|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046912.html
"A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent the manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's initial reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had not already been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he became convinced that Beckmann was right. In 1988, he devised an experimental test of Beckmann's theory. His preliminary results support Beckmann, raising the question whether there are any experimental observations which require relativity theory to explain them. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air to travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves. This hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous experiment by Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887, was expected to demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be passing through this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone assumed it would be possible to detect the ether wind" with a suitable apparatus, just as it is possible to detect the air from a moving car by putting your hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s Michelson devised an experiment sensitive enough, in theory, to produce a measurable effect. But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.) Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was rejected by most scientists. The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A. Lorentz suggested another possibility: that moving objects contract slightly in the direction of motion-the contraction being just sufficient to account for the null result. This was ingenious, but unsatisfactory. It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption, rather like the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting bigger at the same time. Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein suggested a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed a) that the speed of light is the same in all directions, irrespective of the motion of any apparatus set up to measure it; and b) that observers traveling with different velocities would see the same things with different lengths and durations. This eliminated the need for an ether altogether. Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were made. This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so that a velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity itself is merely distance divided by time. Discarding space and time as "absolutes" so that a velocity can be retained as an absolute is as strange as it would be for a man to go on living undisturbed on the second floor of his house while the basement and ground floor were completely remodeled. Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to account for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that there is a simpler way of explaining what really happened, we should, out of deference to the simplicity that is preferred by science, discard the premise that the speed of light is invariant. We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. It seems that Einstein criminal cult are trying to introduce the emission theory without abandoning Einstein officially: http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/...pel=CHAPIT RE Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046912.html "A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent the manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's initial reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had not already been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he became convinced that Beckmann was right. In 1988, he devised an experimental test of Beckmann's theory. His preliminary results support Beckmann, raising the question whether there are any experimental observations which require relativity theory to explain them. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air to travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves. This hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous experiment by Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887, was expected to demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be passing through this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone assumed it would be possible to detect the ether wind" with a suitable apparatus, just as it is possible to detect the air from a moving car by putting your hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s Michelson devised an experiment sensitive enough, in theory, to produce a measurable effect. But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.) Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was rejected by most scientists. The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A. Lorentz suggested another possibility: that moving objects contract slightly in the direction of motion-the contraction being just sufficient to account for the null result. This was ingenious, but unsatisfactory. It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption, rather like the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting bigger at the same time. Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein suggested a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed a) that the speed of light is the same in all directions, irrespective of the motion of any apparatus set up to measure it; and b) that observers traveling with different velocities would see the same things with different lengths and durations. This eliminated the need for an ether altogether. Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were made. This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so that a velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity itself is merely distance divided by time. Discarding space and time as "absolutes" so that a velocity can be retained as an absolute is as strange as it would be for a man to go on living undisturbed on the second floor of his house while the basement and ground floor were completely remodeled. Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to account for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that there is a simpler way of explaining what really happened, we should, out of deference to the simplicity that is preferred by science, discard the premise that the speed of light is invariant. We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. It seems that Einstein criminal cult are trying to introduce the emission theory without abandoning Einstein officially: http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/...pel=CHAPIT RE Thinking Einsteinians (what an oxymoron!) could obtain more evidence in favour of the emission theory by considering the following textbook problem: http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~...tbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4 Thinking Einsteinians should ask: What is the speed of light relative to the receiver? Then thinking Einsteinians should obtain: The speed of light relative to the receiver is c'=c(1+V/c^2) in the presence of a gravitational field. The speed of light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v in the absence of a gravitational field. Then the only problem thinking Einsteinians would still see would be that, in the absence of a gravitational field, the receiver is ACCELERATED. So thinking Einsteinians may continue to hope that, although the speed of light is c'=c+v for an accelerated observer, it will somehow be c'=c for an inertial observer. This will be discussed but first thinking Einsteinians should confirm the validity of the equations c'=c(1+V/c^2) and c'=c+v. Pentcho Valev |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote: We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton." Something along those lines is examined in he On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of Reference and Special Relativity Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow Galilean transformations between coordinates. Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? -- Surfer |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
Surfer wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote: We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton." Something along those lines is examined in he On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of Reference and Special Relativity Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow Galilean transformations between coordinates. Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough? Pentcho Valev |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
