| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
29 Jan 2008 12:45:05 AM |
| Object: |
EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=685dc5bb-80f8-4edc-9628-18b53b20c6e0
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
And Einsteinians decided to save the money-spinner. Since the speed of
DISCONTINUOUS light particles obeys the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, John Stachel and his sycophant Jean
Eisenstaedt discovered that the emission theory and Divine Albert's
Divine Theory were compatible and then added the former to the latter:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
29 Jan 2008 05:29:29 PM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 10:45 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=685dc5bb...
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
I think I read this in "The Later Years".
Einstein mentioned, if I recall correctly, right after this that some
discrete program may be what physics needs, be is as of yet beyond our
know how.
Of course, that was in the first part of last century.
Did you know Leibniz was advocating a discrete alternative to Newton
in the 1700s?
He also envisioned computer systems to support it.
As of right now, we have those computer systems.
It's time to look at the discrete program Einstein knew would replace
his castle.
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
29 Jan 2008 05:51:40 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 6:29=A0pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:45 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dvi=
....
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=3D685dc5bb..=
..
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
I think I read this in "The Later Years".
Einstein mentioned, if I recall correctly, right after this that some
discrete program may be what physics needs, be is as of yet beyond our
know how.
Of course, that was in the first part of last century.
Did you know Leibniz was advocating a discrete alternative to Newton
in the 1700s?
He also envisioned computer systems to support it.
Every mathematician since Pythagorus envisioned
computers to support all things. but as yet
the only thing the support is 20 years of taxes.
As of right now, we have those computer systems.
And of as rigtht now, we have lasers to show that both
computer theory and Q.M. are well photonic crapola.
It's time to look at the discrete program Einstein knew would replace
his castle.
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Helland" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
30 Jan 2008 12:58:41 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 3:51 pm, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
On Jan 29, 6:29 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:45 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=vi...
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=685dc5bb...
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
I think I read this in "The Later Years".
Einstein mentioned, if I recall correctly, right after this that some
discrete program may be what physics needs, be is as of yet beyond our
know how.
Of course, that was in the first part of last century.
Did you know Leibniz was advocating a discrete alternative to Newton
in the 1700s?
He also envisioned computer systems to support it.
Every mathematician since Pythagorus envisioned
computers to support all things. but as yet
the only thing the support is 20 years of taxes.
That's not true.
At least, not to the degree that it was true for Leibniz. He actually
built a computer in the 1600s.
Wikipedia:
"Leibniz may have been the first computer scientist and information
theorist. Early in life, he discovered the binary number system (base
2), which was later (and is now) used on most computers, then
revisited that system throughout his career. (See Couturat, 1901: 473-
78.) He anticipated Lagrangian interpolation and algorithmic
information theory. His calculus ratiocinator anticipated aspects of
the universal Turing machine. In 1934, Norbert Wiener claimed to have
found in Leibniz's writings a mention of the concept of feedback,
central to Wiener's later cybernetic theory.
In 1671, Leibniz began to invent a machine that could execute all four
arithmetical operations, gradually improving it over a number of
years. This 'Stepped Reckoner' attracted fair attention and was the
basis of his election to the Royal Society in 1673. A number of such
machines were made during his years in Hanover, by a craftsman working
under Leibniz's supervision. It was not an unambiguous success because
it did not fully mechanize the operation of carrying. Couturat (1901:
115) reported finding an unpublished note by Leibniz, dated 1674,
describing a machine capable of performing some algebraic operations.
Leibniz was groping towards hardware and software concepts worked out
much later in 1830-1845 by Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace. In 1679,
while mulling over his binary arithmetic, Leibniz imagined a machine
in which binary numbers were represented by marbles, governed by a
rudimentary sort of punched cards.[3] Modern electronic digital
computers replace Leibniz's marbles moving by gravity with shift
registers, voltage gradients, and pulses of electrons, but otherwise
they run roughly as Leibniz envisioned in 1679. Davis (2000) discusses
Leibniz's prophetic role in the emergence of calculating machines and
of formal languages."
As of right now, we have those computer systems.
And of as rigtht now, we have lasers to show that both
computer theory and Q.M. are well photonic crapola.
It's time to look at the discrete program Einstein knew would replace
his castle.
http://www.cloudmusiccompany.com/paper.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
29 Jan 2008 05:03:23 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 1:45=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dvi.=
...
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=3D685dc5bb...=
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
Well, it's already been determined that that's complete nonsense.
also.
Since Einstein, so famous for a entire history of quotes from the
Philosophy weirdos, also said:
"As simple as possible, but no simpler".
"Time and space are modes of thought".
"The degree to which math is exact, it's not Physics.
The degree to which math is Physics, it's not exact".
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
And Einsteinians decided to save the money-spinner. Since the speed of
DISCONTINUOUS light particles obeys the equation c'=3Dc+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, John Stachel and his sycophant Jean
Eisenstaedt discovered that the emission theory and Divine Albert's
Divine Theory were compatible and then added the former to the latter:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Igor" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
29 Jan 2008 11:07:22 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 1:45=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dvi.=
...
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=3D685dc5bb...=
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
And Einsteinians decided to save the money-spinner. Since the speed of
DISCONTINUOUS light particles obeys the equation c'=3Dc+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, John Stachel and his sycophant Jean
Eisenstaedt discovered that the emission theory and Divine Albert's
Divine Theory were compatible and then added the former to the latter:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
But if the speed of light were dependent on the speed of its source,
it would affect Maxwell's equations in ways that have never been
observed, Vacuum permittivity would depend on the speed of the
source. This doesn't happen. So even the simplest experiment can
falsify this hypothesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Stockbauer" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
29 Jan 2008 02:20:40 PM |
|
|
EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN
***************
Why does it follow that if Einstein performed oral sex, then
everything in the Universe has to perform oral sex? I mean, there
are systems which can't even perform oral sex. Like a tree.
- Tex
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "xxein" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
29 Jan 2008 04:49:09 PM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 1:45=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=3Dcom_content&task=3Dvi.=
...
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=3D685dc5bb...=
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
And Einsteinians decided to save the money-spinner. Since the speed of
DISCONTINUOUS light particles obeys the equation c'=3Dc+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, John Stachel and his sycophant Jean
Eisenstaedt discovered that the emission theory and Divine Albert's
Divine Theory were compatible and then added the former to the latter:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
xxein: Another theory will tell you there is no reason to believe
that clicking your ruby-red heels together cannot return you to
Kansas.
Gravity fine, but emission (the aspect that you are referring to) has
proved false. Just how false is through the use of a logical
conclusion. It cannot be contained within any theoretical
conclusionary statement.
I can like a lot of what you write but this has no legs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EINSTEIN: IF I GO DOWN, EVERYTHING GOES DOWN |
04 Feb 2008 08:57:16 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 8:45 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/NoPopupRedirector.aspx?peid=685dc5bb-80f8-4edc-9628-18b53b20c6e0&shouldResize=False
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot
be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures.
Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the
theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary
physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
And Einsteinians decided to save the money-spinner. Since the speed of
DISCONTINUOUS light particles obeys the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light, John Stachel and his sycophant Jean
Eisenstaedt discovered that the emission theory and Divine Albert's
Divine Theory were compatible and then added the former to the latter:
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."
http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/the-masters-mistakes
"Einstein explained the so-called photoelectric effect by asserting
that light, which was known to flow in CONTINUOUS waves, could also be
regarded as sputtering along in DISCRETE PARTICLES, or quanta. Each of
these particles--every quantum of light at a given wavelength--carried
the same amount of energy, he argued, and so dispatched a single
electron with the same energetic kick. Thus did Einstein discover the
photon. He lived to regret it."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
John Stachel: "It is not so well known that there was "another
Einstein," who from 1916 on was skeptical about the CONTINUUM as a
foundational element in physics..." Albert Einstein: "I consider it
entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept,
that is on CONTINUOUS structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole
castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also
nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."
Translation from French: "Moreover, if one admits that light consists
of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks
earlier, the second principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-
moving train causes much more damage than one thrown from a train at
rest. Now, according to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body! If we
consider light as composed of particles that obey Newton's laws, those
particles would conform to Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is
not necessary to resort to length contration, local time and Lorentz
transformations in explaining the negative result of the Michelson-
Morley experiment. Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the
temptation to explain the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas,
simple and familiar. He introduced his second postulate, more or less
evident as one thinks in terms of waves in aether."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
