Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 2 of 3 [43 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:04 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

Patented Imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu persists:

 Quote: Why don't you study the detailed proposal and come out with specific objections if any??? GSS

We studied it , f*** face, patented imbecile Gurcharn Sandhu. You got
it wrong, cretin.
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:11 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

Sorcerer wrote:
 Quote: "GSS" wrote in message news:1150481958.252422.29100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com... | Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the | settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The | null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the | Physicists of that time. | | The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or | assumptions : | | (a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of time | was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent of | spatial dimension. | | (b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or | vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light | waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the | emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm. | | Primarily the MMEx was conducted to experimentally detect the fixed | aether frame by measuring the velocity of earth moving through it. As | such the null result of MMEx was simply interpreted to imply the | non-existence of the fixed aether frame in particular and invalidity of | assumptions at (a) above in general. That was not all, to explain the | null result of MMEx some more assumptions had to be introduced which in | the long run proved to be a turning point for physics. | | The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of | MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for | propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert | Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics. | | In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity | Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation | for the null result of MMEx. For this I propose to retain the validity | of assumptions at (a) and question the validity of assumptions at (b) | above. In this regard kindly refer to following article in support of | this viewpoint. | | http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf | | Let us consider a source of light A moving at a constant *velocity v* | in the universal reference frame. In order to understand and grasp the | detailed mechanism of emission of a photon during the transition of an | atomic electron from its higher energy state to a lower one, we need to | mentally visualize the detailed instant to instant orbital motion of | the electron. For this kindly refer to a model of Hydrogen orbitals at | the following link. | | http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/hydrogen_orbitals.pdf | | This model is based only on Coulomb interaction and does not account | for spin interaction. Detailed computations of orbital transitions show | that the photon emission time is generally of the order of only 10^-16 | seconds. This implies that the photon emission process is more of a | 'spontaneous emission' rather than a 'continuous emission' of light | waves. Further, since the photon wave packet must propagate at constant | *velocity c* in the universal reference frame (under vacuum | conditions), the *relative emission velocity* of the photon with | respect to the light source A will be given by [vector c - vector v]. | The new hypothesis regarding photon emission can now be stated as, | | New Hypothesis : If a light source at rest in the universal reference | frame, under certain energy transition, emits a photon of frequency f0 | and wave length L0 then the corresponding frequency f and wave length L | emitted by the same light source moving at velocity v in the universal | reference frame will be given by - | f = f0 . Relative emission velocity [vector c-vector v]/c | = |vector c - vector v| . f0/c | And L = c.L0/|vector c - vector v| | | With this hypothesis, the null result of MMEx is easily explained | because the number of wave lengths (or total phase shift) along the | path-lengths of transverse and axial beams of light remain constant, | independent of the velocity v of the light source. For complete details | of this explanation, kindly refer to the following link. | | http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf | | Therefore, we may conclude that the *relative emission velocity* of | photons from a moving source is dependent on the relative direction of | emission in comparison with the direction of motion of the source. | After emission from the source, the photons have to propagate at | constant velocity c in the universal reference frame (vacuum) | regardless of the motion of the source. If v is the instantaneous | velocity of the source in the universal reference frame, then the | relative emission velocity of the photon will be given by the (vector c | - vector v). As per the proposed new hypothesis, the energy E and | frequency f of the emitted photon will be proportional to the *relative | emission velocity* |vector c - vector v|. | | Specifically, let us consider an observer O to be at rest in the | universal reference frame and let a source S approach the observer with | velocity v. The frequency f of photons emitted by S in the direction of | its velocity vector v will therefore be reduced by a factor (c-v)/c. On | the other hand the frequency of photons emitted by S in the direction | opposite to its velocity vector v will be increased by a factor | (c+v)/c. Hence the observer O will find the frequency of photons | received from an approaching source S to be reduced by a factor of | (c-v)/c and that of photons received from a receding source S to be | increased by a factor of (c+v)/c. | | However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and tested | before formally accepting it as valid.| Implications of the new | hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of | distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead | of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the | proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons | emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for | continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas. | | GSS

 Quote: Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe

Thanks.

 Quote: Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you. .... Androcles

I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
agree with me!!

GSS
Sue...
science forum Guru

Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 2684

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

GSS wrote:
 Quote: Sue... wrote: GSS wrote: Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the Physicists of that time. The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or assumptions : (a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of time was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent of spatial dimension. (b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm. Over a hundred years later we know that isn't how light propagates, so why do we need to explain the null result from an ill conceived experiment? We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics.

Psychologists might be interested in these points in time.

I have it on good authority that the laws of physics were the
same the day before the turning point as as the day after
the turning point.

