On May 5, 4:48*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 05 May 2008 07:48:55 -0400, "Robert J. Kolker"
wrote:

Benj wrote:

*I think it should be patently obvious at this point that nobody in
physics has the slightest clue what light is, even though they are
trying hard to cover up that fact.

Light is energy in the form of photons.

Benj's point well proven.
I suppose you will also describe a 'photon' as a 'package of light energy'..

Admit it Kolker, virtually nothing is known about light...particularly light in
transit, which includes most of it.

Well, the concept of light *not* in transit is certainly an
interesting one, Henri. I suppose that's what fills the Wilsonian
Bubble between your ears. Right next to the concept of pointy circles
and acceleration in equilibrium.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Sun, 4 May 2008 23:52:10 -0700 (PDT), Benj wrote:

On Apr 19, 1:22 am, wrote:


Actually not true. It only demonstrates some wave-like properties. A
wave is of infinite or at least longish extend. The duration of a true
wave determines the accuracy with which frequency can be determined.
To measure the frequency of a wave exactly requires a wave of infinite
duration. Clearly since the laser was both started and stopped this is
not the case and furthermore, we find that the light is of much
shorter duration than that. It has to do with the time required for
energy transfer from light to an electron in the photo-electric
effect. This occurs far too fast for light to be a wave! Hence light
is seen to diffract but is not a wave.

B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
which of the two slits it might've passed through;
i.e. it's Not a particle.

Also not true. One can easily place a detector at each slit and find
out which slit a given photon is going through. Of course when you do
that you can no longer observe the diffraction-like effects. But what
is clear is that were light a WAVE it would go through BOTH slits. It
doesn't do that. It only goes through one or the other slit. Hence
light is clearly a particle!

The interesting thing is that when these particles go through a slit
and by the time required to produce a photo-electric effect we also
know the approximate extent of the "particles" the particle somehow is
"aware" of the second slit, but it is literally incapable of sensing
it because of the "photon's" limited spatial extent. So the light
particle is tiny, yet senses things miles away! It can't be a wave,
and yet can't be a particle either.

Bottom line is nobody has a clue what is going on.

I do.
A photon is an individual self contained lump of 'aether' (for want of a better
word) that travels ballistically and possesses an intrinsic oscillation (or
rotation).
It has effective 'length' and 'cross-section'. It diffraction through a slit
depends on the phasing of its oscillation as it reaches the slit.

It is quite possible that the fields of an individual photon can interact with
and be modified by fields of other photons.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On May 4, 8:25*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:54:16 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:





On May 3, 6:36*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 2, 7:24*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"jem" wrote in message

...|NoE insteinwrote:

| On May 1, 1:05 pm, jem wrote:
| Dear jem: *The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether. *But such
| experiment simply lacked a control! *By my invalidation of the MM
| apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the
| fundamental energy form in the Universe! *But the ether ISN’T a fixed
| “grid” against which events can be measured. *Rather it varies in
| density and flow closely matching the massive objects that are in the
| cosmos. *Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like”
| voids between the galaxies. *Those are the areas from which the ether
| coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter. *So, the ether
| density in those places is nil. *If light required ether as a “medium”
| of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the
| voids. *But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether,
| or through the voids.
|
| The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns
| caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the
| “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of
| the ripple pattern of interference. *But this is due to the varying
| amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides
| the photons come. *Because photons are composed of clumps of ether
| units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and
| because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the
| atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing
| photons. *That is why photons can bend (like waves…). *— NoEinstein —
|
| Scientists create theories that describe Nature. *Other scientists, who
| understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain
| the highlights of the theories to the lay public. *Certain members of
| the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas
| from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories
| using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in
| - coffee-table books. *Then when their self-evaluated "improved"
| "theories" get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science
| suppresses new ideas.
|
| Sound familiar? *Read more about it here -
|www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

A clown who creates his own crackpot theory is no scientist.

Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v?
A. Because it is true.

Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the time for each journey is the same?

****ing liar.

Not in this instance. Einstein DID say that tAB = tBA according to his clock
synching definition. Too bad if it wasn't true. He simply changed one of his
clocks to make it so. In this way he made any 'aether' completely redundant.
I suggest you read his 1905 paper if you don't believe this. You clearly know
nothing about the theory you are supporting.

