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-04 09:45 -0700
    Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-06 10:48 -0700
      Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 13:04 -0700
        Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-04-06 13:13 -0700
          Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 10:29 -0700
            Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-04-07 23:29 -0700
              Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 00:14 -0700
      Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-07 10:30 -0700
        Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-07 11:31 -0700
          Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 23:33 -0700
            Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 12:09 +0000
              Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-08 13:52 -0700
                Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 03:09 -0700
                  Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:13 +0000
                    Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 08:11 -0700
                      Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:35 +0000
                        Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 11:41 -0700
                          Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 07:48 -0500
                            Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 08:24 -0700
                              Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 15:57 +0000
                                All of history, every lesson ever, every advance, tells us... Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-10 09:49 -0700
                                Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 12:03 -0700
                                  Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 19:59 +0000
                                    Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 13:07 -0700
                                      Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 20:12 +0000
                                        Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 13:15 -0700
                                          Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 14:21 -0700
                                            Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 22:10 -0700
                            Go back far enough, and the -known- Universe is zip, zero, nada. Jeff-Relf.Me  @. - 2018-04-10 08:52 -0700
                            Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 11:37 -0500
          Re: is space expanding literally everywhere? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-04-08 11:48 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#679880 — Re: is space expanding literally everywhere?

shane.2471958@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> I'm a layman and I'm curious to understand how mass affects the expansion of space and whether the expansion of space is uniform everywhere in the universe.
> 
> From looking at redshifts it seems we have determined that until 5 billion years ago the expansion was slowing down and since then it has been speeding up. Supposedly the average density of mass in the universe is affecting the expansion - is this just conjecture and the only theory we have or is there some solid evidence for thinking this?
> 
> Wikipedia says "the scale of space itself changes" but that the model is valid only on large scales (galaxy clusters and above) and that the expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale. wikipedia Is it possible that space between say, planet Earth and the Sun is actually expanding but is currently unobservable. If not, how far from our local group of galaxies do we have to look before we encounter some space that is actually expanding.
> 
> I realise that we don't understand what dark energy is and I much prefer answers that say "we don't know" if we really don't know.


Based on observation...

mass affect the expansion of the universe, but not uniform because mass gets caught up in galaxies and solar systems.

like punching your way out of a paper bag...

Based on  my observation...this photo shows the history before the big bang.
http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


Before the big bang occured, or the cause of the big bang..was

the steady state universe existed before the big bang.

Based on  my observation..

during the steady state universe stars didn't die
and new stars were born
(galaxies didn't exist then either)

It got to a point that there were to many stars
occupying what little space there was..

to the point that stars got close to each other..
they began to meld...with each other..

to a point of
forming mass.

The steady state universe turn into one
giant boulder of hot stars and rock was formed
so that you got this giant hot bolder made from stars
that exploded and made more...space.

During the explosion some rocks when this way and other rocks when that way.

You can probably guess the rest...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#679915

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> shane.2471958@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm a layman and I'm curious to understand how mass affects the expansion of space and whether the expansion of space is uniform everywhere in the universe.
> >
> > From looking at redshifts it seems we have determined that until 5 billion years ago the expansion was slowing down and since then it has been speeding up. Supposedly the average density of mass in the universe is affecting the expansion - is this just conjecture and the only theory we have or is there some solid evidence for thinking this?
> >
> > Wikipedia says "the scale of space itself changes" but that the model is valid only on large scales (galaxy clusters and above) and that the expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale. wikipedia Is it possible that space between say, planet Earth and the Sun is actually expanding but is currently unobservable. If not, how far from our local group of galaxies do we have to look before we encounter some space that is actually expanding.
> >
> > I realise that we don't understand what dark energy is and I much prefer answers that say "we don't know" if we really don't know.
> 
> Based on observation...
> 
> mass affect the expansion of the universe, but not uniform because mass gets caught up in galaxies and solar systems.
> 
> like punching your way out of a paper bag...
> 
> Based on  my observation...this photo shows the history before the big bang.
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> Before the big bang occured, or the cause of the big bang..was
> 
> the steady state universe existed before the big bang.
> 
> Based on  my observation..
> 
> during the steady state universe stars didn't die
> and new stars were born
> (galaxies didn't exist then either)
> 
> It got to a point that there were to many stars
> occupying what little space there was..
> 
> to the point that stars got close to each other..
> they began to meld...with each other..
> 
> to a point of
> forming mass.
> 
> The steady state universe turn into one
> giant boulder of hot stars and rock was formed
> so that you got this giant hot bolder made from stars
> that exploded and made more...space.
> 
> During the explosion some rocks when this way and other rocks when that way.
> 
> You can probably guess the rest...



Here is an 'illustration' of what it looked like moments before the big bang..
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif


As you can see the "we don't know people" (which is a cover up word for 'i don't know' individuals')

got it wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox


You need to stay away from the 'we don't know people' because they have reached their level of incompetance.

