The real twin paradox.
in [Relativity]
|
From: bz on 4 Dec 2007 05:33 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:03517a06-da99-4dd8-ae64-dd6556baa2d8(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 3, 11:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > [...] >> >> On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to frames of reference >> wherein 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply' then, according >> to SR and GR, the L-E transforms apply to everything that moves in >> relation to any given iFoR. > > This is a thoughtful statement and worth considering in the > context of Weinberg's statement. > > 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > transformation will convert electric or magnetic > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > but no transformation mixes them with the > gravitational field. >> > http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > Limiting the frames the way Einstein did is clever and > expedient and even preserves *some* tolerance for light > moving as a massive particle. But the need to consider > adding the speed of light with the emitter demonstrates > that is is more like duct tape on a leaky pipe. You fail to consider the implication of Maxwell's equations, which imply that EM phenomena travel at c. Einstein DID consider it. In fact he BASED SR upon it. There was no duct tape and no duct soup. > Modeling light as a disturbance in the free space > dielectric would have been a better solution but > was unlikley a concept Einstein would embrace > considering the content of his Nobel winning paper. But that is EXACTLY what Einstein did do in his 1905 paper ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES [quote] It is known that Maxwell�s electrodynamics�as usually understood at the present time�when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. ..... Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the �light medium,� suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. [nor of absolute time!] They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the �Principle of Relativity�) to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell�s theory for stationary bodies. ..... The theory to be developed is based�like all electrodynamics�on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters. ..... So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system. ..... From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by 1/2 tv^2/c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B. It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide. ..... It follows from this equation that from a composition of two velocities which are less than c, there always results a velocity less than c. ..... It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by composition with a velocity less than that of light. ..... Now the principle of relativity requires that if the Maxwell-Hertz equations for empty space hold good in system K, they also hold good in system k .... As to the interpretation of these equations we make the following remarks: Let a point charge of electricity have the magnitude �one� when measured in the stationary system K, i.e. let it when at rest in the stationary system exert a force of one dyne upon an equal quantity of electricity at a distance of one cm. By the principle of relativity this electric charge is also of the magnitude �one� when measured in the moving system. ..... Consequently the first three equations above allow themselves to be clothed in words in the two following ways:� 1. If a unit electric point charge is in motion in an electromagnetic field, there acts upon it, in addition to the electric force, an �electromotive force� which, if we neglect the terms multiplied by the second and higher powers of v/c, is equal to the vector-product of the velocity of the charge and the magnetic force, divided by the velocity of light. (Old manner of expression.) .... Furthermore it is clear that the asymmetry mentioned in the introduction as arising when we consider the currents produced by the relative motion of a magnet and a conductor, now disappears. Moreover, questions as to the �seat� of electrodynamic electromotive forces (unipolar machines) now have no point. .... It is remarkable that the energy and the frequency of a light complex vary with the state of motion of the observer in accordance with the same law. ..... In addition I may briefly remark that the following important law may easily be deduced from the developed equations: If an electrically charged body is in motion anywhere in space without altering its charge when regarded from a system of co-ordinates moving with the body, its charge also remains�when regarded from the �stationary� system K�constant. ..... This expression for the kinetic energy must also, by virtue of the argument stated above, apply to ponderable masses as well. ..... These three relationships are a complete expression for the laws according to which, by the theory here advanced, the electron must move. [unquote] He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to electrons and to all ponderable masses. He never abandons those ideas, though he does expand them to handle acceleration [or gravity] in his GR where he shows that inertial motion need only be relatively inertial. -- bz 73 de N5BZ k please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+ser(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Sue... on 4 Dec 2007 06:42 On Dec 4, 5:33 