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

Groups > sci.physics > #590045 > unrolled thread

Re: Gravity and light question

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: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-19 19:32 -0700
    Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 10:54 -0700
      Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:13 -0500
        Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-20 11:31 -0700
          Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:10 -0500
          Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:24 -0700
            Re: Gravity and light question Kent Evans <kenev@bluebarryinfo.org> - 2016-07-22 18:27 +0000
            Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-22 11:34 -0700
      Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-23 23:21 -0700
        Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 00:09 -0700
          Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 13:11 -0700
            Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:09 -0700
            light is waves through the electronic matters of free space noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:16 -0700
          Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 15:22 -0500
            Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 14:12 -0700
              Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:53 -0500
                Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:37 -0700
                  Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 09:39 -0500
                    Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 08:12 -0700
                      Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 10:54 -0500
                        Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:56 -0500
                          Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 17:12 -0700
                            Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:10 -0500
                              Re: Gravity and light question john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:51 -0700
                                Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 07:24 -0500
                        Re: Gravity and light question moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-07-26 19:18 +0000
            Re: Gravity and light question mapou001@gmail.com - 2016-07-24 15:04 -0700
      Re: Gravity and light question Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 18:50 -0500
    Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:05 -0700
    Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-25 11:16 -0700
      Re: Gravity and light question edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-07-26 11:00 -0700
        Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 11:52 -0700
        Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:29 -0700
      Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 14:01 -0500
        Re: Gravity and light question noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-07-31 18:45 -0700
        Re: Gravity and light question jay moseley <jaymoseley@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-01 08:45 -0700
          Re: Gravity and light question Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-08-01 15:12 -0500

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#590695

On 7/25/2016 10:54 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/25/2016 10:12 AM, john wrote:
>> Yes Odd.
>> You're not a physicist.
>> You have never been a physicist.
>> Why are you here?
>
> Because this not a newsgroup for physicists, though some may come.
> It is a newsgroup for those who are fans of physics.
>

So, John, you are not a physicist.
Nor are you a fan of physics.

So.... why are YOU here?


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

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

#590753

Odd PD said
"So, John, you are not a physicist. 
Nor are you a fan of physics. 

So.... why are YOU here? "

I am not a fan of wrong Physics.
Suck gravity is plain stupid.
Primary, fundamental particles is stupid.
Electrons that neither radiate nor
absorb is stupid.
Photons that travel and never lose energy
is stupid.
Universal expansion is impossible AND
stupid.
My Universal Fractal (atoms are galaxies)
fixes all these stupidities.
YOU are stupid, if you believe a dissection 
can be faked.
I just don't understand why you
would wish to be so closed-mindedly stupid???

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

#590867

On 7/25/2016 7:12 PM, john wrote:
> Odd PD said
> "So, John, you are not a physicist.
> Nor are you a fan of physics.
>
> So.... why are YOU here? "
>
> I am not a fan of wrong Physics.

You're not a fan of physics at all. You've said repeatedly that if the 
scientific method produces conclusions you think are wrong, then the 
scientific method is crap. Well, bub, the scientific method IS science, 
it IS physics. So if you don't like the scientific method, you don't 
like science.

What you DO like are "ideas that are cool". You like YOUR ideas because 
you came up with them. And because these ideas have to do with galaxies 
and atoms, somehow you think this makes your ideas physics.

I've got news for you, John. Animations about atoms are not physics. 
Philosophical ramblings about fractals all the way down are not physics. 
If you ain't using the scientific method, then it doesn't matter WHAT 
you're talking about, it ain't physics.

> Suck gravity is plain stupid.
> Primary, fundamental particles is stupid.
> Electrons that neither radiate nor
> absorb is stupid.
> Photons that travel and never lose energy
> is stupid.
> Universal expansion is impossible AND
> stupid.
> My Universal Fractal (atoms are galaxies)
> fixes all these stupidities.
> YOU are stupid, if you believe a dissection
> can be faked.

And you are stupid AND arrogant to believe that you can't be fooled by a 
hoaxster. Even after the hoaxster TELLS you you've been hoaxed.

> I just don't understand why you
> would wish to be so closed-mindedly stupid???
>

Look in the mirror lately?

Given any thought to the prospect, John, that you might be the one 
that's just flat wrong? If not -- if that's just not an acceptable 
prospect to you -- then who is being closed-mindedly stupid???