Of course in reality, if A and B are mutually at rest, tAB DOES equal tBA for
the simple reason that light is ballistic and moves at c wrt its source..
Einstein probably knew this but found there was more fame and money to be made
by persevering with his 'alternative aether theory', commonly known as SR.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *If the "subject" being discussed, relative to A and B...
is light, then light velocity will increase if the source is moving in
the direction the light is shining. *And light velocity will decrease
if shining in the direction opposite the motion of the source. *

Veleocities are relative. don't you know that?
Light moves at c wrt its source.

The
“reference point” is the position in space of the emitting source at
the time of the emission of a particular photon. *

Space has no reference points.

Each new photon in the train is its own mathematical example.

there may be some sense in that.
A photon is an individual 'package' of energy. It MUST possess structure and
intrinsic properties.

* * The "time" issue is simple: Light in any apparatus on Earth will
take the same TIME to travel to any normal surface with a fixed
relationship to the source. *So, to calculate the TIME of travel to
such a fixed surface, Earth's velocity cancels out. *The latter
doesn't 'rule out’ a change in the velocity of light; it necessitates
it! *— NoEinstein —

Earth doesn't have 'a velocity'. *Velocities are relative.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: Your "degrees" have gone to your head! Those don't prove
that a person can think. They only prove that the person passed the
stupid courses of those who couldn't think, either! — NoEinstein —

On May 4, 10:32*pm, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On May 2, 8:21 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:





"NoEinstein" wrote in message
....
On Apr 24, 6:17 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...

On Apr 22, 1:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote in message

...
On Apr 21, 8:18 am, "Tom Potter" wrote:

"
?=
wrote in message

.. .

What makes you believe Art Deco could understand
â?o integer units of action â? ? !

He couldn't understand potty humor if it exeeded one line.
We're like idiot savants with non-overlapping esoteric talents;
so one man's talent can't be seen by the other.

Actually Art Deco understands, and does,
his job very well.

Art works out of the caliballista.org boiler-room,
which is operated by a few Jewish bigots,
and used to intimidate and smear people,
that the bigots target.

Art's job is not to engage in rational, intelligent, moral
discussions to arrive at fundamental truths,

but his job is to smear folks, and obscure threads
on issues that his handlers don't want to have
the public exposed to.

Art does his job in several ways.

1. He ****es out posters,
and gets them off the issue,
and into a ****ing war.

2. He tries to link his victims
with negative images, negative ideas,
and negative people.

3. He appends alt.usenet.kook
to threads he wants to disrupt
in order to instigate a flame war between
the poster, the caliballista, boiler-rook bigots,
and the young boys and sociopaths
who hang out in alt.usenet.kook.

Art does a pretty good job
directing the activities of a few race/religion motivated bigots,
and in exploiting inferiority complexes in a few
sociopaths and young boys,
who tend to boost their egos by demeaning folks.
( Note that Art also exploits the inferiority complexes
of young boys and sociopaths in the serious newsgroups,
and gets some of them to append alt.usenet.kook to posts.

The Republican Party,
and now the Clinton gang
use the same tactics
used by the calaballista.org race motivated bigots,
and the tactic must work,
as they spend millions of dollars
trying to divert the attention of people
from facts and details.

I dare say that if Obama becomes president,
the masses will begin to turn aggressively on the
bigots, media, and politicians who use
smear as a weapon to promote their agenda,
which could not be promote successfully
using logic, intelligence and facts.

Hopefully, when the public gets sick of the
smear tactics, laws will be passed that make
it easy for folks smeared by Institutionalized Bigotry
to collect damages from the individuals and
organization that effected the smears.

The definition of "bigot" is:
"A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing
from
his
own."

To read the stories of a few of the many folks
who have been victims of Institutionalized bigotry
visit the web site below.

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/debate/victims/index.html

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

-- Dear Tom: If Obama becomes President, the USA is probably
doomed...

Considering that - NoEinstein -
is making Einstein look good,

and considering that he is opposed to Obama,
the only candidate for president
that is not totally controlled by the Jewish lobby,

one has to wonder if - NoEinstein -
is a shill,

working for the Einstein Cult,
and the War-for-Profit Gang.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Obama is a "minority" candidate supported by "minority"
Jews. TIME-Warner and CNN network are hugely biased toward Obama.
The publishers of science texts are mostly controlled by Jews; and
those love the fact that they make so much money trying to "explain"
Einstein. Einstein was a Jew, and Jews get their egos boosted by
letting him remain unchallenged. So, you could rightly say that Jews
are the primary reason my Einstein disproofs haven't gotten to the
front pages. Do you agree? :-) - NoEinstein -

I don't know what the "primary reason"
for the lack of acceptance of your "Einstein disproofs" is,
as I have not read your "Einstein disproofs",

but any idea, if it is powerful enough,
can overcome the Jewish bias in media.

Regarding your comment:
"Obama is a "minority" candidate
supported by "minority" Jews."

Although Obama has given lip service to Jews
in order to avoid being "Jimmy Cartered",
there is no doubt that the Clintons, the Bushes,
and McClain are owned lock, stock, and barrel by Jews,
and that Obama is not in their employee,
nor will he be intimidated by them,
once he becomes president.

Considering that Osama is the only threat to
the Jewish agenda, I wouldn't be surprised
if the Mossad finds themselves another
"James Earl Ray", and have him assassinate Obama,
so the deed can be blamed on Rednecks in general,
in order to instigate an enormous conflict between
Blacks and Whites, and get Jews back into control,
pulling the strings on either Clinton or McClain,
as they did on the Bushes.

--
Tom Potter

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Shame on you! Don't put violent ideas into anyone's head!
The most divisive thing would be for any of our candidates for any
office to be harmed. America must not let that sort of "remedy" be
part of her legacy! - NoEinstein -

- NoEinstein - makes a good point when he states:
"The most divisive thing would be for any of our candidates for any
office to be harmed.",

and as can be seen,
I called attention to the fact that the War-for-Profit Gang
has a long history of doing "divisive things"
to set one class against another, one race against another,
one religion against another, etc.,

and that the Gang would greatly profit if they
found themselves another "James Earl Ray".

To be forewarned is to be forearmed.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...crazyideas.blo...

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: *The "machines of war" lobby push their wares here and
there. *But your idea that those same people foment dissension just to
sell their wares seems more like a movie plot than real life. *Our
culture-against-culture relationships manage to get us into conflicts
often enough so that little outside influence is... "needed". *Until
we can "convert our swords into plow shears", the world won't benefit
from the unity of purpose that I dream can come about.
* * Though you see how harmful isolated violence can be in a broader
context, repeating your "suggestion to the weak" should be avoided. *-
NoEinstein -

It is interesting to see that "NoEinstein"
is ignorant of what race/religion
was central to the Spanish-American War,
the Class Wars of the 1900's,
the Religious Wars of the 200's,
America's Urban Rebellion of the 1960's/1970's
that destroyed Americas Inner Cities.

"NoEinstein" did make a good point when he suggested
that people who have a large media presence
should "avoid" instigating conflict and war.

I suggest that "NoEinstein" take a look at the
media, news, movies, etc. over the last ten years and
the posts to the newsgroups during the
runup to the Iraqi War,
and see if he can figure out
the qualities of the people who were
instigating conflict and war,
and trying to con American Blacks, Red Necks and Latinos
into sacrificing their lives, limbs, liberties and dollars
to kill Muslims so they could profit from it.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/ind...m/PotterPhotos

** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Tom: Sociology is more your area of specialty than it is mine.
Just today another "Tom", Tom Hanks, endorsed Barack Obama. Tom is
buddy-buddy with the powerful Jews in the movie industry. And he is a
friend to Stephen Spielberg—a well known, generally nice, Jew.
Earlier you said that Jews are behind Clinton. If that’s so, why is
Jewish controlled CNN supporting Obama? The reason: Obama is a
minority candidate, and on principle, Jews support minorities. They
also know that Obama's supporters are contributing more for
advertising, than Clinton's supporters. Where there is... money, Jews
are nearby. :-) — NoEinstein —

On May 5, 5:11*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On May 4, 8:25*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:



On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:54:16 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On May 3, 6:36*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2008 15:10:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On May 2, 7:24*pm, "Androcles" wrote:
--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
*http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"jem" wrote in message

...|NoE insteinwrote:

| On May 1, 1:05 pm, jem wrote:
| Dear jem: *The MMX wrongly ruled out the existence of ether. *But such
| experiment simply lacked a control! *By my invalidation of the MM
| apparatus as a velocity detecting device, I’ve reinstated ether as the
| fundamental energy form in the Universe! *But the ether ISN’T a fixed
| “grid” against which events can be measured. *Rather it varies in
| density and flow closely matching the massive objects that are in the
| cosmos. *Astronomers know that there are huge “Swiss cheese-like”
| voids between the galaxies. *Those are the areas from which the ether
| coalesced into the adjacent (but not close) matter. *So, the ether
| density in those places is nil. *If light required ether as a “medium”
| of travel, light would not be able to travel (as a wave) through the
| voids. *But photons will travel perfectly well through either ether,
| or through the voids.
|
| The observed “wave-like” appearance of the interference patterns
| caused by light passing through closely spaced vertical slits has the
| “ripples” off of the “line of sight” of the light source and parts of
| the ripple pattern of interference. *But this is due to the varying
| amount of bending of the rays caused by how close to the slit sides
| the photons come. *Because photons are composed of clumps of ether
| units—that I call IOTA (the smallest things in the Universe)—and
| because ether is polar, the greater concentration of ether inside the
| atoms of the sides of the slit act like magnets to deflect the passing
| photons. *That is why photons can bend (like waves…). *— NoEinstein —
|
| Scientists create theories that describe Nature. *Other scientists, who
| understand those theories, write coffee-table books that try to explain
| the highlights of the theories to the lay public. *Certain members of
| the lay public read those coffee-table books, get some half-baked ideas
| from them, and produce what they naively think are alternative theories
| using the only format they've ever seen scientific theories expressed in
| - coffee-table books. *Then when their self-evaluated "improved"
| "theories" get ignored or ridiculed, they complain about how Science
| suppresses new ideas.
|
| Sound familiar? *Read more about it here -
|www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

A clown who creates his own crackpot theory is no scientist.

Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v?
A. Because it is true.

Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the time for each journey is the same?

****ing liar.

Not in this instance. Einstein DID say that tAB = tBA according to his clock
synching definition. Too bad if it wasn't true. He simply changed one of his
clocks to make it so. In this way he made any 'aether' completely redundant.
I suggest you read his 1905 paper if you don't believe this. You clearly know
nothing about the theory you are supporting.

Of course in reality, if A and B are mutually at rest, tAB DOES equal tBA for
the simple reason that light is ballistic and moves at c wrt its source.
Einstein probably knew this but found there was more fame and money to be made
by persevering with his 'alternative aether theory', commonly known as SR.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians.....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *If the "subject" being discussed, relative to A and B...
is light, then light velocity will increase if the source is moving in
the direction the light is shining. *And light velocity will decrease
if shining in the direction opposite the motion of the source. *

Veleocities are relative. don't you know that?
Light moves at c wrt its source.

The
“reference point” is the position in space of the emitting source at
the time of the emission of a particular photon. *

Space has no reference points.

Each new photon in the train is its own mathematical example.

there may be some sense in that.
A photon is an individual 'package' of energy. It MUST possess structure and
intrinsic properties.

* * The "time" issue is simple: Light in any apparatus on Earth will
take the same TIME to travel to any normal surface with a fixed
relationship to the source. *So, to calculate the TIME of travel to
such a fixed surface, Earth's velocity cancels out. *The latter
doesn't 'rule out’ a change in the velocity of light; it necessitates
it! *— NoEinstein —

Earth doesn't have 'a velocity'. *Velocities are relative.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: *Your "degrees" have gone to your head! *Those don't prove
that a person can think. *They only prove that the person passed the
stupid courses of those who couldn't think, either! *— NoEinstein —

Except in this case, you are commenting on a complete fabrication by
Ralph "Henri" Rabbidge. His "degrees" are complete and unblinking
deceptions, just like your undocumented experiments about kinetic
energy. It would be entirely fitting if you two would preen and
flutter in front of each other.

PD

On May 5, 2:19*am, Benj wrote:
On Apr 18, 3:53 pm, Uncle Al wrote:

Education: that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the
foolish their lack of understanding. *Mystics are baffled by the
obvious yet possess a complete understanding of the nonexistent.

The proper word is "invisible" not "nonexistent".

Moron.

*I think it should be patently obvious at this point that nobody in
physics has the slightest clue what light is, even though they are
trying hard to cover up that fact.

Dear Benj: When you can't measure up, you generalize that no one has
smarts greater than you. Light is ether energy in motion (photons).
More explanations would be pointless for you. — NoEinstein —

On May 5, 7:48*am, "Robert J. Kolker" wrote:
Benj wrote:

*I think it should be patently obvious at this point that nobody in
physics has the slightest clue what light is, even though they are
trying hard to cover up that fact.

Light is energy in the form of photons.

Bob Kolker

Dear Bob: Where have you been? Thanks for getting the science
RIGHT! — NoEinstein —

On May 5, 5:14 pm, Jeff$B"%(BRelf wrote:
I was talking about an Ideal laser beam,
i.e. a Perfectly coherent laser beam, not a real one.
Such a beam could not be detected at one slit only, never ever.

Light is electromagnetic radiation;
it's an endless field, not a ponderable object, nor a wave.
Nothing can block the endless 4-D gravitational field of a laser beam.

Dear Jeff: Since light is a flow of photons (clumps of ether), and
since lasers are very directional flows of photons, it's quite
possible that small flecks of dust could be "sucked into" the ray much
like a jet of water, in water, causes whirlpools on each side. If you
can find a link to your "light has gravity" article, let me know.
Oh... space has only THREE physical dimensions--X,Y, & Z. The varying
position of an object in space requires the VARIABLE time. --
NoEinstein --

You told me:
“ space has only THREE physical dimensions--X,Y, & Z �.

Sure, in your daydreams; but real life has:
endless / unblockable / unponderable / 4-D gravitational fields;
not “ clumps of ether sucked into whirlpools �, not ponderable objects.

You asked me:
“ If you can find a link to your ‘ light has gravity ’ article,
let me know. �.

What's wrong with the links I've already shown you ?
Only General Relativity can explain gravitational lensing,
300 year old Newtonian equations won't work.

Quoting WikiPedia on this graphic:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._lens-full.jpg
“ Bending light around a massive object from a distant source.

The orange arrows show the apparent position of the background source.
The white arrows show the path of the light
from the true position of the source. �

Quoting an Abstract of an article entitled:
“ Weak gravitational field of
the electromagnetic radiation in a ring laser �

“ The gravitational field due to
the circulating flow of electromagnetic radiation of

a unidirectional ring laser is found by solving
the linearized Einstein field equations at
any interior point of the laser ring.

The general relativistic spin equations are then used
to study the behavior of a massive spinning neutral particle
at the center of the ring laser.

It is found that the particle exhibits the phenomenon known
as inertial frame-dragging. �.
-- “ Physics Letters A �, Volume 269, Issue 4, p. 214-217
http://adsAbs.Harvard.EDU/abs/2000PhLA..269..214M

On Mon, 5 May 2008 15:11:05 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:

On May 4, 8:25*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 19:54:16 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein
wrote:



The
“reference point” is the position in space of the emitting source at
the time of the emission of a particular photon. *

Space has no reference points.

Each new photon in the train is its own mathematical example.

there may be some sense in that.
A photon is an individual 'package' of energy. It MUST possess structure and
intrinsic properties.

* * The "time" issue is simple: Light in any apparatus on Earth will
take the same TIME to travel to any normal surface with a fixed
relationship to the source. *So, to calculate the TIME of travel to
such a fixed surface, Earth's velocity cancels out. *The latter
doesn't 'rule out’ a change in the velocity of light; it necessitates
it! *— NoEinstein —

Earth doesn't have 'a velocity'. *Velocities are relative.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Henri: Your "degrees" have gone to your head! Those don't prove
that a person can think. They only prove that the person passed the
stupid courses of those who couldn't think, either! — NoEinstein —

That is true now but it certainly wasn't when I did my courses.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....