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:03517a06-da99-4dd8-ae64-dd6556baa2d8(a)s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com: > > > > > > > On Dec 3, 11:22 pm, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > > [...] > > >> On the other hand, if you restrict yourself to frames of reference > >> wherein 'Newtons and Maxwell's laws of physics apply' then, according > >> to SR and GR, the L-E transforms apply to everything that moves in > >> relation to any given iFoR. > > > This is a thoughtful statement and worth considering in the > > context of Weinberg's statement. > > > 1 <<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate > > transformation will convert electric or magnetic > > fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, > > but no transformation mixes them with the > > gravitational field. >> > >http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html > > > Limiting the frames the way Einstein did is clever and > > expedient and even preserves *some* tolerance for light > > moving as a massive particle. But the need to consider > > adding the speed of light with the emitter demonstrates > > that is is more like duct tape on a leaky pipe. > > You fail to consider the implication of Maxwell's equations, which imply > that EM phenomena travel at c. > > Einstein DID consider it. In fact he BASED SR upon it. > There was no duct tape and no duct soup. Ya mean duck tape and duck soup ? Quack Quack :o) http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html > > > Modeling light as a disturbance in the free space > > dielectric would have been a better solution but > > was unlikley a concept Einstein would embrace > > considering the content of his Nobel winning paper. > > But that is EXACTLY what Einstein did do in his 1905 paper ON THE > ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES > [...] http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to electrons > and to all ponderable masses. We of course know that is not true. Light beams would replace thrusters if it were. > > He never abandons those ideas, though he does expand them to handle > acceleration [or gravity] in his GR where he shows that inertial > motion need only be relatively inertial. That may have been the best he could do and retain his particle notion of light. But it is hard to learn how a horse pulls a cart, when it is on the wrong end. Already Newton recognized that the law of inertia is unsatisfactory in a context so far unmentioned in this exposition, namely that it gives no real cause for the special physical position of the states of motion of the inertial frames relative to all other states of motion. It makes the observable material bodies responsible for the gravitational behaviour of a material point, yet indicates no material cause for the inertial behaviour of the material point but devises the cause for it (absolute space or inertial ether). This is not logically inadmissible although it is unsatisfactory. For this reason E. Mach demanded a modification of the law of inertia in the sense that the inertia should be interpreted as an acceleration resistance of the bodies against one another and not against "space". This interpretation governs the expectation that accelerated bodies have concordant accelerating action in the same sense on other bodies (acceleration induction). This interpretation is even more plausible according to general relativity which eliminates the distinction between inertial and gravitational effects. It amounts to stipulating that, apart from the arbitrariness governed by the free choice of coordinates, the gm v -field shall be completely determined by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured in general relativity by the circumstance that acceleration induction in accordance with the gravitational field equations really exists, although of such slight intensity that direct detection by mechanical experiments is out of the question. >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html Conformablily with popular notions does not justfiy the use of Lorenz gauge and improper transformations. We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? FB OM 73 Sue.... > > -- > bz 73 de N5BZ k > > please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an > infinite set. > > bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: bz on 4 Dec 2007 08:09 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:5d2cac2e-2244-452b-b4e1-cd72dfad444d(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com: [...] >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to >> electrons and to all ponderable masses. > We of course know that is not true. > Light beams would replace thrusters if it were. 