Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363943
| Subject | Re: A Particle Model of Light |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| References | <slrnmug2or.v41.nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> |
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
| Date | 2015-09-12 19:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ZZadndPbuNYZX2nInZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> (permalink) |
I have ignored your webpage, as it seems to the the same as your article. I will comment only on a few aspects of your notions, omitting text in between. On 9/3/15 9/3/15 3:55 AM, Ned Latham wrote: > Light is here modelled as a stream of particles called photons, which > have constant mass and variable spin. The word "photon" is already taken, and means something QUITE different from what you have in mind. All that will do is confuse your reader. I will attempt to keep your UNUSUAL meaning in mind, but that is quite difficult. It's as if you said "I will use the word 'red' to mean the color of the clear sky during the day". It is UNREASONABLE to expect a reader to keep that straight. > Having mass, they are subject to > gravitational attraction. It's rather remarkable (and rather sad) that you clearly have no understanding of electromagnetism and its role in light. Nor do you have any QUANTITATIVE feel for these forces. This makes your attempt to "model" light simply ludicrous. The gravitational force between two electrons is about 10^-42 time smaller than the electromagnetic force between them. Gravitation is UTTERLY too small to have any effect on light, except on astronomical scales. And even then, it is INCREDIBLY tiny compared to EM effects. Moreover, every measurement of the photon mass has yielded a value consistent with zero. At present the upper bound on the photon mass is 10^-18 eV/c^2 -- that is INCREDIBLY small. So while you mean something else by "photon", still the carriers of light have at most that INCREDIBLY small mass. > Having spin, they can exhibit wave-like > behaviours and attributes; Apparently you heard somewhere that photons have spin, and you ASSUMED that means they are like "little bullets" that spin as they travel. THIS IS FLAT-OUT WRONG. The "spin" of a photon (the usual sense) is an inherently quantum effect, and has little relationship to an object rotating on an axis. > Mass > Taking Planck's Law I suppose you mean his E=hf for photons. REMEMBER THAT HE MEANT SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT BY THAT WORD THAN YOU DO. > and the second postulate of the Particle > Theory What is that??? > together yields nhf = ½(mv^2 + Iw^2), What do those other symbols mean? I'll go out on a limb and suppose your I is some sort of moment of inertia, and w is some sort of angular velocity (but then why do you ALSO use f???). I haven't a clue what you mean by n. I suppose h is Planck's constant and m is the "photon's" mass. You don't seem to realize that the energy of a photon is proportional to its frequency. NONE of that other stuff is involved. This is known with an accuracy of a few parts per billion (spectroscopy is one of the most accurate and precise measurement techniques). If any of that other stuff were involved, we would know it.... > from which the > photon's mass will be calculable if: > 1 The energy, speed and either frequency or wavelength > of photons from a source are measured, allowing > numerical substituion of n, f, v, and w; Look at your formula. To compute mass from it you need to know the value of EVERY symbol, not just those you mentioned. > The energy of photons ejected from other particles depends on > the energy of the source particles at the moment of ejection. This is just word salad. HOW does it "depend" on all that? > It follows from that and the principle of determinism What is that "principle"? How do you know that "determinism" applies? -- after all, we observe considerable randomness in essentially all process involving light; it's just that the statistics of extremely large numbers mask it for many observations. Fundamentally, one cannot predict when an excited atom will emit a photon while relaxing to a lower-energy state. There are literally zillions of observations that conclusively show that "determinism" simply does not apply at atomic and sub- atomic scales.... > the set of energies of photons emitted in any particular > fusion reaction, such as hydrogen to helium, is always the > same, and that the set of energies of photons emitted in any > particular fission reaction, such as radon to lead, is always > the same. You are VERY confused about these processes. Mostly they do not emit gammas at all; when they do, it is from an excited nucleus cascading down to its ground state, and thus is essentially unrelated to the fusion or fission. > Similarly with other types of light emission; eg, > electroluminescence, fluorescence and incandescnece: the same > cause in the same circumstances[1] always produces the same > set of energy levels[2]. Except, of course, for those that don't. Yes, when a system emits a photon while transitioning from one energy state to another, the photon is necessarily equal to the energy difference between the states, and thus for states with definite energies it always has the same energy. But for other methods of photon emission this simply does not hold: bremsstrahlung, Compton scattering, synchrotron radiation, .... How do you think an incandescent light emits WHITE light? It's because the energy of the emitted photons is NOT always the same; the emitted photons have an energy distribution that looks white to our eyes. Yes, the filament has a definite temperature, but that corresponds to an energy DISTRIBUTION. > ¤ The speed of emission, and thus the speed of the > light, is relative to the source. This is KNOWN to be wrong. You are not alone around here in believing this, but there are lots of experiments that show that the vacuum speed of light is c, INDEPENDENT of the motion of its source. Some experiments involve sources moving > 0.9 c relative to the lab, for which c and c+v would be easily distinguished; the result is c. EVERY TIME. > Colour Shift > Since the speed of light is relative to the source, its speed > as apparent to an observer will depend on any relative motion > between them. And since such motion can have no effect on the > photons' angular velocity, so too will its energy, or colour. > > If source and observer are approaching each other, the speed > as apparent to the observer is increased by delta v, the energy > transmitted to the observer by an impacting photon is increased > in proportion to (delta v)^2, and the wavelength as apparent to > the observer is decreased in proportion to delta v. The light > undergoes a blue shift. So you claim the Doppler shift from a source moving relative to the observer with speed v would be proportional to v^2. This is refuted by just about every measurement of Doppler shift. For v << c it is linear in v. > Absorption, reflection, refraction > When light encounters a material substance, the photons are > affected individually. Each is subject to gravitational > attraction to particles making up the substance; This is just hopeless. Gravitational force is billions and billions of times too small to do this. > Those photons that do not collide with particles making up > the substance are accelerated into it by gravitational > attraction on both entry and exit, producing greater speed > within the substance, This is just plain wrong. Light travels more slowly in a transparent material than in vacuum. And you seem not to realize that some materials are transparent to visible light, and some are opaque. Yes the "gravitational attraction" to the "particles that make up the substance" is very similar. > [...] Well, I've had enough. This is not worth any more of my time. You seem to think that fuzzy descriptions and word salad are sufficient to model light. NOBODY cares, because we already have a good, QUANTITATIVE theory of light that provides one the ability to calculate what will happen in most physical situations of interest. Actually we have two such theories: classical electrodynamics for when quantum phenomena are not important, and QED for when they are. The former is an approximation to the latter. To actually model light requires one to understand ALL aspects of light that are known. I have not touched on the many aspects of quantum optics, but your "model" is woefully inadequate to address them (including spin). And as pointed out above, there are many parts of your "model" that simply do not agree with experiments -- that is the kiss of death for any physical theory or model. Your model fails to account for some very basic observations about light, such as transparent and opaque materials, the universality of its speed in vacuum, and the actual relationship between energy and frequency for photons (the usual meaning, not yours). Tom Roberts
Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 03:55 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-03 12:32 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:15 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-03 19:38 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:06 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light underante <underante@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-03 04:18 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 08:30 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-03 07:08 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-03 15:16 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2015-09-03 14:29 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-03 13:24 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-05 07:04 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 15:52 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-05 19:02 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 10:43 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-05 18:23 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 19:11 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-05 21:38 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-06 18:48 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-06 13:05 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-06 10:54 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:10 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-09-07 13:28 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 09:19 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:13 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 15:49 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-06 09:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:14 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 15:59 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-08 06:34 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-09 10:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-06 14:54 +0300
