[Physics] Fwd: Gravity, CMB and use of wiki page.

Thu Apr 30 10:35:28 CEST 2020

Arend.

Thanks for your comments. Your comments here under quoted in blue. My
comments in black.

(1/2)mv^2 = (3/2)kT ==> mv^2 = 3kT

This is the same as I used:
[image: image.png]

But then you replaced the velocity “v “ bij “c “:

with v = c then mc^2 = 3kT = hv

I think this starts a difference in the concept.
I am searching for an *orbital* velocity, a perturbation in the primordial
aether field. That orbital velocity is not equal to “c”.

I insert for this orbital velocity the same velocity that I found for the
Root Mean Square Velocity (VRMS) in our solar system: 12.3 km/sec. The
picture is then a VORTEX, a perturbation in the ether-field with an orbital
velocity of 12,3 km/sec in very near analogy with our solar-system
with a *protoplanetary
orbiting ring* with a velocity of also 12.3 km/sec. This protoplanetary
ring did produce our planets. These planets still have (by conservation of
angular momentum) a VRMS of 12.3 km/sec. Our biggest planets Jupiter with
13.1 km/sec and Saturn with 9.7 km/sec.

hv = 3kT = h(q/m)

so

 T = hq / 3mk

-:-

So, this seems to match yours, but I'm afraid it's incorrect like this,
because you also have to account for the spin energy.
[image: image.png]

You see that in this example the spinning energy is very small compared to
the translational energy (0.355 J versus 116 J).

So, now you have something to ponder about. Because you did not account for
the spin energy, you've found a discrepancy. The question is: how to
resolve it?

I calculated the VRMS for our planets also just on 0.5 m.v^2 *neglecting*
the spin of the different planets. The total energy (including spin) is
just a little bit different from the translational energy. See
http://www.applet-magic.com/planetenergy.htm

[image: image.png]
  See: A primordial velocity. The VRMS of a semi closed system
<https://youtu.be/B0d5uTRX_Wg?t=163>

[image: image.png]

I don’t know if that primordial elementary particle (pep) is spinning. I
don’t think so, because it is a RING orbiting a center. So, I neglected
that spin also because it would make very little difference and anyway, I
could not calculate that pep-spin if I don’t know anything about that
spinning.

So, I am quite sure that the discrepancy is very small, can NOT be
calculated, and it’s unlikely that this “pep” probably not (yet) is
spinning. Perhaps I should change the “pep” into a “per”. A Ri  ng instead
of a Particle.
Reversed Whirlpool https://youtu.be/JcTyn4AhgPQ

Rotational kinetic energy
<https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap-physics-1/ap-torque-angular-momentum/rotational-kinetic-energy-ap/v/rotational-kinetic-energy>

So yes, it seems to me you guys are up to something, but you're not
completely there yet. Don't know how to work this all out, but perhaps
others have something to add

In chapter 5 of my book “Con-fusing Gravitation” I listed more then 20
theories that all share some insights about the aether and an “in-flux”,
“in-stream” a “dragging stream” as an explanation for gravity. I think
there are at least 15 persons that each want to win the Nobel prize for
themselves, but there are also some with whom I have an interesting
exchange of ideas.

It seems the best way to earn respect and recognition is to engage with
other people in discussions by answering their questions.

That’s what I am doing indeed. I know that my math is very basic and the
equations are not written in the official language of tensors etcetera. But
the results are very surprising for anyone who would look into the detailed
calculations. See: *Equations of significance Tufail Abbas Ruud Loeffen
<Equations%20of%20significance%20Tufail%20Abbas%20Ruud%20Loeffen%20>**http://bit.ly/2Uif9xO
<http://bit.ly/2Uif9xO>*

I know also that the consequences will have a lot of impact. Many emperors
without clothes. Many shouters too. I am quite sure that the shouters can
unite and make a clear understandable voice, with clear calculations and
extraordinary evidence. Would be nice if somebody with higher skills in
math and geometry could shout with me.