 Quote: In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics.

How does whipping a dead horse help that situation?

Open the outer door of the torpedo tube of a moving submarine.
If the the torpedo's propeller starts turning, then water exists.
If the the torpedo's propeller doesn't turn then water might exist.

than that.

Sue...

 Quote: GSS
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 4:50 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Quote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article <1150554959.172709.57650@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, GSS gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote: We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics. GSS And don't tell me. Only YOU know the true answers? Every one else is wrong? I am not making any such claim. Exploring various alternatives is a standard accepted scientific approach. Why don't you study the detailed proposal and come out with specific objections if any??? GSS

There's a world of difference between exploring various alternatives
and being wrong. You're are firmly on the "wrong side". Relativity
deniers tend to obsess over the Michelson Morely experiment to find a
loophole.

As seen by your pretty arrogant comment:

"We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a
turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze
of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead
end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the
right direction for the fundamental physics."

You may think we took a wrong turn, but that wrong turn has been pretty
right so far.

Your website trumps how "invalid" you think theories are, but to a poor
mechanic all cars are broken.

The fact you're on Geocities tells me you couldn't get published?

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:34 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
 Quote: In article <1150557001.539592.178180@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, GSS gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article <1150554959.172709.57650@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, GSS gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote: We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics. GSS And don't tell me. Only YOU know the true answers? Every one else is wrong? I am not making any such claim. Exploring various alternatives is a standard accepted scientific approach. Why don't you study the detailed proposal and come out with specific objections if any??? GSS There's a world of difference between exploring various alternatives and being wrong. You're are firmly on the "wrong side". Relativity deniers tend to obsess over the Michelson Morely experiment to find a loophole.

Do you realise how illogical is your above statement?
"world of difference between exploring various alternatives and being
wrong"
When I am exploring various alternatives, how can there be anything
wrong with it?
You could have examined the alternative proposal and then declared it
'wrong' on specific grounds.

 Quote: As seen by your pretty arrogant comment: "We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics." You may think we took a wrong turn, but that wrong turn has been pretty right so far. Your website trumps how "invalid" you think theories are, but to a poor mechanic all cars are broken. The fact you're on Geocities tells me you couldn't get published?

The concluding paragraph of my post states,
"However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and
tested before formally accepting it as valid. Implications of the new
hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of
distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead
of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the
proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons
emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for
continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas."

Do you really think that I should have attempted to get it published
before an open discussion of the issue?

GSS
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:41 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

<cretinoid remarks by Gurcharn Sandhu all snipped>
 Quote: GSS

No , FuckFace, you proved only that you know nothing on the subject.
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 5:59 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

GSS NoseInAss Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:

 Quote: Do you really think that I should have attempted to get it published before an open discussion of the issue? GSS

You got your discussion, now f*** off.
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 6:01 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Quote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article <1150557001.539592.178180@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, GSS gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote: Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: In article <1150554959.172709.57650@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, GSS gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote: We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics. GSS And don't tell me. Only YOU know the true answers? Every one else is wrong? I am not making any such claim. Exploring various alternatives is a standard accepted scientific approach. Why don't you study the detailed proposal and come out with specific objections if any??? GSS There's a world of difference between exploring various alternatives and being wrong. You're are firmly on the "wrong side". Relativity deniers tend to obsess over the Michelson Morely experiment to find a loophole. Do you realise how illogical is your above statement? "world of difference between exploring various alternatives and being wrong" When I am exploring various alternatives, how can there be anything wrong with it?

 Quote: You could have examined the alternative proposal and then declared it 'wrong' on specific grounds. Your response reflects your irritation and bias.

Irritation yes. There's a checklist that says how cranky something is,
and you're flashing alarm bells.

 Quote: The concluding paragraph of my post states, "However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and tested before formally accepting it as valid. Implications of the new hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas." Do you really think that I should have attempted to get it published before an open discussion of the issue?

Yes - a little thing called "Peer review".

 Quote: GSS

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru

Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

Bilge
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:46 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

GSS:
[...]
 Quote: The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.

The michelson-morely experiment is of little or no importance regarding
the widespread acceptance of relativity. Relativity is widely accepted
because the only experiments ever done which claim to not support
relativity are a hand full of unrepeatable anecdotes which cannot even
be optimistically called ambiguous.''

 Quote: In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity

Not only is there no raging controversy,'' there is no controversy
whatsoever. Relativity has been established by experiments to the extent
that it might as well be called a fact for any of the purposes being
discussed here. In order to discuss the regime in which reltivity might
not hold, we would have to be discussing phenomena which have never
been observed and your understanding of relativity would have to be
considerably better than it is.

