[Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics necessary'.

[Arend Lammertink]

Hi Mike,

I received some comments a few weeks back from Arto Annila, from the
University of Helsinki:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/

He pointed me to this paper of his:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~aannila/arto/atomism.pdf

"2.4 Electron and Positron
When resolving other particles as quantized actions, i.e., geometric
entities, the fine structure constant is a revealing starting point.
This number can be understood as a ratio of two actions [9,30]. [...]
The numerical value of [the fine structure constant]  implies that the
electron comprises of 138 quanta in a toroid form that already
Andre-Marie Amperé proposed [55] (Figure 4). Due to the helical pitch,
one quantum does not quite close one full loop, and hence a lag
accrues along the torus and one extra quantum will be needed to close
the curve of 137 loops."

I wrote to him:

"Quickly went over your paper, and I immediately noticed you're
associating a torroid ring with the electron, which is exactly the
topology considered by Stowe, and from which he is able to calculate
the elementary mass e:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

Unfortunately, finding out how he worked things out exactly, is quite a puzzle."


In Arto's paper, you will find quite a lot of images with various
(ring vortex) structures and variations thereof describing particle
physics entities, such as bosons, gluons, etc.


Essential to realize is that all these structures should fundamentally
consist of *closed* vortex "tubes", which form the magnetic loops.
Along the length of these loops, we would have a circular flow of
aether and therefore an angular velocity  and thus a *frequency* can
be associated with the flow along the length of the "vortex tube".

Besides this rotation along the long "loop", the vortex tube *also*
rotates along the length direction of the tube. It is "spinning". So,
that would also yield an angular velocity and thus a *frequency*
associated with the "spinning" flow along the surface of the "vortex
tube".


Since there is a 90 degree angle between these two rotation
directions, which corresponds with the 90 degree angle problem we
found around the Lorentz force (see: discussion with Zoltan), I
believe the detailed study of these 2 orthogonal rotation axes,
present in *any* vortex tube structure, will (eventually lead to an
answer to these two questions:

1) What is charge?;

2) How does the Lorentz force work?

In this study, the Laplacian / Helmholtz decomposition I described in
my differential equations for the definition of the [E] and [B] field
can be very useful.  Because it is a proper mathematical decomposition
into a rotation-free and a divergence-free component, the pressure
distribution (due to the Centripetal force and  Bernoulli  principle)
and as well as the curl distribution within the structures described,
can be considered independently from one another in differential
spatial consideration.

However, I'm not a mathematician nor a particle physicist.

I managed to derive the differential equations which define the [E]
and [B] fields from the aether flow velocity field [v], based on which
one should be able to directly derive both transverse (surface) and
longitudinal wave equations. And the Helmholtz decomposition allows a
spatial *differential* consideration of the longitudinal compressible
motions separate of the transverse incompressible rotational
movements.

And I can suggest that two axes of rotation, which are orthonormal,
should be considered in the study of closed "vortex tube" loops, in
order to come to an understanding of "charge" and the Lorentz force.

And that's about as far as I am able to share at this moment with the
community.  This is just too complicated to be able to tackle on my
own. I hope to have also shared a line of thinking and consideration,
which could enable us to solve the puzzle together.

I think Hans' work is of tremendous importance to be able to formally
validate, check extend the basic structure I presented on my website
and in this mailing list.

Zoltan has a point, although I would like to point out that the work I
published does not count as a "scientific publication". It's the
result of my analysis so far and that's all I have to share. I am
amazed by the amount of intelligent skepticism shared on this forum. I
thank all of your for your contributions.

The point of all of this, is that we as a group can solve this puzzle,
because we have a few very intelligent skeptic people amongst our
members. I love skepticism!  I am a skeptic myself. I love a man who
stands for what he believes in.

Let me share the introduction of my extensive background artcie:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature

"To date, our basic understanding of space, time and the fabric of
Nature rests on the theories of Quantum Mechanics and Einstein's
Relativity Theory. These two useful theories are pretty much being
taken for granted as unalterable givens. Einstein himself gravely
warned us this might happen and that "scientific progress is often
made impossible" because of it.

The state of current science is, if anything, the result of a lack of
well founded scepticism. We should not be afraid of well founded
scepticism, we should embrace it and take it seriously. Without
serious consideration of well founded sceptic arguments, we cannot
correct the errors we have made. And that is what has led to a process
whereby science went onto a diverging path whereby it enhanced the
errors made in the past, instead of using new information to correct
them.

