 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does... |
|
Page 1 of 15 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| ... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
ajay wrote:User wrote:
[quote:0143ede7bb]
Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does
WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
It is done to save Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation of E
=mc2
[snip crap]
[/quote:0143ede7bb]
It's hyperbolic geometry, git, not Euclidean.
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
------------------------------------------------
Posted at: http://www.ForumBreak.com
------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 3, 8:08 pm, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:4d626b7884]
(iv) As you have written about my work , my work is published in peer
review journals.
All my research is available at
www.AjayOnLine.us
and in book Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized
You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till
date none has so done.
[/quote:4d626b7884]
From your website it looks like someone has already proven you wrong:
http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/553.pdf
Why do you keep tryng to publish the same mistakes over and over? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Higgins... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 5:49 am, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:146e6099c7]On Oct 4, 1:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
ajay wrote:
[snip screed]
Whatever you say, fruitloop.
Feel free to fade back into obscurity when you return to taking your
medications.
Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer
review found correct.
[/quote:146e6099c7]
It seems you are referring to "open access" journals, for which it is
quite a stretch to call "peer reviewed." I looked at the link to your
work provided by Dono in this thread:
http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/553.pdf
The "paper" does not even meet the basic requirements of an elementary
school composition in English. Among other things, you mispelled
"Generalization" in the TITLE. The level of "review" of theis "paper"
is borne out by the "Received 4 March, accepted 6 March". Hate to
tell you buddy, I am happy as can be if they review my papers in 6
weeks - often is it more like 6 months.
You obviously knew that this "journal" is published by the University
of Lodz in Poland, where they are likely to be even less fluent in
English than you are. To write an entire paper that is a direct attack
on a single person is despicable (even more so because your
"reasoning" is laughably inept), and completely contrary to the
etiquette of science. Worse than that, you ACKNOWLEDGE the same poor
sap for HELPING you, after you claim that he lied about his academic
affiliation. You are seriously disturbed, and should seek medical
attention right away. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 6:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:144ac73ca7]
-----------
(i) I have proved in 6 page rebuttal that there are elementary
mistakes in George's article.
[/quote:144ac73ca7]
No, your error is quite evident, as pointed by Georges, you don't know
the conservation of momentum.
[quote:144ac73ca7]My explanation is correct, was accepted after George's remarks and
published. Just read it.
[/quote:144ac73ca7]
I read it, you repeat the same mistakes. You don't know conservation
of momentum. Elementary. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote:7d09607f75]On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
-----------
(i) I have proved in 6 page rebuttal that there are elementary
mistakes in George's article.
No, your error is quite evident, as pointed by Georges, you don't know
the conservation of momentum.
My explanation is correct, was accepted after George's remarks and
published. Just read it.
I read it, you repeat the same mistakes. You don't know conservation
of momentum. Elementary.
[/quote:7d09607f75]
----
(i) Andrew George's article contains elementary errors regarding
interpretation of equation. It is explained in part(iii) and in paper
http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma13.pdf
You are mistaken in the beginning, as usual.
(ii) The momentum is conserved.
The conservation of momentum means
IN AN ISOLATED SYETEM THE MOMETUM IS CONSERVED i.e.
Initial momentum =Final momentum
When body emits light energy under GENERAL CONDITIONS, the momentum is
conserved as body tends to recoil. The velocity of recoil is of the
order the 10^-32 m/s
i.e. 1/00000000000000000000000000000000000
In one billion years body will move distance of the order of 10^-16 m
i.e.
1/0000000000000000m
It means body remains at rest (no change in position is observed in
realistic time). The rest of derivation follows usually. After
calculations the result is
Mathematically,
Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)
It is not justified at all. Einstein's derivation contradicts Law of
Conservation of MATTER
(iii) Andrew George's equation(1.6)
K-k = -0.5Lv2/c2 + L gamma.beta.cos phi
Also leads to
Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)
When we convert K , k ( kinetic energies to mass as done by
Einstein).
So everything is correct. George did not follow this step but jumped
to conclusions.
(vi) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dono.... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 1:43 am, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:bae23de03a]On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
-----------
(i) I have proved in 6 page rebuttal that there are elementary
mistakes in George's article.
No, your error is quite evident, as pointed by Georges, you don't know
the conservation of momentum.
My explanation is correct, was accepted after George's remarks and
published. Just read it.
I read it, you repeat the same mistakes. You don't know conservation
of momentum. Elementary.
----
(i) Andrew George's article contains elementary errors regarding
interpretation of equation.
[/quote:bae23de03a]
No, it doesn't, his paper exposes the ELEMENTARY errors in YOUR paper.
I
[quote:bae23de03a](ii) The momentum is conserved.
[/quote:bae23de03a]
Yes, it is conserved but in your paper you made the mistake of showing
that it isn't.
[quote:bae23de03a]Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)
[/quote:bae23de03a]
Bzzt, you have it backwards, any student knows that the corect
relationship is:
Mass BEFORE emission = Mass AFTER emission + positive quantity
See the difference? Why do you persist in writing incorrect things?
Because you don't know physics?
[quote:bae23de03a]It is not justified at all. Einstein's derivation contradicts Law of
Conservation of MATTER
[/quote:bae23de03a]
No, Einstein's equations are correct, yours are not.
[quote:bae23de03a](iii) Andrew George's equation(1.6)
K-k = -0.5Lv2/c2 + L gamma.beta.cos phi
Also leads to
Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)
[/quote:bae23de03a]
No, it doesn't, he shows you clearly that :
Mass BEFORE emission = Mass AFTER emission + positive quantity
You keep making the same silly mistake. No wonder Phys Rev A has
rejected your trash. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 5:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 7:21Â pm, "Dono." <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
[quote:9e8ce235bb]On Oct 5, 1:43 am, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa... at (no spam) comcast.net> wrote:
On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
-----------
(i) I have proved in 6 page rebuttal that there are elementary
mistakes in George's article.
No, your error is quite evident, as pointed by Georges, you don't know
the conservation of momentum.
My explanation  is correct, was accepted after George's remarks and
published. Â Just read it.
I read it, you repeat the same mistakes. You don't know conservation
of momentum. Elementary.
----
(i) Andrew George's article contains elementary errors regarding
interpretation of equation.
No, it doesn't, his paper exposes the ELEMENTARY errors in YOUR paper.
 I
(ii) The momentum is conserved.
Yes, it is conserved but in your paper you made the mistake of showing
that it isn't.
 Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)
Bzzt, you have it backwards, any student knows that the corect
relationship is:
Mass BEFORE emission = Mass AFTER emission + positive quantity
See the difference? Why do you persist in writing incorrect things?
Because you don't know physics?
It is not justified at all. Einstein's derivation contradicts Law of
Conservation of  MATTER
No, Einstein's equations are correct, yours are not.
(iii) Andrew George's equation(1.6)
K-k = -0.5Lv2/c2 + L gamma.beta.cos phi
Also leads to
Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (2)
No, it doesn't, he shows you clearly that :
Mass BEFORE emission = Mass AFTER emission + positive quantity
You keep making the same silly mistake. No wonder Phys Rev A has
rejected your trash.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:9e8ce235bb]
----------------------
You have written that
Mass after emission = Mass before emission + positive quantity (1)
Bzzt, you have it backwards, any student knows that the correct
………….
AJAY SHARMA: (i) Under General Conditions eq.(1) follows from
Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation.
Link http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
By General Conditions we mean
(A) The body emits LARGE NUMBER of light waves.
(B) The waves emitted are of DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES.
(C) Body emits waves at DIFFERENT ANGLES.
(D) Light emitting body may be at rest.
Under these conditions Einstein's derivation leads to eq.(1) which is
not justified. It is contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter.
It is limitation of Einstein's derivation. This issue is discussed for
first time. It is found correct by number of journals and published.
Dr Gordon W F DRAKE did not touch this issue but did 8th class
subtraction wrong.
(ii) The equation
Mass BEFORE emission = Mass AFTER emission + positive quantity
(2)
This equation is derived by Einstein in his Sep 1905 derivation under
SPECIAL CONDITIONS. These are
(a) Luminous body under consideration emits only TWO waves.
(b) Luminous body emits two waves of EQAUL magnitudes.
(c) Two waves are emitted by body in exactly opposite directions (ï¦ 0 and ï¦ =180).
(d) Einstein has taken velocity in classical region (v<<c and applied
binomial theorem).
It is well known correct theoretically and experimentally.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, should explain
why he did 8th class math wrong.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Juan R." González-Álvarez... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
[quote:eb4690a6b5]ajay wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700:
(...)
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Being the "world's most famous" of *one* may be not difficult.
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
------[/quote:eb4690a6b5]
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience.
(ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
(iii) Dr Drake is not coming up as he knows he is wrong and cannot
defend himself. He has made many more mistakes in manipulated reports.
On July 11, 2008 he has asked me to accept everything and don’t
discuss it anywhere. It implies he knows his mistakes.
Why he is silent after committing mistakes?
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote:bdf1a54d34]"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0-a4a9-1e42be1da790 at (no spam) o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
ajay wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700:
(...)
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Being the "world's most famous" of *one* may be not difficult.
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
------
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience.
SO .. YOU'RE A LITTLE WHINGING CHILD .. I HOPE YOU GET SUED FOR YOUR
CHILDISH TANTRUMS.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:bdf1a54d34]
------
Well sue, I will see, truth always wins.
I again add
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience.
(ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
(iii) Dr Drake is not coming up as he knows he is wrong and cannot
defend himself. He has made many more mistakes in manipulated reports.
On July 11, 2008 he has asked me to accept everything and don’t
discuss it anywhere. It implies he knows his mistakes.
Why he is silent after committing mistakes?
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote:a16ab2b1f6]"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee-92d5-805e328e0742 at (no spam) a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0-a4a9-1e42be1da790 at (no spam) o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com....
On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
ajay wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700:
(...)
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Being the "world's most famous" of *one* may be not difficult.
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
------
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience.
SO .. YOU'RE A LITTLE WHINGING CHILD .. I HOPE YOU GET SUED FOR YOUR
CHILDISH TANTRUMS.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------
Well sue, I will see, truth always wins.
[snip more whinging]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------[/quote:a16ab2b1f6]
WELL SUE, I WILL SEE TRUTH ALWAYS WINS.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 is REQUESTED
to explain why he performed WRONG calculations of 8th class in report
to my paper.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 8:56 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote:c61490760d]"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf-85b2-0a154e82a41a at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee-92d5-805e328e0742 at (no spam) a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com....
On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0-a4a9-1e42be1da790 at (no spam) o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
ajay wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700:
(...)
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Being the "world's most famous" of *one* may be not difficult.
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
------
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the
decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience..
SO .. YOU'RE A LITTLE WHINGING CHILD .. I HOPE YOU GET SUED FOR YOUR
CHILDISH TANTRUMS.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------
Well sue, I will see, truth always wins.
[snip more whinging]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
WELL
[snip more whinging .. you're like a broken record. get over yourself and
put some effort into learning physics instead of complaining]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:c61490760d]
--------------
(i) I have proved myself in peer review international journals.
Visit www.AjayOnLine.us
For information
Dr Gordon W F Drake has done 8th class math wrong to reject my paper.
(ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ajay... |
| Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote:5d45a34237]"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21b32313-a894-4857-bd72-7b966dd320c5 at (no spam) d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf-85b2-0a154e82a41a at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com....
On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee-92d5-805e328e0742 at (no spam) a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0-a4a9-1e42be1da790 at (no spam) o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
ajay wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700:
(...)
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated
with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Being the "world's most famous" of *one* may be not difficult..
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
------
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the
decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW
A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American
Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider
audience.
SO .. YOU'RE A LITTLE WHINGING CHILD .. I HOPE YOU GET SUED FOR
YOUR
CHILDISH TANTRUMS.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------
Well sue, I will see, truth always wins.
[snip more whinging]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
WELL
[snip more whinging .. you're like a broken record. get over yourself
and
put some effort into learning physics instead of complaining]- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------
(i) I have
[snip more whinging and complaining .. truly pathetic]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote:5d45a34237]
----------
(i) No complaining. I have lot of regard for Physical Review A and
American Physical Society. Hence I am REQUESTING for clarifications
why Dr Gordon W.F. Drake did 8th class math wrong.
(ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: pra at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Robert Higgins... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 6, 3:40 am, ajay <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote:29b4ad38e6]On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:21b32313-a894-4857-bd72-7b966dd320c5 at (no spam) d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com....
On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf-85b2-0a154e82a41a at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee-92d5-805e328e0742 at (no spam) a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"ajay" <ajayonline... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0-a4a9-1e42be1da790 at (no spam) o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
juanREM... at (no spam) canonicalscience.com> wrote:
ajay wrote on Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:34:13 -0700:
(...)
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated
with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Being the "world's most famous" of *one* may be not difficult.
(...)
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/canonicalscienceto...
------
(i) Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
I REQUESTED number of times and asked him to re-consider the
decision.
But he did not. He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW
A,
AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American
Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider
audience.
SO .. YOU'RE A LITTLE WHINGING CHILD .. I HOPE YOU GET SUED FOR
YOUR
CHILDISH TANTRUMS.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
------
Well sue, I will see, truth always wins.
[snip more whinging]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
-----------
WELL
[snip more whinging .. you're like a broken record. get over yourself
and
put some effort into learning physics instead of complaining]- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--------------
(i) I have
[snip more whinging and complaining .. truly pathetic]- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
----------
(i) No complaining. I have lot of regard for Physical Review A and
American Physical Society. Hence I am REQUESTING for clarifications
why Dr Gordon W.F. Drake did 8th class math wrong.
(ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p... at (no spam) aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
[/quote:29b4ad38e6]
"Web has reported variations in fine structure constant (hence in
speed of light) and have direct effect on ..."
"But Einstein’s this derivation has been critically discussed by many
such a Planck [20], Stark [21 ]"
"Like wise there are numerous elusive experimental cases which need to
be discussed in light of above findings, as research is continuous
process."
"The mass energy conversion processes are weird in nature and all have
not been at all studied in view of..."
"Till date E=mc^2 is not confirmed in the chemical reaction and the
reason cited for this is that equipments are not enough sensitive."
"Until the equation E=mc^2 is not confirmed in such reactions, then
scientifically may not be regarded as precisely true in such cases."
"It may require the measurements of all types of energies (may co-
exist in various forms) in the processes and experimental errors."
"Thus one query leads to another query." -Ajay Sharma
This stuff is hysterical. You should be writing for Leno.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:44 am
|
|