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

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

#590875

Odd
Funny it's only govt scientists and CIA that
are all deciding to tell these huge
lies on their deathbeds, and
corroborating each other.
'Tard

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

#590907

On 7/26/2016 6:51 PM, john wrote:
> Odd
> Funny it's only govt scientists and CIA that

Oh, John, that's just not true. There are deathbed confessions from 
artists, accountants, and housewives, all claiming to be privy to some 
secret information of some kind.

But you only PAY ATTENTION to the ones from your pet whipping boys, the 
ones who were attached to the Big Scary Things you are in a frenzy about.

> are all deciding to tell these huge
> lies on their deathbeds, and
> corroborating each other.
> 'Tard
>


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

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

#590837

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

>On 7/25/2016 10:12 AM, john wrote:

>> You simply Bible-thump, even the
>> brand new LIGO bible, which
>> they swear they only "injected"
>> the FIRST false signal.

>ALL major experiments, including the ones that found the Higgs, the ones 
>that found the top quark, ones that did other top notch work before 
>that, run SIMULATED DATA through their detector. Do you know WHY they do 
>that? I do.

>You are the one that is saying that if anyone would ever run simulated 
>data through their detector, then you could never be sure the real data 
>is real.

>Good grief, John, if you were truly a fan of physics, you would know WHY 
>this injection of simulated data is important to do.

Exactly, John.  I do software development. Part of my work is to test
normal, unusual and error conditions of all sorts to be sure the
system behaves as designed/expected, using simulated data and events.
We explicitly try to test "edge cases", often the more extreme ones.

Would you not trust the data on your PC because it happened to have software
I wrote and tested with fake test input?

I worked on fire department dispatch code.  We had several tests, including
what we jokingly called "burn the city down" tests.  Does that put the 
validity of an emergency fire department call in doubt because we ran a
make believe disaster scenario on the dispatch system?

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

#590615

On Sunday, July 24, 2016 at 1:22:19 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 7/24/2016 2:09 AM, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> > Einstein was a third rate scientist, if you can call him that. He was wrong about so many things, it's
> > not even funny. After all is said and done, he will be just a footnote in the annals of science, filed
> > under "Aberration" and "Absurd Science". Eventually, he will be forgotten. How wrong was he? Let me
> > count the ways.
> >
> > 1. He was wrong about continuity. Fact: The universe is discrete.
> > 2. He was wrong about time. Fact: A time dimension makes motion impossible. Time cannot change by definition.
> > 3. He was wrong about spacetime. Fact: Spacetime is a block universe in which nothing moves and nothing happens.
> > 4. He was wrong about space. Fact: Space does not exist.
> > 5. He was wrong about "spooky action at a distance". Fact: The universe is nonlocal.
> > 6. He was wrong about the speed of gravity. Fact: Gravity is an instantaneous or nonlocal phenomenon.
> > 7. He was wrong about determinism. Fact: God loves playing dice with the universe.
> > 8. Finally, he was wrong about relativity. Fact: A universe in which only the relative exists is a
> > self-referential universe. Deep down where it counts, everything is absolute.
> >
> > There is more but why beat a dead horse?
> >
> > ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
> 
> Your hatred of the PERSON of Einstein is masked poorly as a complaint 
> about his physics. Your emotional problems about Einstein are of no concern.
> 
> Secondly, of the eight things you say he is wrong about, two of them are 
> KNOWN already and were before you hit the 6th grade. (#5 and #7). 
> However, his being WRONG about a couple of things is not grounds to call 
> him a 3rd-rate physicist. All 1st-rate physicists (emph. on ALL) have 
> been been mistaken. On the other points, these are all things YOU 
> believe are true, but are not demonstrated to be true, either by you or 
> by experimental evidence. They are merely your articles of faith. The 
> fact that YOU think they are true does not mean that Einstein is wrong. 
> It may well mean that YOU are wrong, but simply refuse to acknowledge 
> it. That's ok, experimental evidence -- not bluster -- is what settles 
> these things in science.
> 
> You smell like ranch dressing.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Fuck you.

ahahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...

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

#590623

You're using my analogy, and you're using it incorrectly.