In this work, we shall investigate the history of our current
scientific theories and formulate a Phsyical, Unified theory based on
fundamental ideas to integrate the currently diverging theories at the
origin of their divergence: the Maxwell equations. We shall see that,
actually, all currently known areas of Physics' theories converge
naturally into one Unified Theory of Everything once we make one
fundamental change to Maxwell's aether model, which is to replace his
incompressible aether with a compressible one. "



I intended to share a lot more, but let's just  do so, even though
these are "raw" data in many cases. Snapshots of what I was thinking
and working on when.

At some point, I received an e-mail from I fellow who was pretty angry
with me, because I "stole" his invention, his work, his ideas!

Well, I made sure that was not the case. By reading some of his work,
I concluded my work was totally different. Well, here's the
conversation:



Re: You're a stupid-ass dumb-ass motherfucking who's trying to copy my
theory so fuck you! Go to hell! You will be cut off from the land.

-:-
Hello [redacted]

Thank you for your reaction and encouraging words. It is good to know
I'm not the only one who discovered this and that therefore there are
still some sane people left on this planet.

I am honestly not aware of your work, and since I don't know if/where
you published it, I cannot comment.

However, it is known that most discoveries are made by multiple
people, more or less at the same time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

"The concept of multiple discovery (also known as simultaneous
invention) s the hypothesis that most scientific discoveries and
inventions are made independently and more or less simultaneously by
multiple scientists and inventors.The concept of multiple discovery
opposes a traditional view—the "heroic theory" of invention and
discovery."


Also, I have nothing to hide. And since I work with PMWiki, which
keeps a log of all changes I made, you are welcome to check out for
yourself how I came to my conclusions and what I changed when exactly.

On every page on my site, there is a "history button" which you can
click on, and see for yourself what I changed when. Besides the
articles of which I published the urls, there's also some "work pages"
and "note pages" on which essentially all my steps are documented
under the "history" buttons. Obviously, I have not published the urls
to my work pages, but you are free to check them out and see for
yourself:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/WheatstoneExperimentsToMeasureTheVelocityOfElectricity
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/QuestioningQuantumMechanics
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/LongitudinalMoonBounceChallenge
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/LinkedInDiscussionDarkEnergy
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FreeElectromagneticEnergyInTheory
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/HelmholtzDecompositonOfEMField
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Pseudo-ScientificCrackpotsAreRunningTheAsylum
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureNotes
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureSandBox
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/FastLight
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweFoundationUnificationPhysics
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCollectedPosts
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweNatureOfCharge
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureContinuityEquation
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNaturePart2
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureFieldModelIntro
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNature
http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverythingNotesFAQ

As said, you are free to check this out as much as you like. As far as
I'm concerned there are no hard feelings.
-:-

So far, haven't heard of him again. :)

Best regards,

Arend.






Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
Goor, The Netherlands.
W: http://www.tuks.nl
T: +316 5425 6426