Thanks, Arend. For your effort to discuss this content. I know that it’s
extremely difficult to dive into each other’s insights and convictions. It
takes many hours and mostly we do not want to spend that much time in other
theories. It’s my hope that my 4 video’s will be enlightening and that
somebody with higher skills in math and geometry would like to collaborate
further.

Best regards.

Ruud Loeffen

Op wo 29 apr. 2020 om 15:36 schreef Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:

> Hi Ruud,
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 8:36 AM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Arend.
>>
>> My papers were once characterized by Carl Johnson as being
>> “Kindergarten-talk”. Since you mentioned that once there was *a child*
>> that shouted ”The emperor does not wear any clothes”, I am not bothering
>> about the classification Kindergarten-talk. However, the more I know, I
>> know, I know less. Knowledge.
>>
>
> Little has changed since Einstein's time, I'm afraid:
>
> "I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of
> methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people
> today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has
> seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the
> historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from
> prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This
> independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark
> of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after
> truth." Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of
> Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University,
> Jerusalem].
>
> Even though we now know the reason people can't see the forest, it remains
> to be very hard to get to "that kind of independence from prejudices of his
> generation from which most scientists are suffering".
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Anyway: I am not a physicist, and not a mathematician. So, it might be
>> difficult to understand me 😉.
>>
>> You wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:28 AM to Ruud Loeffen
>>
>> “There are these gaps, like where the heck did he get that
>> 3kT formula? and others like it, but at the end of the day it's the
>> (fundamental) ideas that matter most, math and references can (and
>> will eventually) be corrected.”
>>
>> I was triggered by your question
>> *“where the heck did he get that 3kT formula”. *("He" is Paul Stowe)
>>
>> I used this parameter “3kT” also in a formula that I found on: *Maxwell-Bolzmann
>> distribution mean square speed*
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution#Typical_speeds> from
>> where I used the equation to calculate the Root Mean square velocity of a
>> primordial elementary particle in CMB
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> K being the Boltzmann constant (I used kB in equation 312) and T is the
>> Temperature of the Microwave Background ( I used Tcmb) and for “m” I used
>> mep: mass of a primordial particle.
>>
>> *( **https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background*
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background> * )*
>>
>>
>
> Yep, I could find the formula with the 3/2 kT as well, which did not match
> Paul's. According to Thornhill, this has to do with the number of degrees
> of freedom in the gas:
>
> http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT1.pdf
>
> "Thus, the quest for a gas-like ethereal medium, satisfying Planck’s form
> for the energy distribution, is directed to an ideal gas formed by an
> infinite variety of particles, all having six degrees of freedom."
>
> Normally, one considers three degrees of freedom associated with the
> velocity I think, but the particles also spin around a certain axis and
> therefore there's actually six degrees of freedom.
>
> Note that this once again illustrates the importance of the Helmholtz
> decomposition, which establishes a fundamental separation into two
> components: (a field describing) translation and (a field describing)
> rotation.
>
> Paul wrote:
>
> -:-
> The equation hv = 3kT comes from the relationship hv = mc^2.  The kinetic
> energy equation is E = (1/2)mv^2 and the molecular thermal energy equation
> is E = (3/2)kT thus,
>
> (1/2)mv^2 = (3/2)kT ==> mv^2 = 3kT
>
> with v = c then mc^2 = 3kT = hv
>
> In the vortex model charge (q) represents and harmonic mass (m)
> oscillation (kg/sec), thus the charge to mass ratio (q/m)of of an electron
> represents its basic oscillation (v).  Given,
>
> hv = 3kT = h(q/m)
>
> so
>
>  T = hq / 3mk
> -:-
>
> So, this seems to match yours, but I'm afraid it's incorrect like this,
> because you also have to account for the spin energy.
>
> According to:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotational_energy
>
> E_rotational = (1/2) I 𝟂^2
>
> So, I think the correct formula would be:
>
> (1/2) (mv^2  + I 𝟂^2)  = kT