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-06 22:48 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-06 22:52 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson DSc. <hw@....> - 2015-09-07 08:19 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light antonius@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) - 2015-09-07 00:59 +0000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-06 19:42 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light antonius@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) - 2015-09-11 22:03 +0000
Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 23:14 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 15:39 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:14 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 20:42 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 12:38 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements (was: Re: A Particle Model of Light) Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 23:48 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 16:29 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-13 16:41 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 23:54 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 08:15 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:07 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-14 16:16 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-13 16:16 -0500
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 22:07 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Ignorant Raving Crackpot <ignorantravingcrackpot@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:16 -0700
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2015-09-14 15:43 +0300
Re: Dayton Miller's measurements alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-14 12:01 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-09-18 07:18 +0200
Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-20 12:37 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 14:09 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-20 17:34 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-22 06:40 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-22 19:14 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-23 09:17 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-24 09:39 -0500
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-24 17:38 +0200
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-24 10:54 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-24 11:36 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-24 11:54 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 15:45 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-22 09:15 -0700
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 16:19 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 16:25 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-22 16:28 +0000
Re: Shtyrkov's claim of finding the "ether drift" alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-22 10:27 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 03:39 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-09-05 11:17 -0400
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-12 19:25 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-13 08:01 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-19 13:21 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-19 23:44 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-20 04:34 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-20 15:25 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-21 12:02 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Jimmie Wynne <jimmwyn@metermap.org> - 2015-09-21 17:37 +0000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-21 22:17 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-22 08:18 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-22 09:07 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-26 09:06 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-26 12:14 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-29 11:41 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 10:27 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-29 21:11 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 13:35 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-09-29 23:23 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-09-26 21:31 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-09-27 08:37 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-27 23:14 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 01:41 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-09-29 08:11 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-28 18:53 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-09-29 10:24 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 11:13 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-03 08:13 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 17:07 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-29 13:41 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-09-29 14:43 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-30 11:28 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Ned Latham <nedlatham@internode.on.net> - 2015-09-30 08:34 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-03 07:51 +1000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-03 14:22 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 04:32 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-05 10:00 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-05 19:58 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-05 19:35 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 04:39 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-06 10:38 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 02:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 08:01 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-06 14:16 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-09 08:16 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-08 20:50 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-11 08:11 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-10 14:44 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-12 07:51 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-11 17:12 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-12 11:47 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-13 08:01 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-13 19:39 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <HG@nowhere.com> - 2015-10-13 21:36 +0000
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-14 10:26 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 02:10 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-15 09:18 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 15:59 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 22:59 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-15 20:15 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-16 07:36 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-15 18:37 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-10-07 08:56 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 07:47 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Henry Wilson <HW@.....> - 2015-10-06 04:50 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 14:17 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-06 14:55 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-05 21:02 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:51 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 08:15 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 06:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:53 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 11:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 13:58 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light HGW <xxx@....> - 2015-10-07 07:56 +1100
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 13:57 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-07 00:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 11:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 12:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:55 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 17:36 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 21:55 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-13 08:39 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 10:49 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 22:54 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 02:25 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 02:43 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-14 09:16 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 10:37 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-14 12:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-14 12:56 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-15 11:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 12:31 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-17 15:53 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 20:38 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 18:02 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 19:01 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:15 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-13 02:37 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 10:48 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2015-10-13 21:43 +0200
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 13:51 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 16:00 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 16:11 -0500
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-14 00:45 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2015-10-13 16:24 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-13 08:41 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 22:08 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-13 01:52 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-10-06 23:14 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 12:22 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 14:44 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-12 17:33 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 21:53 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-10-13 08:26 -0700
Re: A Particle Model of Light alsor@interia.pl - 2015-09-20 10:39 -0700
csiph-web