On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 7:22 PM, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks a lot for your paper, Mike.
>
> Below the vortex ring consideration as being a "fundamental building
> block", I see a more fundamental definition/consideration for "mass"
> and "matter", as I replied to Thomas:
>
> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/000283.html
>
> Fundamentally,  "matter" should involve (by definition magnetic)
> loops. The vortex ring is just the simplest example of such a loop,
> which appears to probably describe the structure of a free electron.
>
> Main point is that such structures can be described within the context
> of a fluid-aether model, whereby the "loops" are described in
> differential consideration as curl curl [v] at each point [x] in
> Euclidean space.
>
> Another key point is that in a vortex ring topology, there are two
> axes of rotation, which are orthogonal with respect to one another.
> Since the curl of one of these axes forms the other axis in a vortex
> ring topology, this appears to be a key property any topology
> considered as a candidate for particle models should have.
>
> This because of the problem defining/describing "+" and "-" charges in
> relation to the Lorentz force described a few days ago in my
> discussion with Zoltan.
>
> In other words: other "loop" topologies are certainly conceivable,
> provided they are such that they resolve the problem just mentioned.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
> Goor, The Netherlands.
> W: http://www.tuks.nl
> T: +316 5425 6426
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 6:32 PM,  <mike at mlawrence.co.uk> wrote:
>> Guys,
>>
>>
>>
>> You make it far too complex when considering vortex ring ideas. Just accept
>> that rings can be made of numbers of fundamental particle/anti-particle
>> pairs chasing/being chased and then all the properties like mass, spin and
>> charge sizes drop out easily. I have given the hyperlink before, but the
>> version pointed too is not the final proofed one and has some errors. So the
>> correct version is attached.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 12 2016, Arend Lammertink wrote:
>>
>> ,Hello James,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:32 AM, James Rose wrote:
>>> Gentlemen,
>>>
>>> Where do biology, ecology, economics, information theory, etc coordinate
>>> with each of your interesting proposals?
>>
>>
>> *) Information theory;
>>
>> Hans wrote in his book:
>>
>> "History shows that the course of development of science not always
>> follows a logical route. The
>> discoverers of the structure that acts as a candidate for physical
>> reality were searching for reasons
>> why one of the known topological spaces could be used as a base for
>> modelling quantum physical
>> theories. They discovered that the set of closed subspaces of a
>> separable Hilbert space has the
>> relational structure of what they called quantum logic and what
>> mathematicians later called an
>> orthomodular lattice."
>>
>> Since a Hilbert space is a generalizations of Euclidian space and the
>> vortex ring topology has been suggested to be a fundamental structural
>> base for a particle and/or structural model, it should be possible to
>> define a dynamic "orthomodular lattice' as a generalization of the
>> vortex ring topology.
>>
>> The vortex ring topology can be defined using a number of parameters:
>>
>> 1. The parameters describing the medium (density, specific modulus)
>> 2. the Euclidian spatial parameters defining the toroidal ring vortex
>> topology (r, R);
>> 3. since the two rotational axes of this topology have a 90 degree
>> angle with respect to one another and can each be defined by an
>> (angular) frequency parameter, we get two spectral / Fourier /
>> chronological parameters (f1, f2), with f = 1/(2 * pi) * omega, the
>> angular velocity;
>> 4 from the above parameters, the pressure distribution within and
>> around the vortex ring is also determined, we get two dependent
>> parameters, the pressure at each point within the ring vortex,
>> naturally expressed in toroidal coordinates ( σ , τ , ϕ ) {( \sigma
>> ,\tau ,\phi )} .
>>
>> These parameters define a fundamental structure in 2 + 2 + 2 + 2(*) =
>> 8 parameters / dimensions, which can all be considered constant in
>> differential equations, when r and R are taking in the limit to zero.
>>
>> (*) According to Stowe ( http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237 , eq 13 - 19),
>> a vortex ring toroidal structure has a number of parameters and
>> eigenvalues and can be represented by 2 parameters, since A and S are
>> related for specific stable "resonating" "eigenvalue" "frequencies":
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge#StowesChargeConcept
>>
>> "A=4Ï€2Rr and S=2Ï€2Rr2 {R is the large toroidal radius and r the
>> poloidal axis} and represents an intrinsic fluctuation of the
>> quantized particulate momentum in the limiting volume element.
>>
>>
>> Since the structure has a number of stable solutions, in which
>> "resonance" occurs (the "eigenvalues" of the sysem), it is possible to
>> define these 8 dimensional solutions for this structure by 4 phasors (
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phasor ). Re "real" part of these
>> phasors then subsequently define the amplitude of the conjugated
>> parameters, while the complex angles define their phase.
>>
>> Now our definition for the electric and magnetic fields are defined by
>> application of the Laplacian and the Helmholtaz decomposition, which