(the 'we don't know people' are actually individuals who won't take responsibility for what they don't know.)

(and like all cults, they expect everyone around them to say...'we don't know')

But Nature knows. So, one must look not just here for answers, but...everywhere. (where ever you can find it)

If Nature knows...then it's not we, it's ....THEM that don't know.


But, I'm not one of their ...lemmings.


Do you dare go against the   "we don't know people" ? 


I mean, I base it all on observations. I have the photograph of before the big bang (which is the same thing as the end
of the steady state universe) and it's a huge burning bolder made from stars just before it explodes.

Or just take this illustration and add a bang to it:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Olber%27s_Paradox_-_All_Points.gif

Or, become a lemming and wait for the  "we don't know people" to tell you when to think.


The Starmaker

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

#680117

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> shane.2471958@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > I'm a layman and I'm curious to understand how mass affects the expansion of space and whether the expansion of space is uniform everywhere in the universe.
> >
> > From looking at redshifts it seems we have determined that until 5 billion years ago the expansion was slowing down and since then it has been speeding up. Supposedly the average density of mass in the universe is affecting the expansion - is this just conjecture and the only theory we have or is there some solid evidence for thinking this?
> >
> > Wikipedia says "the scale of space itself changes" but that the model is valid only on large scales (galaxy clusters and above) and that the expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale. wikipedia Is it possible that space between say, planet Earth and the Sun is actually expanding but is currently unobservable. If not, how far from our local group of galaxies do we have to look before we encounter some space that is actually expanding.
> >
> > I realise that we don't understand what dark energy is and I much prefer answers that say "we don't know" if we really don't know.
> 
> Based on observation...
> 
> mass affect the expansion of the universe, but not uniform because mass gets caught up in galaxies and solar systems.
> 
> like punching your way out of a paper bag...
> 
> Based on  my observation...this photo shows the history before the big bang.
> http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> 
> Before the big bang occured, or the cause of the big bang..was
> 
> the steady state universe existed before the big bang.
> 
> Based on  my observation..
> 
> during the steady state universe stars didn't die
> and new stars were born
> (galaxies didn't exist then either)
> 
> It got to a point that there were to many stars
> occupying what little space there was..
> 
> to the point that stars got close to each other..
> they began to meld...with each other..
> 
> to a point of
> forming mass.
> 
> The steady state universe turn into one
> giant boulder of hot stars and rock was formed
> so that you got this giant hot bolder made from stars
> that exploded and made more...space.
> 
> During the explosion some rocks when this way and other rocks when that way.
> 
> You can probably guess the rest...


...and for those of yous who haven't ...guess,



The big bang was in fact...the end of eternity. (the end of steady state universe)


So, you can easily gues the reason WHY the big bang occured...

to make way for the end of eternity...



Sounds like science fiction, doesn't it?

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

#680128

BB is BS

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

#680130

The future of the universe is more distance.

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#680197

Space is simply smaller-gauge atoms. If distance between galaxies is really increasing, it is because of an influx of these.

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

#680296

On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:29:32 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Space is simply smaller-gauge atoms. If distance between galaxies is really increasing, it is because of an influx of these.
=============
it is not space that is 'expanding 
space is nothing and does nothing

it is distance between planets/galaxies that is increasing 
===
Y.Porat
====================== 

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

#680302

Porat
"On Saturday, April 7, 2018 at 8:29:32 PM UTC+3, john wrote: 
> Space is simply smaller-gauge atoms. If distance between galaxies is really increasing, it is because of an influx of these. 
============= 
it is not space that is 'expanding 
space is nothing and does nothing "

Space is so full of energy that it boils over as electron/positron pairs everywhere 

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

#680198

The First step is you need to get rid of all the "universe comes from Nothing" people, cause they got Nothing in their heads and they want you
to have nothing in your heads and follow their cult. 

The Next step is you need to take their 'puzzels' and re-arrange the puzzels yourself so the the pieces fit.

(right now they have their puzzel pieces all wrong)

You simply take one piece of the puzzel, the

steady state universe
the 
big bang
and the current universe...
in that order

and the pieces all fit together.


(No one has bothered to put the three pieces together) (i don't know why, probably too many cults in the 'scientific community')


But there is only one universe...

it just..simply transformed all the energy from the steady state universe to the universe you see today.


The big bang in fact is the transformation process of energy.


i know it all.


I'm a fuckin jënyæs                                                





The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > shane.2471958@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm a layman and I'm curious to understand how mass affects the expansion of space and whether the expansion of space is uniform everywhere in the universe.
> > >
> > > From looking at redshifts it seems we have determined that until 5 billion years ago the expansion was slowing down and since then it has been speeding up. Supposedly the average density of mass in the universe is affecting the expansion - is this just conjecture and the only theory we have or is there some solid evidence for thinking this?
> > >
> > > Wikipedia says "the scale of space itself changes" but that the model is valid only on large scales (galaxy clusters and above) and that the expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale. wikipedia Is it possible that space between say, planet Earth and the Sun is actually expanding but is currently unobservable. If not, how far from our local group of galaxies do we have to look before we encounter some space that is actually expanding.
> > >
> > > I realise that we don't understand what dark energy is and I much prefer answers that say "we don't know" if we really don't know.
> >
> > Based on observation...
> >
> > mass affect the expansion of the universe, but not uniform because mass gets caught up in galaxies and solar systems.
> >
> > like punching your way out of a paper bag...
> >
> > Based on  my observation...this photo shows the history before the big bang.
> > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> >
> > Before the big bang occured, or the cause of the big bang..was
> >
> > the steady state universe existed before the big bang.
> >
> > Based on  my observation..
> >
> > during the steady state universe stars didn't die
> > and new stars were born
> > (galaxies didn't exist then either)
> >
> > It got to a point that there were to many stars
> > occupying what little space there was..
> >
> > to the point that stars got close to each other..
> > they began to meld...with each other..
> >
> > to a point of
> > forming mass.
> >
> > The steady state universe turn into one
> > giant boulder of hot stars and rock was formed
> > so that you got this giant hot bolder made from stars
> > that exploded and made more...space.
> >
> > During the explosion some rocks when this way and other rocks when that way.
> >
> > You can probably guess the rest...
> 
> ...and for those of yous who haven't ...guess,
> 
> The big bang was in fact...the end of eternity. (the end of steady state universe)
> 
> So, you can easily gues the reason WHY the big bang occured...
> 
> to make way for the end of eternity...
>

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

#680207

What is the age of the universe? According to observation..it goes into the trillions or more! Not stupid 14 billion years...

there is no such thing as an "unobservable universe"...


Are you going to stand around waiting for your cult leaders to say every hundred years..."The universe is older than we thought."?


That's soooo stupid.


What is the name of your current leader anyway since Stephen Hawking is dead????


Is it going to be chink or the nigger? (i hope it's not another fuckin british guy...)








The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The First step is you need to get rid of all the "universe comes from Nothing" people, cause they got Nothing in their heads and they want you
> to have nothing in your heads and follow their cult.
> 
> The Next step is you need to take their 'puzzels' and re-arrange the puzzels yourself so the the pieces fit.
> 
> (right now they have their puzzel pieces all wrong)
> 
> You simply take one piece of the puzzel, the
> 
> steady state universe
> the
> big bang
> and the current universe...
> in that order
> 
> and the pieces all fit together.
> 
> (No one has bothered to put the three pieces together) (i don't know why, probably too many cults in the 'scientific community')
> 
> But there is only one universe...
> 
> it just..simply transformed all the energy from the steady state universe to the universe you see today.
> 
> The big bang in fact is the transformation process of energy.
> 
> i know it all.
> 
> I'm a fuckin jënyæs
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > shane.2471958@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm a layman and I'm curious to understand how mass affects the expansion of space and whether the expansion of space is uniform everywhere in the universe.
> > > >
> > > > From looking at redshifts it seems we have determined that until 5 billion years ago the expansion was slowing down and since then it has been speeding up. Supposedly the average density of mass in the universe is affecting the expansion - is this just conjecture and the only theory we have or is there some solid evidence for thinking this?
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia says "the scale of space itself changes" but that the model is valid only on large scales (galaxy clusters and above) and that the expansion cannot be observed on a smaller scale. wikipedia Is it possible that space between say, planet Earth and the Sun is actually expanding but is currently unobservable. If not, how far from our local group of galaxies do we have to look before we encounter some space that is actually expanding.
> > > >
> > > > I realise that we don't understand what dark energy is and I much prefer answers that say "we don't know" if we really don't know.
> > >
> > > Based on observation...
> > >
> > > mass affect the expansion of the universe, but not uniform because mass gets caught up in galaxies and solar systems.
> > >
> > > like punching your way out of a paper bag...
> > >
> > > Based on  my observation...this photo shows the history before the big bang.
> > > http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg
> > >
> > > Before the big bang occured, or the cause of the big bang..was
> > >
> > > the steady state universe existed before the big bang.
> > >
> > > Based on  my observation..
> > >
> > > during the steady state universe stars didn't die
> > > and new stars were born
> > > (galaxies didn't exist then either)
> > >
> > > It got to a point that there were to many stars
> > > occupying what little space there was..
> > >
> > > to the point that stars got close to each other..
> > > they began to meld...with each other..
> > >
> > > to a point of
> > > forming mass.
> > >
> > > The steady state universe turn into one
> > > giant boulder of hot stars and rock was formed
> > > so that you got this giant hot bolder made from stars
> > > that exploded and made more...space.
> > >
> > > During the explosion some rocks when this way and other rocks when that way.
> > >
> > > You can probably guess the rest...
> >
> > ...and for those of yous who haven't ...guess,
> >
> > The big bang was in fact...the end of eternity. (the end of steady state universe)
> >
> > So, you can easily gues the reason WHY the big bang occured...
> >
> > to make way for the end of eternity...
> >

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

#680297

"Starmaker

What is the age of the universe? According to observation..it goes into the trillions or more"

The Universe is Eternal.

