Difference between revisions of "About the Wang Eclipse, Part 4"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Imported from text file) |
(Imported from text file) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
This article is a response to an article by William Stubbs [1] and another article by Robert Kemp [2] both sent to NPA in 2013. Both articles are commenting on the Wang eclipse [3] observed in China in 1997. The interpretation given here is very different from [1] and [2]. It is demonstrated that a 300 year old theory can explain the observed anomaly. Modern theories cannot do that. | This article is a response to an article by William Stubbs [1] and another article by Robert Kemp [2] both sent to NPA in 2013. Both articles are commenting on the Wang eclipse [3] observed in China in 1997. The interpretation given here is very different from [1] and [2]. It is demonstrated that a 300 year old theory can explain the observed anomaly. Modern theories cannot do that. | ||
| − | [[Category:Scientific Paper]] | + | [[Category:Scientific Paper|wang eclipse]] |
[[Category:Gravity]] | [[Category:Gravity]] | ||
[[Category:Aether]] | [[Category:Aether]] | ||
Revision as of 09:52, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | About the Wang Eclipse, Part 4 |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | John-Erik Persson |
| Keywords | {{{keywords}}} |
| Published | 2013 |
| Journal | None |
| No. of pages | 2 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
This article is a response to an article by William Stubbs [1] and another article by Robert Kemp [2] both sent to NPA in 2013. Both articles are commenting on the Wang eclipse [3] observed in China in 1997. The interpretation given here is very different from [1] and [2]. It is demonstrated that a 300 year old theory can explain the observed anomaly. Modern theories cannot do that.