'WE' do NOT know that. first, the statement I gave above says NOTHING about imponderable masses such as light exerting pressure so your response is off target. second, light DOES exert pressure. finally, the use of high intensity light beams as a rocket thruster (as opposed to using ground based lasers to push payloads into space) is prohibited by two laws: 1) the law against using high energy beam weapons to destroy launch pads (the ship would vaporize the launch pad) and 2) the batteries to drive the laser are kind of heavy. I have worked with a 500 Watt CW laser. It would take a small moving van to move it with another for the 20,000 volt at 20 amp power supply. It would only produce 500 Newton meters/second of thrust, or 369 ft lbf/s of force. Hardly enough to accelerate the power supply plus laser plus sue-bungee- type extension cord. Yes, nuclear fusion could supply enough power to make it worth while, but we might as well use the laser and the fusion reaction to push the 'ash' [helium] away and gain even more of a boost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lilley98/ [quote http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=694] The existence of light pressure was demonstrated as theoretically possible by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873. Confirming laboratory experiments waited until the turn of the century. [unquote] [quote http://www.livescience.com/technology/070327_laser_jet.html] Physicists know that the heat of lasers can move liquid. But this test found that the light itself, not heat, did the pushing. [unquote] [quote http://www.springerlink.com/content/rx72j316032p4148/] Summary Attention is paid to the effect of light pressure, completely ignored in the present explanations on the energetics of dynamical processes in atmosphere. It seems even to be of great importance and play a great role, especially in the upper atmosphere. It seems there are three phenomena produced probably by this process: 1) Appearing of the earth atmosphere tide on the night side. 2) Presence of strong west winds on the great altitude. 3) Vertical oscillations of the upper atmosphere density. [unquote] [quote http://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/Library/Journals/J.Conf.Abs./1/222.html] Contrary to bigger meteoroids which are controlled by gravitational interactions dynamics of submicron-sized particles is dominated by radiation pressure and by electromagnetic interactions with the interplanetary magnetic field. [unquote] Finally, to see light pressure in action, just observe the tails of comets. They always point away from the sun because the pressure of the light drives them away from the sun. [that is not to say that the solar particle 'wind' has no effect, but the effect seen is the sum of several effects INCLUDING light pressure]. ..... > For this reason > E. Mach demanded a modification of the > law of inertia in the sense that the > inertia should be interpreted as an > acceleration resistance of the bodies > against one another and not against "space". > This interpretation governs the expectation > that accelerated bodies have concordant > accelerating action in the same > sense on other bodies (acceleration induction). > This interpretation is even more > plausible according to general relativity > which eliminates the distinction between > inertial and gravitational effects. > It amounts to stipulating that, apart > from the arbitrariness governed by the > free choice of coordinates, the > gm v -field shall be completely determined > by the matter. Mach's stipulation is favoured > in general relativity by the circumstance > that acceleration induction in accordance > with the gravitational field equations really > exists, although of such slight intensity > that direct detection by mechanical experiments > is out of the question. >> > http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lectur > e.html > > Conformablily with popular notions does not justfiy > the use of Lorenz gauge and improper transformations. > > We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. > How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? Causality is only violated by the transmission of information faster than light. This has never been observed. 73 Perhaps bowing to experimental evidence goes against your preference for obfuscation via random citation but TRY READING for understanding. The Nobel prize lecture says nothing about light clocks acting differently than ponderable clocks, nor does it say that light exerts no pressure, nor does it say that the Lorentz-Einstein transforms for time have no reality. Nothing you have cited make any statement that support your contentions that time is absolute. And when you make your extension cord 'stretchy' signals sent down it will show the same doppler shifts as signals transmitted through the dielectric medium of space. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Sue... on 4 Dec 2007 09:36 On Dec 4, 8:09 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote innews:5d2cac2e-2244-452b-b4e1-cd72dfad444d(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > > [...] > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > >> He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to > >> electrons and to all ponderable masses. > > We of course know that is not true. > > Light beams would replace thrusters if it were. > > 'WE' do NOT know that. I am betting on Newton's third law. > > first, the statement I gave above says NOTHING about imponderable masses > such as light exerting pressure so your response is off target. second, > light DOES exert pressure. finally, the use of high intensity light beams > as a rocket thruster (as opposed to using ground based lasers to push > payloads into space) is prohibited by two laws: > 1) the law against using > high energy beam weapons to destroy launch pads (the ship would vaporize > the launch pad) and > 2) the batteries to drive the laser are kind of > heavy. > I have worked with a 500 Watt CW laser. It would take a small > moving van to move it with another for the 20,000 volt at 20 amp power > supply. > > It would only produce 500 Newton meters/second of thrust, or 369 > ft lbf/s of force. > > Hardly enough to accelerate the power supply plus laser plus sue-bungee- > type extension cord. > > Yes, nuclear fusion could supply enough power to make it worth while, but > we might as well use the laser and the fusion reaction to push the 'ash' > [helium] away and gain even more of a boost. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressurehttp://www.u.arizona.edu/~lilley98/ > > [quotehttp://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=694] > The existence of light pressure was demonstrated as theoretically possible > by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873. Confirming laboratory experiments waited > until the turn of the century. [unquote] > > [quotehttp://www.livescience.com/technology/070327_laser_jet.html] > Physicists know that the heat of lasers can move liquid. But this test > found that the light itself, not heat, did the pushing. [unquote] > > [quotehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/rx72j316032p4148/] > Summary Attention is paid to the effect of light pressure, completely > ignored in the present explanations on the energetics of dynamical > processes in atmosphere. It seems even to be of great importance and play > a great role, especially in the upper atmosphere. It seems there are three > phenomena produced probably by this process: 1) Appearing of the earth > atmosphere tide on the night side. 2) Presence of strong west winds on the > great altitude. 3) Vertical oscillations of the upper atmosphere density. > [unquote] > > [quotehttp://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/Library/Journals/J.Conf.Abs./1/222.html] > Contrary to bigger meteoroids which are controlled by gravitational > interactions dynamics of submicron-sized particles is dominated by > radiation pressure and by electromagnetic interactions with the > interplanetary magnetic field. [unquote] > > Finally, to see light pressure in action, just observe the tails of > comets. They always point away from the sun because the pressure of the > light drives them away from the sun. [that is not to say that the solar > particle 'wind' has no effect, but the effect seen is the sum of several > effects INCLUDING light pressure]. > > .... None of these ~possibilities~ excuse the errors in gauge selection and transformation. Making light a function of inertia also makes it difficult to make inertia a function of light. > > > > Conformablily with popular notions does not justfiy > > the use of Lorenz gauge and improper transformations. > > > We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. > > How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? > > Causality is only violated by the transmission of information faster than > light. This has never been observed. No such possibility was considered. > > 73 > > Perhaps bowing to experimental evidence goes against your preference > for obfuscation via random citation but TRY READING for understanding. There is no evidence that uniform motion affects hair growth. So I am not "going aginst experimental evidence". > > The Nobel prize lecture says nothing about light clocks acting differently > than ponderable clocks, nor does it say that light exerts no pressure, nor > does it say that the Lorentz-Einstein transforms for time have no reality. True but it does give some insight that is not expressed in the formalism of GR. The induction A.E. mentions is not accessable with his formalism. > > Nothing you have cited make any statement that support your contentions > that time is absolute. The descripion of the Coulomb gauge makes that case well and QM and QED attest to its accuracy. > And when you make your extension cord 'stretchy' > signals sent down it will show the same doppler shifts as signals > transmitted through the dielectric medium of space. But I didn't make the extension cord stretchy. It is just a way to insist on operation in the Coulomb gauge for folks that don't know the rules. They have heard clocks have to slow with motion so will consider no other possibiltiy. You have shown no conflict with the statements from Weinberg and Fitzpatrick. You have only shown that it was *convenient* for Einstein and didn't present a severe conflict with his particle light. You have the Noble committee's opinion on that. Sue... > > -- > bz
From: bz on 4 Dec 2007 10:37
"Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in news:dc9f06c0-c525-4d92-9e78-45e5ea5300cc(a)e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > On Dec 4, 8:09 am, bz <bz+...(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote >> innews:5d2cac2e-2244-452b-b4e1-cd72dfad444d(a)e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com >> : >> >> [...] >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >> >> He concludes that the laws of relative motion apply to light, to >> >> electrons and to all ponderable masses. >> > We of course know that is not true. >> > Light beams would replace thrusters if it were. >> >> 'WE' do NOT know that. > > I am betting on Newton's third law. > >> >> first, the statement I gave above says NOTHING about imponderable >> masses such as light exerting pressure so your response is off target. >> second, light DOES exert pressure. finally, the use of high intensity >> light beams as a rocket thruster (as opposed to using ground based >> lasers to push payloads into space) is prohibited by two laws: >> 1) the law against using >> high energy beam weapons to destroy launch pads (the ship would >> vaporize the launch pad) and >> 2) the batteries to drive the laser are kind of >> heavy. >> I have worked with a 500 Watt CW laser. It would take a small >> moving van to move it with another for the 20,000 volt at 20 amp power >> supply. >> >> It would only produce 500 Newton meters/second of thrust, or 369 >> ft lbf/s of force. >> >> Hardly enough to accelerate the power supply plus laser plus >> sue-bungee- type extension cord. >> >> Yes, nuclear fusion could supply enough power to make it worth while, >> but we might as well use the laser and the fusion reaction to push the >> 'ash' [helium] away and gain even more of a boost. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressurehttp://www.u.arizona.edu/ >> ~lilley98/ >> >> [quotehttp://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=694] >> The existence of light pressure was demonstrated as theoretically >> possible by James Clerk Maxwell in 1873. Confirming laboratory >> experiments waited until the turn of the century. [unquote] >> >> [quotehttp://www.livescience.com/technology/070327_laser_jet.html] >> Physicists know that the heat of lasers can move liquid. But this test >> found that the light itself, not heat, did the pushing. [unquote] >> >> [quotehttp://www.springerlink.com/content/rx72j316032p4148/] >> Summary Attention is paid to the effect of light pressure, completely >> ignored in the present explanations on the energetics of dynamical >> processes in atmosphere. It seems even to be of great importance and >> play a great role, especially in the upper atmosphere. It seems there >> are three phenomena produced probably by this process: 1) Appearing of >> the earth atmosphere tide on the night side. 2) Presence of strong west >> winds on the great altitude. 3) Vertical oscillations of the upper >> atmosphere density. [unquote] >> >> [quotehttp://www.esc.cam.ac.uk/Library/Journals/J.Conf.Abs./1/222.html] >> Contrary to bigger meteoroids which are controlled by gravitational >> interactions dynamics of submicron-sized particles is dominated by >> radiation pressure and by electromagnetic interactions with the >> interplanetary magnetic field. [unquote] >> >> Finally, to see light pressure in action, just observe the tails of >> comets. They always point away from the sun because the pressure of the >> light drives them away from the sun. [that is not to say that the solar >> particle 'wind' has no effect, but the effect seen is the sum of >> several effects INCLUDING light pressure]. >> >> .... > > None of these ~possibilities~ excuse the errors in gauge > selection and transformation. Making light a function of > inertia also makes it difficult to make inertia a function > of light. *observables*, not ~possibilities~. Light is OBSERVED to push things. >> > Conformablily with popular notions does not justfiy >> > the use of Lorenz gauge and improper transformations. >> >> > We have established that four light paths may be unequal in length. >> > How does that violate causality, the speed of light or PoR ? >> >> Causality is only violated by the transmission of information faster >> than light. This has never been observed. > > No such possibility was considered. Right. The Lorentz-Einstein time transform give results that are consistent with all known experimental data [once other effects such as delta G and Sagnac are also factored in]. >> >> Perhaps bowing to experimental evidence goes against your preference >> for obfuscation via random citation but TRY READING for understanding. > > There is no evidence that uniform motion affects hair growth. > So I am not "going aginst experimental evidence". No one has traveled long enough, far enough and fast enough for the difference in hair growth to be noticeable, yet. It may be that none ever will. But GPS and muons and radioactive ions and excited ions all show effects consistent with those that would lead to differences in hair growth. >> >> The Nobel prize lecture says nothing about light clocks acting >> differently than ponderable clocks, nor does it say that light exerts >> no pressure, nor does it say that the Lorentz-Einstein transforms for >> time have no reality. > > True but it does give some insight that is not expressed > in the formalism of GR. The induction A.E. mentions is > not accessable with his formalism. >> Nothing you have cited make any statement that support your contentions >> that time is absolute. > > The descripion of the Coulomb gauge makes that case well and > QM and QED attest to its accuracy. You read something into the coulomb gauge that I don't. > >> And when you make your extension cord 'stretchy' >> signals sent down it will show the same doppler shifts as signals >> transmitted through the dielectric medium of space. > > But I didn't make the extension cord stretchy. Then you are performing an experiment that nature prohibits us from performing. > It is just a > way to insist on operation in the Coulomb gauge for folks > that don't know the rules. They have heard clocks have to > slow with motion so will consider no other possibiltiy. I don't see how suppositions of instant communications over a distance, or communications with a constant delay over a variable distance have any application to reality. Neither occur in nature. > You have shown no conflict with the statements from > Weinberg and Fitzpatrick. You have only shown that it > was *convenient* for Einstein and didn't present a > severe conflict with his particle light. > > You have the Noble committee's opinion on that. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+spr(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |