Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #363825
| From | antonius@freeshell.de (Anton Shepelev) |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics.relativity |
| Subject | Re: A Particle Model of Light |
| Date | 2015-09-11 22:03 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <msvj2s$see$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <06e62b5a-16f7-4170-8d2b-01d8f7647ca3@googlegroups.com> <20150906145441.bfbbf742aa6bf5138e53a5c8@gmail.com> <2105091.gaWzm2Luk0@PointedEars.de> <msinh5$v1e$1@dont-email.me> <e70bf7f7-6419-4056-90ee-9965f93c155b@googlegroups.com> |
Gary Harnagel to Anton Shepelev:
> > Dayton Miller consistently observed a small ef-
> > fect, unconnected with any earthly factors but
> > well-correlated with the orbital motion of the
> > Earth:
> >
> > http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Miller_1933/Miller1933_ocr.pdf
> >
> > See mr. Miller's address at the Mt. Wilson con-
> > ference for details on the hardware and the pro-
> > cedure:
> >
> > http://ether-wind.narod.ru/Conference_1927/Conference_1927.pdf
> >
> > If you will carefully read just these two docu-
> > ments you shall see that the "null result" is a
> > falsification and that Shankland's analysis
> > fails to explain Miller's positive result. They
> > also tell why numerous other repetitions failed.
>
> Miller unintentionally introduced errors which he
> didn't account for:
>
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0608/0608238.pdf
>
> "This paper presents a complete explanation for
> his anomalous result by:
>
> a. showing that his results are not statisti-
> cally significant,
> b. describing in detail how flaws in his anal-
> ysis procedure produced a false signal with
> precisely the properties he expected, and
> c. presenting a quantitative model of his sys-
> tematic drift that shows there is no real
> signal in his data."
Thomas J. Roberts must be famous, for others have
used his article in arguments with me about the
Miller experiments. His paper is primarily based on
Miller's large 1933 article referenced above, so I
wonder why he states that "because of the 180 degree
symmetry of the interferometer, any real signal can
depend only on orientation modulo 180 degrees," when
a full-period, first-order effect was detected by
Miller and explained by Hicks, whose calculations I
have at hand should you need them.
To be concise, the interferometer can't be perfectly
symmetrical if any interference is to be observed
because fringes of finite width appear when the two
wavefronts are slightly non-parallel. This asymme-
try causes a full-period effect from the ether wind,
which Roberts assumes does not exists ascibing it to
the systematic error. Miller summarizes:
In the theory of Hicks it is shown that when the
periodic variation in the relative phases of the
two beams of light in the inter-ferometer takes
place with the mirrors adjusted as in actual
practice, there is introduced an additional
effect which is periodic in a full turn of the
instrument. The amplitude of this full-period
effect, which varies inversely as the width of
the fringes being used at the time of observa-
tion, is about equal to the amplitude of the
ether-drift effect when there are eight fringes
in the field of view; with the adjustment usually
secured for six fringes in the field of view, the
full-period effect is smaller than the half-
period effect.
That may explain the deviation of the marker-9
points from the line between markers 1 and 17 in
fig. 3, in which Roberts sees evidence for a non-
linear systematic drift. Note how the majority of
the marker-9 measurements are above the linear drift
graph showing the postive half-wave of the full-pe-
riod effect.
His other careless statement that Miller arbitrarily
chose the linear model of the systematic drift is
also wrong, for in that same 1933 paper Miller ex-
plains that from the many tests he found temperature
effects to maintain a constant influence though each
50-second turn due to the high thermal capacity of
the interferometer, and a constant derivative calls
for a linear function, which may not affect the
clarity of any harmonic signal. Therefore Roberts
is wrong in calculating the error bars before sub-
tracting the linear model. The error would have
been several times lower if had done so after the
subtraction, which may be thought an essential part
of the measurement procedure. One should calculate
the dispersion of the measured signal, which is the
difference of the fringe shift from the linear tem-
prerature drift.
Quoth Miller:
The observation is a differential one and can be
made with considerable certainty under all condi-
tions. Disturbances, due to temperature or other
causes lasting for a few seconds or for a few
minutes, might affect the actual amount of the
observed displacement and give less certain val-
ues for the velocity of the ether-drift while, at
the same time, the position of maximum displace-
ment is not altered.
I would add that rapid disturbances will be reduced
during the averaging, as well as any additive noise
originating outside the interferometer and therefore
unperiodic in its turn.
Neither does Roberts explain the way that his hypo-
thetical instrumental error could produce a sinu-
soidal pseudosignal with a constant galactic orien-
tantion:
The curves for the three epochs were simply aver-
aged and it was found that when plotted in rela-
tion to local civil time, the curves are in such
phase relations that they nearly neutralize each
other; the average effect for the three epochs
thus plotted is very small and unsystematic. The
curves of observation were then plotted with
respect to sidereal time and a very striking con-
sistency of their principal characteristics was
shown to exist, not only among the three curves
for azimuth and those for magnitude, but, what
was more impressive, there was a consistency
between the two sets of curves, as though they
were related to a common cause. The average of
the curves, on sidereal time, showed conclusively
that the observed effect is dependent upon side-
real time and is independent of diurnal and sea-
sonal changes of temperature and other terres-
trial causes and that it is a cosmical phe-
nomenon.
How can an instumental error track the time of day
and the season of the year in precisely the way to
neutralize them, maintaining a constant galactic di-
rection in *all* the experiments over the years?
Roberts does not care to anwer that.
He is also wrong about Miller's averaging of half-
turns as part of data analysis. Miller did no such
thing and employed harmonic analysis to his full-pe-
riod curves. He explains:
These charted ???curves??? of the actual observations
contain not only the second-order, half-period
ether-drift effect, but also a first-order, full-
period effect, any possible effects of higher
orders, together with all instrumental and acci-
dental errors of observation.
Why does Roberts misinform us, presenting Miller's
visualisation procedure intended for "a preliminary
study of the observations" for the one he used in
"the definitive study of the ether-drift effect?"
The 1933 article describes both procedures and re-
veals Roberts's confusion.
One of Miller's errors in Roberts's opinion is the
averaging of data, so I wonder why he has retained
the supposed averaging of the half-turns in his re-
analysis, while Miller himself did not employ it.
Was it not the easier to impose his hypothesis of
the second harmonic's emerging from the Brownian
spectrum of the instrumental drift? I would he had
practised as he preaches and had analysed the uncom-
pressed, full-period measurements, even as Miller
did finding that both the first and the third har-
monics were always smaller than the second one (fig.
21 in his article). Or you may look at the full-pe-
riod graph in the picture of Miller's sample record.
Might Roberts have intentionally analyzed the wrong
algorithm to hide the uncomfortably small first har-
monic? Under his hypothesis it should dominate the
full-period spectrum, and if Miller's original pro-
cedure had been applied to the full turns he would
have detected an apparent full-period nearly-sinu-
soidal singal with a magnitude twice as high as that
of the purported ether drift. But, as shown above,
this is simply not the case, and Roberts's drift
model fails to account for the prevalence of the
second harmonic in the full-period spectrum.
Therefore, his explanation of "how flaws in
[Miller's] analysis procedure produced a false sig-
nal with precisely the properties he expected" is
invalid, because it is based on a wrong assumption
about the original procedure:
This is a simple consequence of the fact that the
1???2-turn Fourier component is the lowest fre-
quency retained by the algorithm, and it will
dominate because of the falling spectrum. When a
single frequency bin dominates the Fourier spec-
trum, the signal itself looks approximately like
a sinusoid with that period. Using this data
reduction algorithm, any noise with a falling
spectrum will end up looking like an approxi-
mately sinusoidal ???signal??? with a period of 1???2
turn -- precisely what Miller was looking for.
Roberts claims to have found a model of the system-
atic drift in Miller's experiment, but he has not
revealed this model even for a single twenty-turn
set so that readers might study it by themselves. I
for one should subtract it from the raw data and
look at the result, because Roberts did it in fre-
quency domain which is rather unituitive and con-
tains quantization and other errors of the discrete
Fourier transformation.
Roberts's only precaution against unintentional in-
clusion of the real signal into the systematic drift
is the subtraction of the first turn from all the
other turns. It does not seem a statistically right
operation when the noise is many times more powerful
than the signal, as it is in our case. The noise
may have conspired completely to mask any singal in
this turn. To attain any degree of certainty one
would have to repeat the subtraction with the other
turns as the subtrahend and compare the results. If
they would be very different then the procedure is
wrong.
That being said, I am not sure that the half-period-
ic component belongs to the systematic drift rather
than to the actual signal. The result of his re-
analysis may be a mere consequence his data-process-
ing procedure, just as he thinks about Miller's own
result.
Leaving the nature of the instrumental drift unex-
plained and uncommented upon, Roberts's "explana-
tion" seems but an abstract mathematical excercize
with little physical value because it offers no in-
sight into the physical cause of this drift.
> > There are other positive ether-wind experiments,
> > which no one to my knowledge has refuted.
>
> "Michelson and Morley (1887) analyzed their data
> using a data reduction algorithm quite similar to
> Miller's, and therefore their result suffers from
> the same serious flaws discussed above. They did,
> however, have a smaller systematic error, and they
> contented themselves with putting an upper bound
> on the earth's speed relative to the ether of 7.5
> km/s."
Which is close to Miller's result but somewhat
smaller because the experiment was performed closer
to the ground.
> These "other" experiments you refer to but don't
> specify will most likely be found to have the same
> defects as Miller's analysis.
I don't think so, but would postpone this subject
till another post, for this one is already big
enough.
P.S.: Do read Miller's 1933 article linked above and
preferable his address at the conference as
well.
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
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