>> means that our definition for these fields can be shown to be
>> orthogonal in differential consideration:
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/AnExceptionallyElegantTheoryOfEverything#OrthogonalFieldDefinition
>>
>>
>> Since the vortex ring is defined using 4 orthonormal complex
>> dimensions and it occupies a limited volume of space, a single vortex
>> ring, fully defines a normed vector space within and in the area
>> around the volume it occupies in 3D cartesian + 1 time coordinate.
>>
>> Subsequently, such a vortex ring:
>>
>> * Has a defined momentum (p),
>> * occupies space of volume (s),
>> * and obeys Newton basic laws of motion
>>
>> And since superposition holds for [E] + [B], it is possible to define
>> two possible Sobelev spaces:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobolev_space
>>
>> Intuitively, a Sobolev space is a space of functions with sufficiently
>> many derivatives for some application domain, such as partial
>> differential equations, and equipped with a norm that measures both
>> the size and regularity of a function.
>>
>> I see two possible options to describe the distribution of such vortex
>> rings across space:
>>
>> 1. We assume that N such vortex rings are distributed randomly or
>> according to a defined statistical distribution across space;
>>
>> 2. we assume that N such vortex rings are distributed along a certain
>> structure (for example: platonic solids) across space.
>>
>>
>> For both of these distributions, we can define "bulk" or "average"
>> parameter distributions using the continuum hypothesis, and thus
>> fundamentally define a Hilbert space which intuitively describes a
>> continuous medium consisting of "vortex ring" "molecules":
>>
>> http://community.dur.ac.uk/suzanne.fielding/teaching/BLT/sec1.pdf
>>
>> "At a microscopic scale, fluid comprises individual molecules and its
>> physical properties (density, velocity, etc.) are violently
>> non-uniform. However, the phenomena studied in fluid dynamics are
>> macroscopic, so we do not usually take this molecular detail into
>> account. Instead, we treat the fluid as a continuum by viewing it at a
>> coarse enough scale that any “small†fluid element actually still
>> contains very many molecules. One can then assign a local bulk flow
>> velocity v(x,t) to the element at point x, by averaging over the much
>> faster, violently fluctuating Brownian molecular velocities. Similarly
>> one defines a locally averaged density Ï (x,t), etc. These locally
>> averaged quantities then vary smoothly with x on the macroscopic scale
>> of the flow."
>>
>>
>> Now we also proposed a possible definition for gravity along the
>> Laplacian for [E]. However, when we take the Laplacian for [E] + [B]
>> instead, we obtain a principle whereby the continuum hypothesis is
>> described c.q. defined by the application of the Laplacian to the real
>> part of our Sobolev c.q. Hilbert space at a given "resolution".
>>
>> By re-apllication of the Laplacian to the gravitational aether, we
>> obtain a new Hilbert space definition at at an increasing scale and
>> thus decreasing "resolution".
>>
>> Theoretically, when we can define the inverse of the Laplacian, we can
>> apply this inverse to our "Maxwell equation" resolution and obtain a
>> decreasing scale and thus an increasing "resolution".
>>
>>
>>
>> Further, Eric Verlinde published a very interesting paper called "On
>> the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton":
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785
>>
>> In this paper, he argues that information theory can be connected to
>> "entropy" within a holographic model of the structure of physical
>> reality, whereby the concept of "force" is shown to be directly
>> associated with "entropy" and "information":
>>
>> "Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the
>> information associated with the positions of material bodies"
>>
>> Since the basis of our aether model is the definition of a fluid-like
>> medium consisting of discrete entities, called "momenta" by Paul, our
>> vortex ring aether Hilbert space models have a defined entropy, which
>> has a relation to, amongst others, "temperature" but also, more
>> importantly to "information" and thus "information theory".
>>
>>
>> *) Biology:
>>
>> Since our vortex ring aether Hilbert space models are defined as the
>> superposition of discrete vortex rings at different "resolutions", the
>> DNA molecule can be described in terms of "information theory" entropy
>> parameters, within a Hilbert space with a suitable chosen
>> "resolution".
>>
>> This way, it can (eventually) be shown that the DNA molecule "encodes"
>> c.q. represents a certain amount of information, within a Verlindian /
>> Hilbertian holographic, orthogonal model of the structure of
>> "spacetime" and thus further fundamental insight into biology can be
>> obtained.
>>
>> *) Ecoolgy:
>>
>> While not directly connected to the proposal discussed now, Prof.
>> Claus Turtur has shown that it is possible to convert "zero point"
>> energy into directly usable "mechanical" energy, using the "static"
>> electric and magnetic fields. Based on this theory, and the analysis
>> of some devices claimed to provide "free energy", I proposed that
>> "electrolytic capacitors" can *theoretically* be used as devices with
>> which practical, clean and environmentally friendly "free energy"
>> devices can be built:
>>
>> https://steemit.com/science/@lamare/let-me-als-supply-this-to-the-public-domain-free-energy
>>
>> At his moment, I do not have conclusive experimental data to either
>> confirm or reject my proposal on that subject. However, I'm working on
