Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
as radiant the light.
That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
though the theory today has it simplified together,
helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
c =/= infinity.
And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
One may notice that waves are not granular.
Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
"Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
Of course there's just adding definition underneath
the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
On 11/29/2024 02:30 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Thanks for your thoughts. I suppose that if the mass is so small it does
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about >>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by
gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has
proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from >>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
as radiant the light.
That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
though the theory today has it simplified together,
helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
c =/= infinity.
And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
One may notice that waves are not granular.
Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
"Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
Of course there's just adding definition underneath
the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
massless?
Seems you got one of those "non-zero, yet vanishing"
"mathematical infinitesimal" type things to figure out.
These days the photon is acribed an arbitrarily small
yet non-zero mass, so small that it only effects that
light follow the geodesy, and so small that c = infinity
by definition doesn't make for that m_photon c^2 = infinity,
or, it's an infinitesimal.
Other types of nuclear radiation, where optical light is
considered a type of flux complement of nuclear radiation,
for example X-rays and gamma rays, vis-a-vis alpha and
beta particles, of nuclear radiation, have that optical
light is considered part of nuclear radiation, and that
furthermore that optical light is special in terms of
rays and waves and diffraction and the carriage of an image,
that "information is free, if metered" as it were.
So, SR has nothing to say about that until mathematics
has something to say about infinity and infinitesimals
in real things, much like Einstein's cosmological constant,
which according to the latest, most-expensive, most-cited
experiments like WMAP is "non-zero, yet vanishing".
Sort of like "Little Higgs".
These explorations of the trans-Planckian, the
Planck-plank of electron physics as it were,
make for things like super-string theory,
which are kind of simply understood as twice
as small as atoms, in orders of magnitude,
because "it's a continuum mechanics...".
So, mathematics _owes_ physics more and better
mathematics of mathematical infinities and infinitesimals
with regards to continuum analysis, and furthermore
physics is in dire _need_ of this.
Otherwise you can just point at QM and GR disagreeing
120 orders of magnitude and point out they're both wrong.
And quantum mechanics is never wrong, ...,
and neither is relativity (of motion) theory.
Maybe you're doing it wrong,
but QM after Democritan chemistry
and GR and for FitzGeraldian space-contraction,
need fixing in "mechanics" and furthermore "continuum mechanics".
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from
moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
as radiant the light.
That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
though the theory today has it simplified together,
helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
c =/= infinity.
And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
One may notice that waves are not granular.
Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
"Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
Of course there's just adding definition underneath
the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
massless?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Where would I find him saying that light is not affected by gravity?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:36:18 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 01:22 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about >>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
If photons had mass the mass-velocity relation would prevent them from >>>> moving at c. Therefore, they have no mass.
Photons are none of electrons, electron-holes, nor waves,
nor wavelets, in the "electromagnetic" or electrical field -
though there's a usual wave/particle duality of photons
as radiant the light.
That the electrical field, makes for continuous spectrum,
about the frequency and wavelength thus energy after dividing
out the supposed particle energy the rays, the waves the rays,
and so does light in space by itself as if it orbits, bodies,
then has usually separate fields apiece for the electrical
and "deep space in a vacuum light's un-encumbered medium",
though the theory today has it simplified together,
helps describe why "photons" are way over-loaded in
the "particle" mechanics, and that then in terms of
mass-energy equivalency and c = infinity, that,
c =/= infinity.
And the great 19'th century electricians do arrive
at action in the electrical field just slightly tachyonic.
The "mass-less", or "sub-particulate", energy in the wave.
One may notice that waves are not granular.
Of course that's sort of putting GR, and SR, and QM,
and QED, and scattering-and-tunneling, and QCD,
not-quite a wave theory, photons pretty much everywhere.
"Virtual", photons ("fictitious", mostly).
Of course there's just adding definition underneath
the assumptions of GR and SR since mechanics itself
makes room, since GR and SR are merely "successful theories".
You're right to place "successful theories" in quotation marks. What
troubles me is how can energy exist without mass? How ca photons be
massless?
Energy existed trillions of years before mass was invented.
The big bang was the invention of...Mass. Why do you think there are
Rocks flying everywhere????
isn't one grain of sand a...rock?
'My Gawd, it's full of rocks!'
everybody wants to get stoned....
hey, you got rocks in your head..
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 21:19:37 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Thanks, I'm searching and look forward to your postings.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Where would I find him saying that light is not affected by gravity?
If you search sci.physics for Arindam's post using say google groups you cannot miss the linkd
There is a link for "The cause of gravity". There are further links to explain novae and supernovae using Arindam's physics. And much else, of course.
We shall post those links here, in due course.
Bertietaylor
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:27:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I agree, but how can that be if light has mass?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved
that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Gravity does not affect light. Light bending is an optical lensing
effect fraudulently passed off as a relativistic effect.
Bertietaylor
On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
yet, there's no energy without entelechy.
That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
account.
A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon,
about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
and four fields for those four forces,
and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
having another "element" like "ether", for space,
or a projection of prediction, for time,
have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
"entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
a stronger than conservation law".
You can emulate the particle physicists and just putThat does seem a little free-wheeling. Some consider gravity to provide
"photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.
It's not considered very conscientious, ....
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 13:47:44 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:Light has no mass. It is aesthetic disturbance.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:27:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I agree, but how can that be if light has mass?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Gravity does not affect light. Light bending is an optical lensing
effect fraudulently passed off as a relativistic effect.
Bertietaylor
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 22:17:48 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How can energy exist without mass, especially considering the
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 13:47:44 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:Light has no mass. It is aesthetic disturbance.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:27:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I agree, but how can that be if light has mass?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Gravity does not affect light. Light bending is an optical lensing
effect fraudulently passed off as a relativistic effect.
Bertietaylor
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:21:29 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 22:17:48 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How can energy exist without mass, especially considering the
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 13:47:44 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:Light has no mass. It is aesthetic disturbance.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:27:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I agree, but how can that be if light has mass?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about >>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Gravity does not affect light. Light bending is an optical lensing
effect fraudulently passed off as a relativistic effect.
Bertietaylor
mass-energy relation?
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 21:09:44 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:p. 7 Foreward by Ruggero Maria Santilli: "...the deplorable scientific condition of Einstein's theories of both special and general relativity,
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 0:21:29 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 22:17:48 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How can energy exist without mass, especially considering the
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 13:47:44 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:Light has no mass. It is aesthetic disturbance.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 22:27:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:I agree, but how can that be if light has mass?
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:08:59 +0000, Bertietaylor wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:How would that prevent gravity from affecting light?
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about >>>>>>>> ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and
I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>>>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Gravity does not affect light. Light bending is an optical lensing
effect fraudulently passed off as a relativistic effect.
Bertietaylor
mass-energy relation?
Energy is created and destroyed according to the relation
E=0.5mvvN(N-k)
arindam discovered in 1998.
On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
yet, there's no energy without entelechy.
That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
account.
A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon,
about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
and four fields for those four forces,
and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
having another "element" like "ether", for space,
or a projection of prediction, for time,
have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
"entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
a stronger than conservation law".
You can emulate the particle physicists and just putSince water is potentially solid, liquid, or gas, but actually only one
"photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.
It's not considered very conscientious, ....
On Sun, 1 Dec 2024 21:49:39 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 12/01/2024 01:33 PM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 18:50:19 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:
On 11/29/2024 10:08 AM, Bertietaylor wrote:It seems we may be able to have energy without mass.
On Fri, 29 Nov 2024 16:58:53 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
Bertie: I haven't connected with Arindam due to his claims about
ultimate realities. He probably thinks light is affected by gravity and >>>>> I don't.
You are right and Arindam will agree totally with you for he has proved >>>> that gravity is an electrostatic phenomenon.
Bertietaylor
Heaviside and crew arrived at that action in the electrical field
was just a bit _beyond_ c, I suppose one might say, the "mass-less".
Well yeah, energy is just whatever is potential,
yet, there's no energy without entelechy.
That said, various derivations like when electromagnetism
arrives at an edge speed higher than c, in meters per second,
got no problems on their own after their own constructivistic
account.
A tetrad of quantities like mass/charge/lifetime/velocity,
about you'll notice four particles like neutron/electron/proton/photon, about four forces like strong, electrical, weak, electroweak,
and four fields for those four forces,
and often in linear accounts a trio of the free one the fixed,
has that theories like GR have one or two of those, while QM
sort of billiard-balls them all together, then without
having another "element" like "ether", for space,
or a projection of prediction, for time,
have it so that a sort of tetra of quantities is
then arrived at as "energy", everywhere, connected,
"entelechy" everywhere, it's called "continuity law
a stronger than conservation law".
You can emulate the particle physicists and just put
"photons" everywhere doing whatever you say.
It's not considered very conscientious, ....Since water is potentially solid, liquid, or gas, but actually only one
of these at a time, couldn't energy exist without matter?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 490 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 76:16:29 |
| Calls: | 9,678 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,722 |
| Messages: | 6,172,686 |