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>> I calculated this on advice of my colleague Tufail Abbas. We were really
>> shocked to find that the mass we found was indeed of a magnitude close to
>> an electron. This velocity Vcmb is the same as the Vrms 12.278 km/sec
>> that we  find in our solar system and the VRMS 12.278 km/sec being the
>> proposed Universal Root Mean Square Velocity.  The value of the mass of
>> this elementary particle mep is (deliberately) proposed as
>> 7.4868348523E-31 kg. This is remarkably close to the estimated value of the
>> Mass of an electron: 9.1091E-31kg. It’s a little bit less in weight than an
>> electron (as might be expected for a PRIMORDIAL elementary particle).
>>
>
> So, now you have something to ponder about. Because you did not account
> for the spin energy, you've found a discrepancy. The question is: how to
> resolve it?
>
> Since rotational energy is actually what's stored in the magnetic field,
> the magnetic energy stored within the electron should be computable and is
> one and the same as what one would consider it's mass-spin energy.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_energy
> "The energy per unit volume in a region of space of permeability
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)> [image:
> {\displaystyle \mu _{0}}] containing magnetic field [image: \mathbf {B}]
> is:
> [image: {\displaystyle u={\frac {1}{2}}{\frac {B^{2}}{\mu _{0}}}}]"
>
> This brings one to the magnetic moment of the electron, around which there
> is an anomaly, for which Paul has an explanation:
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#Spin_magnetic_dipole_moment
> "The total magnetic dipole moment
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole_moment> resulting from
> both spin and orbital angular momenta of an electron is related to the
> total angular momentum *J* by a similar equation:
> [image: {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\mu }}_{J}=g_{J}\mu _{\text{B}}{\frac
> {\mathbf {J} }{\hbar }}.}]
>
> The g-factor <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor_(physics)> *gJ* is
> known as the Landé g-factor
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%C3%A9_g-factor>, which can be related
> to *gL* and *gS* by quantum mechanics. See Landé g-factor
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%C3%A9_g-factor> for details."
>
> "For the electron spin, the most accurate value for the spin g-factor
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-factor_(physics)> has been
> experimentally determined to have the value
> 2.00231930436182(52).[3]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#cite_note-3>
>
> Note that it is only two thousandths larger than the value from the Dirac
> equation. The small correction is known as the anomalous magnetic dipole
> moment <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment> of
> the electron; it arises from the electron's interaction with virtual
> photons in quantum electrodynamics
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics>. In fact, one
> famous triumph of the quantum electrodynamics
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynamics> theory is the
> accurate prediction of the electron g-factor. The most accurate value for
> the electron magnetic moment is
> −9.284764620(57)×10−24 J/T.[4]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_magnetic_moment#cite_note-4>"
>
>
>
> So yes, it seems to me you guys are up to something, but you're not
> completely there yet. Don't know how to work this all out, but perhaps
> others have something to add.
>
>
>
>
>> I found some support in this paper:
>> http://sci.esa.int/planck/61396-planck-finds-no-new-evidence-for-cosmic-anomalies/
>>
>> This paper was specifically interesting for me because of this phrase
>> (see my bolded indication):
>>
>> *“....**the Planck team looked at the polarisation of the CMB, which was
>> revealed after a painstaking analysis of the multi-frequency data designed
>> to eliminate foreground sources of microwave emission, including gas and
>> dust in our own Milky Way galaxy. This signal is the best measurement to
>> date of the so-called CMB polarisation E-modes, and dates back to the time
>> when the first atoms formed in the Universe and the CMB was released. It is
>> produced by the way light scattered off electron particles just before the
>> electrons were gathered into hydrogen atoms**”.*
>>
>> This primordial elementary particle would have an energy of 6.728*10^-14
>> Joules and 4.199*10^5 eV Just say: 4.2*10^5 eV
>>
>> I describe this in “Prediction4: Velocity of  Cosmic Microwave
>> Background” in *CON-FUSING GRAVITATION. Applying the Lorentz
>> Transformation of Mass-Energy* <http://bit.ly/2CFGDIh>
>> http://bit.ly/2CFGDIh
>> I attach the book as a .PDF in which its more easy to search and scroll
>> down.
>>
>> I strongly advice real physicists NOT to read my book (it will be
>> embarrassing).
>>
>> Some weeks ago, I posted on Physicslist my recently produced You Tube
>> video’s. I did not get any reaction from the list. One of the video’s is
>> about the VRMS: *A primordial velocity. The VRMS of a semi closed system*
>> <http://bit.ly/2U5xOzb> http://bit.ly/2U5xOzb
>>
>
> I saw you used what looked like the Lorentz transform. A while ago, Paul
> posted an interesting page about that on the LinkedIn "theoretical physics"
> group:
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6600216501179994112
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
> Some of his comments:
>
> "I wish I could comment when posting the topic.  This is a scan from the
> "Handbook of Physics" Condon & Odishaw Section 3, Chapter 8 Topic 9.  Look
> closely and you'll see that any moving oscillator at less that the sonic
> speed will have its field profile distorted in a Lorentzian fashion (Fig
> 8.2).  In this case (which should be obvious) since the propagation cannot
> exceed sonic velocity (c) the 'net' forward speed of propagation must
> reduce (c - v).  What is not so obvious is that the reverse is also true,
> resulting in the illustrated Lorentzian contraction along the axis of
> propagation.  Compare Feynman's illustration Fig 26-4(b) (Vol II)  to Fig
> 8-2 (a)."
>
>
>
> "I did not ask what we have defined our system around...  I asked a
> physics question.  What makes light speed finite, causes it properties
> (like Doppler shift, etc.)  gives it its Lorentzian nature.  Please answer
> the question within the confines of the current paradigm without resorting
> to basically, "it is what it is" because we measure it so...  Essentially,
> don't ask that question!
> As for Whittaker IIRC it was I that pointed you to that reference and am
> well aware of its contents.  When I get home from my trip I'll post
> Whittaker's take which most certainly DOES NOT! jibe with what you are
> claiming.  For the reader one should get the two volume set:
> https://www.amazon.com/History-Theories-Aether-Electricity-Volumes/dp/0486261263
> It is a must read. Yet Whittaker chronicles the works of many physicist up
> to the turn of the twentieth century and there views.  Just like there
> exist several takes on the same topic in current physics.  You cited
> Maxwell's 1856 work, question is a superfluid like He3 like normal fluids?
> Four years later Maxwell makes very explicitly clear what he is working
> with..
>
> .. Cont:  Ref:
>
> https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&ei=tzbIXbPgIMus0PEPuta08AM&q=on+physical+lines+of+force+pdf&oq=%22On+Physical+Lines+of+Force%22&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i22i30l4.3886.22264..25900...1.0..0.103.2503.27j1......0....1..gws-wiz.....6..0i362i308i154i357j0i131j0i67j0i10i67j0i22i10i30.g-zcLugUeQM
>
> "
>
>
> Seems to me these ideas are interesting to explore and discuss.
>
>
>
>
>
>> Perhaps I have to shout more loudly. Or keep my mouth shut.
>>
>
> It seems the best way to earn resepect and recognition is to engage with
> other people in discussions by answering their questions.
>
>
>
>> Arend, I support your idea about the group discussion tool (peer review
>> process). I found a nice group on academia.edu where we exchange ideas
>> in a friendly way to cooperate and try to find progress. I probably would
>> join your peer review process. IT IS possible to exchange ideas in a way
>> to make progress by sharing and collaborating.
>>
>
> I was thinking about publishing my paper on researchgate, once I'm
> satisfied with the result. Had trouble loggin in to academia, but just
> tried a password reset, may that helps.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Arend.
>
>
>
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Ruud Loeffen
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>
>> Date: di 28 apr. 2020 20:04
>> Subject: [Physics] Gravity, CMB and use of wiki page.
>> To: General Physics and Natural Philosophy discussion list <
>> physics at tuks.nl>
>> Cc: Paul Stowe <paul.stowe at sbcglobal.net>
>>
>>
>> Hi Ruud,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 6:28 AM Ruud Loeffen <rmmloeffen at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Arend.
>> >
>> > You wrote:
>> > "Since it is an extention of Stowe's work, it predicts that the
>> > elementary particle called electron can be modeled as a single vortex
>> > ring which results in an actual understanding of "the quanta" as well
>> > as an actual understanding of what "charge" is. It also predicts that
>> > the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
>> > temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
>> > oscillation frequency of the electron".
>> > Can you (or Paul Stowe)present a link to a paper where this is
>> explained? I am especially interested in "It also predicts that
>> > the observed cosmic background radiation, resulting in a minimum
>> > temperature of about 2.7 K, is related to the characteristic