 Quote: Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation for the null result of MMEx.

Well no, it isn't. No single experiment ever causes a wholesale shift
science and no one cares about experiments done in the 19th century except
for historical reasons and potential pedagogical value. If you want to
propose an alternative to relativity, you'll need to provide an alternative
that explains _every_ experiment that relativistic theories explain and
that is a very long list. I seriously doubt you have even considered that
you would have to explain phenomena like \beta decay and the existence
of anti-matter when proposing an alternative.

Essentially, you have a religious hangup on geometry. I cannot
imagine how anyone could waste such time and effort creating rube
golderg schemes to circumvent the possibility that the universe
is not galilean, when clearly the simplest way that nature could
have made the universe appear to have the geometry of special
relativity is to start with that geometry. Do you really think that
nature is some conscious entity that decided the universe ought to
really'' be galilean, but should be constructed insuch a way as
to test one's faith by thwarting all attempts to elucidate that
structure?
Bilge
science forum Guru

Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:57 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

GSS:

 Quote: We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics.

We currently have physical theories which correctly predict the outcome
of every experiment conceived to discover a flaw in those theories. In
other words, the physical theories we have describe all known physical
phenomena, which is certainly more than could be said about any physics
prior to relativity. Modern theories also have been tested to many orders
of magnitude greater precision than any previous theories. Is your basic
argument that the right direction for physics is to develop theories which
do not explain physical phenomena, or fail to predict all experimental
data or what? Doing physics means having to accept the universe as it is,
not how you think it ought to be and the criteria for an acceptable
explanation is agreement with observation and quantitative predictions for
new phenomena which are consequences of the theoretical constructs.
The Ghost In The Machine1
science forum Guru

Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1551

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:00 am    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 07:35:59 -0700, GSS wrote:

 Quote: Sue... wrote: [quoted text muted] We do need to explain the null result of MMEx because it marked a turning point in fundamental physics. In my opinion, in the grand maze of the unknown, we took a wrong turn and are now heading towards a dead end. The 'proper' explanation of that experiment can help us choose the right direction for the fundamental physics. GSS

MMEx does not require Special Relativity to explain it, although SR does
so nicely. Unless the light source fed into MMEx is coming directly from
a moving object such as Venus, MMEx's null result is easily explainable by
simply noting that the light source is immobile with respect to the
experiment, and therefore lightspeed is a constant relative to the
experiment.

There are a fair number of issues in aiming an MMEx unit at a star; for
starters, angling upward will probably distort the arms sufficiently to
invalidate the results. Bouncing light in interferes with the speed, and
it's far from clear that the lightspeed will remain constant simply by
bouncing off a mirror.

Of course far more sophisticated experiments, such as Gravity Probe A,
already show results consistent with general relativity anyway. (I don't
think GPB's data has been fully analyzed yet.)

--
It's still legal to go .sigless.
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe

Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:37 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

Sorcerer wrote:
....
 Quote: | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you. | ... | > Androcles | | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will | agree with me!! | | GSS Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.

OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.

But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
and intelligent human beings have no say at all?

How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
education system or the product of our industrialized society?

How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?

GSS

 Quote: Sue doesn't have a clue how radio or light propagates, even though it has been explained to him many times. Phuddlephuck is snot-nosed git who snips to try to win an argument. You'll find lots of shitheads with their own agenda. Actually the real problem began with an eighteen year-old punk who made up his own theory that Algol was an eclipsing binary and astronomy has spiralled downhill ever since, taking physics with it. http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html If you want to do something useful get involved with Wackypedia, there are bishops and cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity there, eager to promote their own point of view to the greater glory of themselves and the destruction of physics. Androcles.
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru

Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 5:39 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

 Quote: OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me. But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century and intelligent human beings have no say at all? How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our education system or the product of our industrialized society? How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'? GSS

You misunderstand which side you reside on. You;'re one of the
shitheads who we're trying to free ourself from. You're not that
intelligent either, otherwise you'd understand the physics you're
railing against.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
dda1
science forum Guru

Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

Posted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:55 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.

 Quote: How did these people become 'shitheads'?

Look in the mirror, Gurcharn Sandhu.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 2 of 3 [43 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3 Next View previous topic :: View next topic
 The time now is Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:42 pm | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics The Riemann Hypothesis Revisited Ivan Iliev num-analysis 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:07 pm The Riemann Hypothesis Revisited Ivan Iliev Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:59 pm (factors of x) / (factors of x-1) = the null set? DGoncz@aol.com Math 12 Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:57 pm Simple factoring result, but what about lies? jstevh@msn.com Recreational 7 Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:52 am How to measure the size of Universe! studyandjobs@yahoo.com Relativity 3 Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:53 pm