>> obtaining exactly such data experimentally. So, time will have to tell
>> whether my proposal on this one is correct or not.
>>
>>
>> *) Economics
>>
>> Sorry, this model is limited to physics. For economics, please study
>> "Austrian economics" and buy some physical silver coins, while you
>> still can. At the moment, silver coins are *still* readily available
>> in Europe and the US in exchange for a totally worthless piece of
>> paper with some nice pictures and the number "20" printed upon it. See
>> for example:
>>
>> https://www.milesfranklin.com/blog/articles/ (in English)
>> http://blog.thesilvermountain.nl/ (in Dutch)
>>
>> Such an *incredible* bargain won't last forever!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Arend.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> James Rose
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: Arend Lammertink
>>> To: Hans van Leunen ; General Physics and Natural
>>> Philosophy discussion list
>>> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 5:14 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics
>>> necessary'.
>>>
>>> Hi Hans,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link. I'm going to study your book. Quickly took a
>>> look, and I liked what I saw, especially:
>>>
>>> "Some scientists start a research project that has as target to
>>> develop a theory of everything. This is an implausible enterprise
>>> because the target is far too complicated to be comprehended by a
>>> human being. In fact, what these scientists pursue is the discovery of
>>> a foundation, whose extension automatically leads to a theory that in
>>> principle can cover all aspects of physical reality. I never had the
>>> intention to develop a theory of everything. Instead I am interested
>>> in the structure and the functioning of the lower levels of physical
>>> reality. "
>>>
>>>
>>> "what these scientists pursue is the discovery of a foundation, whose
>>> extension automatically leads to a theory that in principle can cover
>>> all aspects of physical reality. "
>>>
>>> That's what I claim to have found. My equations, as I have now can be
>>> found here:
>>>
>>> Some very good criticism has been given by Zoltan, in the thread :
>>>
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/2016-December/thread.html
>>>
>>> Basically, all the comments in the thread should be read by all whom
>>> are interested in discovering such a "theory of everything".
>>>
>>> I think I found the principle. But that's IT!
>>>
>>> You state: "This is an implausible enterprise because the target is
>>> far too complicated to be comprehended by a human being."
>>>
>>> What if it is actually much simpler than we had ever could have imagined?
>>>
>>> So, contrary to what you claim to be impossible, I claim it_is_
>>> possible, because we simply think waaay to complicated and illogical.
>>> Now I have convinced myself I found a fundamental error in Maxwell's
>>> equations.
>>>
>>> So, the question I would like an answer to is: Am I right?
>>>
>>> Could physics be so simple and elegant, yet capable of displaying such
>>> incredible views, images, movies right in front of our own to eyes?
>>>
>>> Please consider reading all the threads this month, and the previous
>>> months as well. I will read up opon them one day, and reply.
>>>
>>> I think Nanian's proposal is worth listening to. That's basically the
>>> model we use as the basis for our aether theory.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Arend Lammertink, MScEE,
>>> Goor, The Netherlands.
>>> W: http://www.tuks.nl
>>> T: +316 5425 6426
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Hans van Leunen
>>> wrote:
>>>> Nainan,
>>>> Try TheHilbertBookTestModel by Hans van Leunen https://doc.co/WmxXCB
>>>> Hans van Leunen
>>>>
>>>> ----Origineel Bericht----
>>>> Van : matterdoc at gmail.com
>>>> Datum : 11/12/2016 13:23
>>>> Aan : physics at tuks.nl
>>>> Onderwerp : [Physics] Discussion ‘new beginning’ in physics
>>>> necessary'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Contemporary physics has far too many assumptions, virtual particles and
>>>> imaginary forces. These lead to circular reasoning and often result in
>>>> absurd theories.
>>>>
>>>> To be logical, in physics, there should be only one fundamental
>>>> assumption
>>>> and all physical theories should be based on this single assumption. In
>>>> material world, existence of matter is nearest to absolute truth. Hence,
>>>> existence of matter can be chosen as the fundamental assumption on which
>>>> all
>>>> physical theories should be based.
>>>>
>>>> ‘Action at a distance through empty space’ is the most illogical
>>>> assumption
>>>> used in physics. Various media were suggested / are used to overcome
>>>> this.
>>>> However, all alternatives are imaginary entities which are worse than the
>>>> problem. Therefore, a ‘new beginning’ in physics is necessary.
>>>>
>>>> See: http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0048
>>>>
>>>> Nainan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>> *
>>>> * * * * * *
>>>> All physical phenomena, related to matter, are logically explained by
>>>> alternative concept, presented in 'MATTER (Re-examined)'.
>>>> http://www.matterdoc.info
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Physics mailing list
>>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Physics mailing list
>>> Physics at tuks.nl
>>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Physics mailing list
>> Physics at tuks.nl
>> http://mail.tuks.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/physics
>>