If you figure out the *right* way to add epicycles so that your theory 
can actually predict something, you can reduce that to a simpler and 
more useful theory.

-- 
Goat

On 07/20/2016 12:54, mapou001@gmail.com wrote:
> Anybody can put together a theory that predicts things precisely by
> fudging it to fit observation. GR's Mercury "prediction" was and
> after-the-fact postdiction. Ptolemaic epicycles can be just as
> accurate if you add more epicycles. It's all crap.

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

#590130

yeah, if great is nice, daysider

> If you are unable or unwilling to do that, well like JM, I
> have little hope for you.
> 
> And again, have a great day.
>  Ed

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

#590702

Ed wrote..
> Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute motion well enough to place a man on the moon. So it is useful.

Newtons theory is wrong because the calculations incorrectly assume all the mass of
system is at the center. Which it isnt. The suns mass is spread out over its volume. 
The closer you get the more innacurate the two body calculation is. What is
needed is a n> 3 body calculation. Which cannot be done to any degree of accuracy.

Thats also why galaxy rotation curves calculated using the newtonian 2 body
calculation dont match those observed. Newtons formula assumes,  erroneously,
that ALL the mass of the galaxy is at a central point in the core. Total nonsense.
The galaxies mass is fairly evenly spread throughout the disk. Hence the fairly uniform 
observed rotational speeds across the radius. 

>Newton's theory happens to fail in computing the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. General relativity was able to solve that problem.

GR did nothing of the sort. If you study the derivation, its basically
the newtonian calculation with the extra precession added in.
Easy to do seeing as the preccession was already known fairly accurately.

>Maybe someday we find the sources of what we currently call dark matter and dark energy with a theory that calculates there effects better than Relativity.

Maybe someday your people will realize that dark matter/ energy was made
up to cover the fact that the observed supernovae decay profiles are
not time dilated. At greater distances the imagined time dilation
is not being observed. They are fainter earlier than expected. So
to cover up the hoax of expansion,  an extra additional expansion
is made up to spuriously explain the unexplained faintness. 
Perlmutter, Knop et al faked the data. And even admit it 
in their papers.

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

#590827

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:16:23 PM UTC-4, jay moseley wrote:
> Ed wrote..
> > Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute
> > motion well enough to place a man on the moon. So
> > it is useful.
> 
> Newtons theory is wrong because the calculations
> incorrectly assume all the mass of system is at
> the center. Which it isnt. The suns mass is spread
> out over its volume. 

The calculations are not the theory. The theory does
not assume point masses. That is done just to make
the calculations easier back when it was done with
paper and pencil and some calculus.

In fact it it a test of newton's theory that planetary
orbits as measured by Kepler appeared to follow curves
as if the sun and the planets were point masses. And
that the calculations match those measurements.

It is an undergraduate physics exercise to calculate
the net force of a spherical mass at a point a distance away.

> The closer you get the more innacurate the two
> body calculation is. What is needed is a n> 3 body
> calculation. Which cannot be done to any degree
> of accuracy.

You are confusing multi-body calculations with large
body calculations.

Calculating the orbits of a three star system where,
for example, the relative masses are 1, 2, and 3 solar
masses respectively is a difficult problem.
But with modern supercomputers, we are getting better
at it on almost a daily basis.

Calculating the relative motion of a two rigid bodies
of distributed mass is easier, even if the two shapes
are not nice spheres and the masses are orders of 
magnitude different.

The Sun as a large body does not radically change shape.
It is fairly consistently a sphere. The sun does throw
out flares which are massive, but are irregular in size
and time, and therefore cannot account for the change
in Mercury's orbit.

> 
> Thats also why galaxy rotation curves calculated using the newtonian 2 body
> calculation dont match those observed. Newtons formula assumes,  erroneously,
> that ALL the mass of the galaxy is at a central point in the core. Total nonsense.

NO. the point calculation is not assumed. It is derived from
the calculation of the distributed masses.

> The galaxies mass is fairly evenly spread throughout the disk. Hence the fairly uniform 
> observed rotational speeds across the radius.

NO, not when you actually do the calculations.

In this case, the calculations were done based on the observations.
The stars orbiting the galaxy are the measured speeds. Then given
the know distribution of the stars and their speeds, the distribution
of mass necessary for that to happen can be calculated. (note this is
a variation of the multi-body problem, but in some ways not as hard.)

When the calculation is done, it is clear there is something wrong.
Now there are two possibilities:
1. Gravity on galactic scales is different than on local
   (stellar and smaller) scales.
2. Gravity theory is correct and there is mass not accounted for
   in the calculations. Something which we have not yet seen.

To move forward, we continue with the assumption that gravity
is the same on all scales. IOW we use 2. as the starting point
for testing our theories further. Like a junction in a maze,
you choose a path and follow until you are stopped, or you find
the way out.

> 
> >Newton's theory happens to fail in computing the precession
> > of the perihelion of Mercury. General relativity was able
> > to solve that problem.
> 
> GR did nothing of the sort. If you study the derivation, its basically
> the newtonian calculation with the extra precession added in.
> Easy to do seeing as the preccession was already known fairly accurately.

While I haven't done the derivation, but I am sure it does not
include (as some would claim) fudge factors to make it match.

If that were the case, the Established physics community would
have done the same with Newton's theory. (Einstein was not the
darling of physics when relativity was first published.)

AND if that was the ONLY test of GR, then I might agree with you.

But in the second test, the bending of light around the sun,
GR matches the results and Newtonian theory does not.

> 
> >Maybe someday we find the sources of what we currently
> > call dark matter and dark energy with a theory that
> > calculates there effects better than Relativity.
> 
> Maybe someday your people will realize that dark matter/ energy was made
> up to cover the fact that the observed supernovae decay profiles are
> not time dilated. At greater distances the imagined time dilation
> is not being observed. They are fainter earlier than expected. So
> to cover up the hoax of expansion,  an extra additional expansion
> is made up to spuriously explain the unexplained faintness. 
> Perlmutter, Knop et al faked the data. And even admit it 
> in their papers.

Dark energy is a different discussion.

 Dark matter was related to the galactic motion. I mentioned it
to indicate that maybe it isn't really there and we do need a better
theory.

Point is were use the tools (theory) that we have now. 
Just saying "it is wrong" doesn't move use forward.
It is not absolute right or wrong. It is useful or not.

Newtonian physics is fine for things like a car crash.
GR physics is fine for things like GPS.
Something else may be the solution for the Galactic motion issue.

That's how we make advances. Trying something until it fails,
but not but shouting "IT IS WRONG"

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

#590835

yeah, trying to get the motion of masses of one, two & three masses is neat,
and hard.  as for the galaxy,
I'm sure that the Alfven cosomolgY must have addressed the problem

>  Dark matter was related to the galactic motion. I mentioned it
> to indicate that maybe it isn't really there and we do need a better
> theory.
> 
> Point is were use the tools (theory) that we have now. 
> Just saying "it is wrong" doesn't move use forward.
> It is not absolute right or wrong. It is useful or not.
> 
> Newtonian physics is fine for things like a car crash.
> GR physics is fine for things like GPS.
> Something else may be the solution for the Galactic motion issue.
> 
> That's how we make advances. Trying something until it fails,
> but not but shouting "IT IS WRONG"

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

#590919

Ed wrote...
> NO, not when you actually do the calculations.

>In this case, the calculations were done based on the observations. The stars orbiting the galaxy are the measured speeds. Then given the know distribution >of the stars and their speeds, the distribution of mass necessary for that to happen can be calculated. (note this is a variation of the multi-body problem, but >in some ways not as hard.)

My understanding is the opposite. The calculations, assuming mass
at center, did not match the observations. 

Regarding your argument that newtonian calculations are correct when all 
the mass is assumed to be at the center vis a vis solar system. 
Unfortunately the truth is that they are not correct. 
The closer one gets to the  sun,  the more innacurate the prediction. 
Hence the preccession problem. Newtons formula doesnt work
if you assume all  mass at the center

How did le verrier correctly calculate mercurys preccession?
He did so by very crudely, spreading the suns mass across its
volume. Whatever he intended with vulcan is irrelevent. Because
inadvertantly he showed that if one spreads out the suns mass.
One can account for its gravitational effects like orbital preccession

Without realizing it dark matter supporters confirm my argument .
What are they doing by invoking a dark matter halo.? They are admitting
that when one counterbalances the erroneous assumption that most
of the galactic mass is at the center where  its brightest. They can
correctly model rotation curves. 
All they have  done is shown that if one spreads out all mass 
evenly as I argue. They can correctly model flat rotation curves.
Their mistake is to assume that just because the center is the brightest
it must be the most massive.

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

#591390

On 7/25/2016 1:16 PM, jay moseley wrote:
> Ed wrote..
>> > Newton's theory is wrong, but it happens to compute motion well enough to place a man on the moon. So it is useful.
> Newtons theory is wrong because the calculations incorrectly assume all the mass of
> system is at the center. Which it isnt. The suns mass is spread out over its volume.

Jay, Newton's theory doesn't assume all the mass is in the center of the 
object. It is a mathematically proven theorem that the mass of a 
spherically symmetric body behaves EXACTLY LIKE a body where all the 
mass is concentrated at the center. It will make absolutely no 
difference in Newtonian gravity whether you approach close to the 
surface of this distributed body (where the surface is at radius R) or 
whether you are at a distance R from a point mass at the center. None, 
nada, zip.

The ONLY correction to be applied to the sun is the corrections for it 
not being spherically symmetric. Those corrections are documented and 
accounted for already.

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

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

#591451

the secondpower of the speed of light;
dimensional analysis is easy

> The ONLY correction to be applied to the sun is the corrections for it 
> not being spherically symmetric. Those corrections are documented and 
> accounted for already.
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#591505

Odd wrote..
> Jay, Newton's theory doesn't assume all the mass is in the center of the object. It is a mathematically proven theorem that the mass of a spherically symmetric body behaves EXACTLY LIKE a body where all the mass is concentrated at the center. It will make absolutely no difference in Newtonian gravity whether you approach close to the surface of this distributed body (where the surface is at radius R) or whether you are at a distance R from a point mass at the center. None, nada, zip

Your argument is at odds with the observations. If the distribution
of mass made no difference vis a vis the distance (R). Then the observed
anomaly would not appear to be greater the closer to the center of
mass one is on the orbital path. In other words, there would
be no anomaly.
Le Verrier calculated that mercurys orbit could be affected
by placing some of the suns mass outside its center (vulcan). This wouldnt
have worked unless the distribution of mass did make a difference to
orbital paths when R becomes small enough.

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

#591538

On 8/1/2016 10:45 AM, jay moseley wrote:
> Odd wrote..
>> Jay, Newton's theory doesn't assume all the mass is in the center of the object. It is a
>> mathematically proven theorem that the mass of a spherically symmetric body behaves EXACTLY
>> LIKE a body where all the mass is concentrated at the center. It will make absolutely no
>> difference in Newtonian gravity whether you approach close to the surface of this distributed
>> body (where the surface is at radius R) or whether you are at a distance R from a point mass
>> at the center. None, nada, zip
>
> Your argument is at odds with the observations. If the distribution
> of mass made no difference vis a vis the distance (R). Then the observed
> anomaly would not appear to be greater the closer to the center of
> mass one is on the orbital path.

For a spherically symmetric distribution, that would be right.
There are two things to consider.
1. The sun is not spherically symmetric but oblate. The theorem I 
mentioned AS EXPRESSED does not apply, but it is possible to do the 
calculation of the correction due to that oblateness. Note that this has 
NOTHING TO DO with the equivalence between distributed mass in a 
spherical distribution and a point mass. The calculation to correct for 
the oblateness HAS BEEN DONE a long time ago and does not adequately 
explain the difference from observations.
2. Given that the correction for oblateness is the BEST ONE CAN DO with 
Newtonian gravity, the disagreement with observation would suggest that 
Newtonian gravity is simply wrong. Please note this. It does NOT mean 
Newtonian gravity could be right if only someone did the calculation 
right. That's been DONE, and the results do not agree. Therefore it is 
NOT POSSIBLE to do the calculation any better with Newtonian gravity.

> In other words, there would
> be no anomaly.
> Le Verrier calculated that mercurys orbit could be affected
> by placing some of the suns mass outside its center (vulcan). This wouldnt
> have worked unless the distribution of mass did make a difference to
> orbital paths when R becomes small enough.
>


-- 
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

csiph-web