>> > oscillation frequency of the electron".
>> >
>> > I also have a calculation in my book "Con-fusing Gravitation" about the
>> relation between the temperature of CMBR (2.726 K) and a primordial
>> elementary particle. I would like to read Paul Stowes pape about this
>> subject.
>> >
>>
>> Stowe is sometimes a bit hard to read, but here it is (same answer as to
>> Tom):
>>
>> https://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237
>>
>> See attached image for relevant part.
>>
>> Problem I had is that I couldn't find the 3kT anywhere, but I
>> eventually found this, as I wrote to Paul a while ago:
>>
>> "I also found a rather interesting paper regarding black body
>> radiation in relation to aether theory:
>>
>> http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT1.pdf
>>
>> "It is shown that Planck’s energy distribution for a black-body
>> radiation field can be simply derived for a gas-like ether with
>> Maxwellian statistics. The gas consists of an infinite variety of
>> particles, whose masses are integral multiples n of the mass of the
>> unit particle, the abundance of n-particles being proportional to
>> n^−4. The frequency of electromagnetic waves correlates with the
>> energy per unit mass of the particles, not with their energy, thus
>> differing from Planck’s quantum hypothesis. Identifying the special
>> wave-speed, usually called the speed of light, with the wave-speed in
>> the 2.7oK background radiation field, leads to a mass 1/2 × 10−39(kg)
>> for the unit ether-particle, and an average number of about 360 ether
>> particles per cubic centimetre in the background radiation field,
>> whose density is about 0.2 ×10−30(kg)/m3."
>>
>> I find the number of 360 ether particles per cubic centimetre hard to
>> believe, so there may be errors in there. Either way, it also uses the
>> E=3kT and explains that this is because there are 6 degrees of
>> freedom, while your h(nu)=3kT comes a bit out of the blue, which is
>> why I found this paper when searching for 3kT.....
>> -:-
>>
>>
>> Stowe has the right ideas and insights, but unfortunately he had to do
>> without "peer review" nor "group think", which does show itself in
>> this paper. There are these gaps, like where the heck did he get that
>> 3kT formula? and others like it, but at the end of the day it's the
>> (fundamental) ideas that matter most, math and references can (and
>> will eventually) be corrected.
>>
>> Often, his older work gives clues which help working things out.
>> Collected quite a bit here:
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Paul_Stowe/
>>
>> and here:
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCollectedPosts
>>
>> And I re-published a few articles on my site and added some
>> notes/references, etc:
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweFoundationUnificationPhysics
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweNatureOfCharge
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweCauseGravityEmQm
>>
>> It can be helpful to update posts like these by replacing the ascii
>> math with latex math, which is rather easy to do with my wiki site.
>> I've just changed the site-wide edit password (see attached picture),
>> so should anyone feel like helping a hand with that, you're most
>> welcome. I've done some of this and in a/o the section "Stowe's aether
>> model" on this page one can see how this improves readability and by
>> clicking "edit" and typing the attached magic word, one can see how
>> it's done:
>>
>>
>> http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/OnSpaceTimeAndTheFabricOfNatureCharge
>>
>> I think the wiki can be very useful as a tool to facilitate a "group
>> thinking" process, but it would be up to you guys to fill that in,
>> together.
>>
>> If I'm the only one using the wiki, there's not going to be much of a
>> group effort on there......
>>
>> > Arend: Thank you! You are doing a great job with this discussion forum
>> about Maxwells equations and especially the discussion about the aether,
>> vortices and gravity.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks a lot, much appreciated!
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Arend.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
*Ruud Loeffen*
http://www.human-DNA.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 5757 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 84189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 78804 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 712180 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0003.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 9745 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 66043 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 57306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 49118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20200430/15b7b6ef/attachment-0007.png>