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

#680309

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Starmaker
> 
> What is the age of the universe? According to observation..it goes into
> the trillions or more"

You have confused observation with unsubstantiated beliefs. 

> 
> The Universe is Eternal.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680363

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Starmaker
> >
> > What is the age of the universe? According to observation..it goes into
> > the trillions or more"
> 
> You have confused observation with unsubstantiated beliefs.
> 
> >
> > The Universe is Eternal.
> >
> 
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables


Albert Einstein believed that the universe has no beginning and no end (known as the steady state universe). That would mean that age
of the universe is in the trillions....or more.


Not 14 billion.


I already stated that the steady state, the big bang and the current universe are in fact ...one universe.


Based on observation right here:

http://pw1.netcom.com/~starmaker/before%20and%20after%20the%20big%20bang/untitled1.jpg


It's not my fault your college textbooks and proffesors have unsubstantiated beliefs. They are simply...wrong.

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

#680425

Star
"


It's not my fault your college textbooks and proffesors have unsubstantiated beliefs. They are simply...wrong. 
"
But Odd believes.

And it won't matter what is observed.

He will always believe in his beloved books.

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

#680427

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Star
> "
> 
> 
> It's not my fault your college textbooks and proffesors have
> unsubstantiated beliefs. They are simply...wrong. 
> "
> But Odd believes.
> 
> And it won't matter what is observed.

And you mentioned trillions were observed. How?


> 
> He will always believe in his beloved books.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680438

Odd
"And you mentioned trillions were observed. "
We all know that if YOU  can't see it, it doesn't exist.
This goes for history as well as smallness, as well as classified observations revealed by scientists in the know in deathbed confession.

That's your 'science'.

Busy doing lots of 'woodwork ' lately, Odd?

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

#680468

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> "And you mentioned trillions were observed. "
> We all know that if YOU  can't see it, it doesn't exist.

John, you were the one saying that OBSERVATIONS confirm that the age of the
universe is trillions of years if not older. 
Now if you say that the evidence is unseen, but it’s still true anyway,
then you’re a liar. 
If you’re not a liar, then cough up the observations. 

> This goes for history as well as smallness, as well as classified
> observations revealed by scientists in the know in deathbed confession.
> 
> That's your 'science'.
> 
> Busy doing lots of 'woodwork ' lately, Odd?
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680483

Odd
"john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote: 
> Odd 
> "And you mentioned trillions were observed. " 
> We all know that if YOU  can't see it, it doesn't exist. 

John, you were the one saying that OBSERVATIONS confirm that the age of the 
universe is trillions of years if not older. 
Now if you say that the evidence is unseen, but it’s still true anyway, "

No.
I didn't say that.
You need to learn to read.

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

#680593

On 4/9/18 1:41 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> "john <johnse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Odd
>> "And you mentioned trillions were observed. "
>> We all know that if YOU  can't see it, it doesn't exist.
> 
> John, you were the one saying that OBSERVATIONS confirm that the age of the
> universe is trillions of years if not older.
> Now if you say that the evidence is unseen, but it’s still true anyway, "
> 
> No.
> I didn't say that.
> You need to learn to read.
> 

Here's the content of your post. You did not attribute the words to 
anyone else.
=================
"Starmaker

What is the age of the universe? According to observation..it goes into 
the trillions or more"

The Universe is Eternal.
==================

So John, what observations are you referring to here?

Or is your statement not based on any observations whatsoever?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#680602

Odd
Here's from the 7th
"What is the age of the universe? According to observation..it goes into the trillions or more! Not stupid 14 billion years... 

there is no such thing as an "unobservable universe"... 


Are you going to stand around waiting for your cult leaders to say every hundred years..."The universe is older than we thought."? "

As you see, Odd, you have reading comprehension difficulties- partially my fault for using my phone which doesn't provide attributes- but just read back a few, Odd. You can do it!!

I included Ace from Space's last bit about your cult, Odd- when are you guys going to come back to Logic and Sanity? These latest telescope observations really require  a LOT of imagination to match to what your 'model' predicts. Nothing comes out of Black Holes? Poor Hawking.

As I said, "The Universe is Eternal".

Prove me wrong.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web