"Surfer" wrote in message ... : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : We should (everything : else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave : phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and : time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the : classical world view of Isaac Newton." : : Something along those lines is examined in he : : On the Consistency between the Assumption of a : Special System of Reference and Special Relativity : Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 : http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf : : See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" : : It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically : compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow : Galilean transformations between coordinates. : : Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. : : : http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John : Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence : for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost : universally use it as support for the light postulate of special : relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH : AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." : : The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is : invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, : relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light : source and the observer. : : : Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? : We are well past the experiment stage, optical gyroscopes are commonplace technology. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote: Surfer wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote: We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton." Something along those lines is examined in he On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of Reference and Special Relativity Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow Galilean transformations between coordinates. Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough? In what way are they relevant? Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light to analyse these experiments? -- Surfer |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
"Surfer" wrote in message ... : On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : Surfer wrote: : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : We should (everything : else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave : phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and : time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the : classical world view of Isaac Newton." : : Something along those lines is examined in he : : On the Consistency between the Assumption of a : Special System of Reference and Special Relativity : Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 : http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf : : See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" : : It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically : compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow : Galilean transformations between coordinates. : : Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. : : : http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John : Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence : for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost : universally use it as support for the light postulate of special : relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH : AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." : : The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is : invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, : relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light : source and the observer. : : : Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? : : Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough? : : In what way are they relevant? : : Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light : to analyse these experiments? Yes. Here's one: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm Here's another: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
On 27 jun, 08:04, "Androcles" wrote:
"Surfer" wrote in message ... : On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : Surfer wrote: : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : We should (everything : else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave : phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and : time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the : classical world view of Isaac Newton." : : Something along those lines is examined in he : : On the Consistency between the Assumption of a : Special System of Reference and Special Relativity : Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 : http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf : : See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" : : It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically : compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow : Galilean transformations between coordinates. : : Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. : : : http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn : Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence : for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost : universally use it as support for the light postulate of special : relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH : AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." : : The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is : invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, : relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light : source and the observer. : : : Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? : : Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough? : : In what way are they relevant? : : Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light : to analyse these experiments? Yes. Here's one: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm Here's another: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm Hello Androcles. I revised your papers. Have you someone in Pound and Rebka (P&R) experiment? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
Surfer wrote: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote: Surfer wrote: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev wrote: We should (everything else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the classical world view of Isaac Newton." Something along those lines is examined in he On the Consistency between the Assumption of a Special System of Reference and Special Relativity Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow Galilean transformations between coordinates. Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough? In what way are they relevant? Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light to analyse these experiments? No. Rather, countless papers have been written declaring that Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world: http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message ups.com... : : Surfer wrote: : On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : Surfer wrote: : On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote: : : : We should (everything : else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave : phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and : time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the : classical world view of Isaac Newton." : : Something along those lines is examined in he : : On the Consistency between the Assumption of a : Special System of Reference and Special Relativity : Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006 : http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf : : See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION" : : It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically : compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow : Galilean transformations between coordinates. : : Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build. : : : http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John : Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence : for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost : universally use it as support for the light postulate of special : relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH : AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." : : The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is : invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v, : relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light : source and the observer. : : : Are there any experiments which demonstrate this? : : Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough? : : In what way are they relevant? : : Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light : to analyse these experiments? : : No. Yes they have! I wrote one. So did Fox in 1965. How hard is it to "analyse" the Principle of Relativity? http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm [irrelevancy snipped] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DO RELATIVITY ZOMBIES UNDERSTAND RELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | June 5th 07 12:14 AM |
LARSON -IAN Relativity, Einstein Was WRONG | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | January 30th 07 05:55 PM |
Nameless critics on the Internet and critical analysis of Einstein’s E=mc2 | AJAY SHARMA | Misc | 1 | November 2nd 06 01:55 PM |
To address my critics | Greg Dortmond | UK Astronomy | 15 | December 24th 03 01:57 AM |
STOP IT Already, Ed! VESTED-INTEREST Critics of VELIKOVSKY | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 17th 03 01:54 PM |