A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights

From: Ste on 13 Mar 2010 19:04

On 14 Mar, 00:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Mar, 00:23, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time
> > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space.
>
> As far as I know, there is never an "acceleration of time" under any
> circumstances.

Just to qualify this dangerous statement immediately, I mean there is
never an "acceleration of time" as a direct result of a change of
velocity.

From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:11

On Mar 13, 7:04 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Mar, 00:01, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Mar, 00:23, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time
> > > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space.
>
> > As far as I know, there is never an "acceleration of time" under any
> > circumstances.
>
> Just to qualify this dangerous statement immediately, I mean there is
> never an "acceleration of time" as a direct result of a change of
> velocity.

Time is a concept. Time does not accelerate or change with velocity or
exist at all beyond our conceptualization of it. And just to be clear,
all physical life has the concept of time or there would be no
physical life. And by physical life I mean anything that is born and
dies.

The rate at which a clock ticks is dependent upon the aether pressure
in which it exists.

From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 19:18

On Mar 12, 11:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > T1:
>
> > > > > > > > > M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > -\
> > > > > > > > > --\
> > > > > > > > > ---\
> > > > > > > > > ----\
> > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > T2:
>
> > > > > > > > > -----M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > T3:
>
> > > > > > > > > ----------M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > ---------/
> > > > > > > > > --------/
> > > > > > > > > -------/
> > > > > > > > > ------/
> > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from
> > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across
> > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other
> > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to travel accross space to the
> > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light
> > > > > > > > gets left behind in space.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more
> > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train
> > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train
> > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the
> > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the
> > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment.
>
> > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"-
> > > > > > > Albert Einstein
>
> > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment
> > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light
> > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where
> > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and
> > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes
> > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how
> > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the
> > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to
> > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time
> > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether
> > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics. The strength
> > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push
> > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from
> > > > > > space's aether.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a
> > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with
> > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at
> > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its
> > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause
> > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based
> > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real.
> > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall?
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
> Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space
> ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure
> associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship
> then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the
> space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the
> space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained
> on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020.
> As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have
> passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the
> space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the
> people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and
> returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin
> who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on
> their calendar. Time is a concept.
>
> If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has
> time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
> batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in
> nature to cause your clock to tick slower.
>
> The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by
> determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since
> both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which
> physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to
> oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick
> accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with
> motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the
> aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to
> oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns
> both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the
> Earth will state the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You cannot divorce time from a clock. There are two rates that come
together for matter. This is the smartest concept.

Mitch Raemsch

From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 19:25

On Mar 13, 7:18 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 2:16 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 11:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 13, 2:07 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 11:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:53 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 12, 10:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:19 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > T1:
>
> > > > > > > > > > M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > -\
> > > > > > > > > > --\
> > > > > > > > > > ---\
> > > > > > > > > > ----\
> > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > T2:
>
> > > > > > > > > > -----M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > -----|
> > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > T3:
>
> > > > > > > > > > ----------M'-------->
> > > > > > > > > > ---------/
> > > > > > > > > > --------/
> > > > > > > > > > -------/
> > > > > > > > > > ------/
> > > > > > > > > > -----M
>
> > > > > > > > > > There is no difference between the clocks being directly across from
> > > > > > > > > > each other and one clock approaching, and then being directly across
> > > > > > > > > > from, and then moving past the other clock.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > If two ships flow through space at near light speed next to each other
> > > > > > > > > light will be left behind as it has to travel accross space to the
> > > > > > > > > next ship. Each will see the other ship slightly behind because light
> > > > > > > > > gets left behind in space.
>
> > > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. It might be more
> > > > > > > > informative to discuss the light from lightning strikes on the train
> > > > > > > > at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. Let's assume the train
> > > > > > > > is full of flat bed cars and the lightning strikes occur above the
> > > > > > > > flat bed cars on the train at A' and B'. Let's also assume the
> > > > > > > > lightning strike occur above A and B on the embankment.
>
> > > > > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
> > > > > > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"-
> > > > > > > > Albert Einstein
>
> > > > > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment
> > > > > > > > than the aether is at rest with respect to the train. The light
> > > > > > > > travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to where
> > > > > > > > M' is when the light reaches M'. The light travels from where A' and
> > > > > > > > B' were with respect to the Earth at the time of the lighting strikes
> > > > > > > > to M'. Measuring to A' and B' on the train in order to determine how
> > > > > > > > far the light travels to M' does not accurately reflect how far the
> > > > > > > > light traveled in nature from the lightning strikes at A' and B' to
> > > > > > > > M'. A' and B' have moved with respect to the aether between the time
> > > > > > > > of the lightning strikes and the time the light reaches M'.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > Light flows through space pushed by time. Space has its own aether
> > > > > > > that is the main "push" to matter behind all of physics. The strength
> > > > > > > of gravity does not require this aether to push. Since space flow push
> > > > > > > is what God is doing in physics. The rest of the pushes are from
> > > > > > > space's aether.
>
> > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > 'Time' is not a physical force capable of 'pushing'. Time is a
> > > > > > concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with
> > > > > > time. The pressure associated with the aether determines the rate at
> > > > > > which a clock ticks.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > Time is a physical thing otherwise it wouldn't be in physics. Its
> > > > > order is most important. You cannot exclude the most important mpc.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > I am explaining what physically occurs in nature in order to cause
> > > > atomic clocks to tick at different rates. An atomic clock ticks based
> > > > upon the aether pressure in which it exists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > You are dismissed for not seeing that time and its slowing are real.
> > > I suppose you are looking for a hole in the wall?
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > The rate at which an atomic clock ticks has nothing to do with time.
> > Take the twins paradox for example. One twin fires off in a space
> > ship. The space ship is traveling fast enough that the pressure
> > associated with the aether is greater on the clock on the space ship
> > then it is on the clock which remains on the Earth. The clock in the
> > space ship 'ticks' slower. Let's say after ten years the twin in the
> > space ship arrives back on the Earth. As far as the twin who remained
> > on the Earth is concerned ten years have passed and it is March 2020.
> > As far as the twin on the space ship is concerned nine years have
> > passed and it is March 2019. Is the twin who left and returned on the
> > space ship going to insist it is March 2019 and convince all of the
> > people on the Earth it is March 2019, or is the twin who left and
> > returned on the space ship going to decide it is March 2020? The twin
> > who left and returned on the space ship is going to change the date on
> > their calendar. Time is a concept.
>
> > If you have a battery operated clock and it starts to tick slower has
> > time changed, or do you replace the batteries? You replace the
> > batteries because you understand what is physically occurring in
> > nature to cause your clock to tick slower.
>
> > The twins will set their clocks to tick at the same rate by
> > determining the aether pressure in which both clocks will exist. Since
> > both twins understand it is the associated aether pressure which
> > physically occurs in nature to cause the atom in the atomic clocks to
> > oscillate at different rates the twins will set their clocks to tick
> > accordingly. The twins understand it is the pressure associated with
> > motion with respect to the aether and the pressure associated with the
> > aether displaced by massive objects (gravity) which causes the atom to
> > oscillate at a certain rate. When the twin in the space ship returns
> > both the clock on the space ship and the clock which remains on the
> > Earth will state the same time.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You cannot divorce time from a clock. There are two rates that come
> together for matter. This is the smartest concept.
>
> Mitch Raemsch

I am divorcing time as a dimension. Time is a concept. The rate at
which a clock ticks has nothing to do with time.

If you own a battery operated clock and it begins to tick slower has
time changed?

No, time has not changed. You replace the batteries. You 'know' time
has not changed because you understand what has occurred physically in
nature in order to cause the clock to tick slower. The same is true
for an atomic clock. The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is
dependent upon the aether pressure in which it exists.

From: BURT on 13 Mar 2010 19:28

On Mar 13, 4:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 13, 5:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 10:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 12, 11:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 12, 5:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mar 12, 8:17 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Mar 12, 5:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Mar 12, 7:23 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Mar 8, 6:35 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 7 Mar, 02:51, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > > > >news:651a713d-7ae4-4048-bafb-f1b3219ee4fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mar, 12:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2%
> > > > > > > > > > >> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if,
> > > > > > > > > > >> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after
> > > > > > > > > > >> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 minutes
> > > > > > > > > > >> > after running for twice as long.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Agreed.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation
> > > > > > > > > > >> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they
> > > > > > > > > > >> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of
> > > > > > > > > > >> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in
> > > > > > > > > > >> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will
> > > > > > > > > > >> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point,
> > > > > > > > > > >> will be running ahead of both?
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> _________________________
> > > > > > > > > > >> They know that the operations were not symmetric. Only one clock remained
> > > > > > > > > > >> in
> > > > > > > > > > >> the same inertial reference frame throughout. The other two clocks spent
> > > > > > > > > > >> different amounts of time in at least 3 different inertial reference
> > > > > > > > > > >> frames.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Everybody can see this is true, and so nobody expects that the clocks
> > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > > > >> remain synchronised.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, but the important question here is whether they agree *after* the
> > > > > > > > > > > effects of acceleration are taken into account. I mean, if we said
> > > > > > > > > > > that each travelling clock slows by 2% when moving away from the start
> > > > > > > > > > > point at a certain speed, then by rights both travelling clocks should
> > > > > > > > > > > slow equally. Yes?
>
> > > > > > > > > > As I understand your thought experiment, no.
>
> > > > > > > > > > In SR, time dilation is a function of relative speed and the time for which
> > > > > > > > > > they are moving at the speed. It is not a function of accleration.
>
> > > > > > > > > > A doesn't move. B moves at speed v for time t, and its clock will read x
> > > > > > > > > > behind A. C moves at speed v for time 2t, and its clock will read 2x behind
> > > > > > > > > > A.
>
> > > > > > > > > The question is this. We'll deal with only the outbound trip (in other
> > > > > > > > > words, the clocks are on the move, but time 't' has not yet elapsed,
> > > > > > > > > so there has been no further acceleration). I agree with your answer
> > > > > > > > > above, as it concerns A's frame.
>
> > > > > > > > > The question is, from the frame of B, what will the slowdown be on
> > > > > > > > > clock C, *after* having accounted for the increased distances between
> > > > > > > > > them (i.e. having accounted for the increased propagation delays). It
> > > > > > > > > seems to me that the natural answer is to say "4%".- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > > The clocks change when accelerating and decelerating in space. Time
> > > > > > > > decelerates and accelerates when there is a change in speed in space.
>
> > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > > > Due to the change in the pressure associated with the aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > In my model Aether flows over flowing energy and field without any
> > > > > > pressure. And time flows nowhere else that is empty but only over
> > > > > > particle and field.
>
> > > > > > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > > In AD, the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
> > > > > objects is gravity. The faster a clock moves with respect to the
> > > > > aether the greater the pressure associated with the aether on the
> > > > > clock the slower the clock ticks.
>
> > > > > An atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the aether pressure it exists in.
> > > > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to
> > > > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the
> > > > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a
> > > > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite
> > > > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure
> > > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure
> > > > > on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth
> > > > > "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". The
> > > > > aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite
> > > > > moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether
> > > > > displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites tick
> > > > > approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground."
> > > > > (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).-Hidequote...-
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > MPC is your aether pressure accross the extension of particle's and
> > > > light's fields equal in strength of gravity? Do they experience "even
> > > > gravity" over their whole forms while falling in a "spread out"
> > > > different tidal gravity strengths?
>
> > > We need to distinguish between momentum, and acceleration and gravity..
> > > A body moving with constant momentum with respect to the aether has
> > > the aether pressure applied equally to each and every nuclei which is
> > > the matter which is the body.
>
> > > When a body is accelerating or the body is under the influence of
> > > gravity the pressure associated with the aether is not applied equally
> > > to each and every part of the nuclei which is the matter which is the
> > > body.
>
> > > > This must necessarily be true otherwise how would things know which
> > > > speed to fall at as the whole forms they are? If they are in more than
> > > > one strength of gravity afterall? There is only one strength that
> > > > counts for matter and light and is the strength of gravity at their
> > > > centers.
>
> > > The reason all objects fall at 32ft/sec^2 in a vacuum near the surface
> > > of the Earth is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by
> > > the Earth is greater 'on top' of each and every nuclei which is the
> > > matter which is the body pushing the body towards the Earth. As the
> > > body is being pushed by the aether pressure towards the Earth more
> > > aether is continually 'on top' of the body pushing the body towards
> > > the Earth and so on. This is why objects accelerate as the 'fall'
> > > towards the Earth.
>
> > > > What about the aether gives the pressure? Can you define the different
> > > > strengths of gravity with one aether pressure spreading out into the
> > > > distance from mather? How does aether speed up without its time nature
> > > > going faster instead of slower?
>
> > > The aether is not at rest when displaced. We know this because light
> > > reaches us from where Jupiter was in its orbit (i.e. Jupiter does not
> > > leave a void in its wake). Aether pressure abides by the inverse
> > > square law.
>
> > > I stay away from describing the aether as 'speeding up'. I prefer to
> > > discuss the state of the aether as its state of displacement and its
> > > state of at rest with respect to the matter which displaces the
> > > aether.
>
> > If you must use the state of rest of aether and then you use state
> > of aether in motion then for both of those to be true the aether
> > necessarily must speed up.
>
> Matter moves relative to the aether. The aether does not necessarily
> speed up in and of itself.
>
> > I challenge your assumption that the Aether is everything. This is not
> > true. Energy and space also play a role in physics. Aether is only
> > part of whole formsaof matter and light in physics.
>
> Aether is not everything. Aether and matter are different states of
> mather.
>
> > Togetherness is Unification not the sameness of everything.
>
> AD is the most correct unified theory to date.

My theory can stand the tests of the future. I challenge that yours
cannot.

Togetherness replaces Unification.

Mitch Raemsch

>
>
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch; The beginning of center based physics in gravity theory- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -