Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
ajay
subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
It is done to save Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation of E =mc2
Dr Drake is REQUESTED to justify himself as he is associated with
world's most famous American Physical Society.
Email of Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Email of Ajay Sharma ajay.s...@rediffmail.com, 0091 94184 50899
Website www.AjayOnLine.us
Part I
Ajay Sharma has sent paper to Editor Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F.
Drake 17 March 2008 manuscript no. DQ10345A.
The title of the paper
Experimental and theoretical feasibilities of conversion factor
other than c2 in mass energy inter-conversion equation
by Ajay Sharma
Wrong subtraction of 8th class mathematics in letter dated 19
June 2008 by
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake
In letter dated 19 June 2008, wrote equations and then doing wrong
subtraction of 8th standard level. In my paper I have justified that
Einstein's Sep. 1905 derivation of E =mc2, also gives
E 'proportional to' mc2
or E =Ac2m
i.e. E =mc2 is generalized as E =Ac2m
Dr Gordon W.F. Drakes perception of cyclic process in Email dated 19
June 2008
1. A hydrogen atom of mass M in its ground state absorbs a
photon of frequency f and makes a transition
to the first excited state.
2. The hydrogen atom of mass M* in its excited state is then
converted entirely into the energy of a high-frequency
photon of frequency f*.
Then
hf* = M*c^2 = Mc^2 + hf/A.
hf* = Mc2 + hf/
A. (1)
3. The high frequency photon is now passed through a machine
that converts it back into a hydrogen atom in its ground
state with mass M plus a low-frequency photon of
frequency f.
hf* =Mc2 +
hf
(2)
Subtraction by Editor Gordon W.F.Drake of eq.(1) and eq.(2)
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
hf* =Mc2 + hf
---------------------------
Difference = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1)
(3)
and interpreted it.
WRONG, 8th class subtraction by Editor Dr W.F. Drake.
Dr Drake has forgotten the basic definition of equation that it has
LHS and RHS. Further basic rule which is taught to 8th class student
is while subtraction is that LHS of one equation is subtracted from
LHS from second equation. RHS of one equation is subtracted from the
second equation.
Mistake of Dr Drake: Dr Drake did not subtract LHS of eq.(1) from
LHS of eq.(2), which is absolutely wrong.
Correct version is
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
hf* = Mc2 + hf
---------------------------
0 = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4)
LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from
RHS (hf/A – hf).
As the Left Hand Sides of both the equations are equal, hence the
difference is zero.
Thus Dr Drake applied 8th class mathematics incorrectly.
Part II
What was Drakes' motive behind remarks?
Ajay Sharma in paper manuscript DQ10345A
Experimental and theoretical feasibilities of conversion factor
other than c2 in mass energy inter-conversion equation
has generalized E = mc2 to E =Ac2m on the basis concrete theoretical
and experimental evidences.
Now Editor Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, wanted to prove this
generalization is wrong and he invented own mechanism for this.
But in the process he proved, that he did 8th class mathematics WRONG.
Thus Dr Drake is wrong, and generalization of E=mc2 to E =Ac2m is
correct.
The theme of Einstein's paper of Sep. 1905 of E = mc2
(i) Einstein's Sep.1905, derivation of E = mc2 also predicts that
E 'proportional to' mc2.
The reason for above deduction is that Einstein derived E=mc2 under
SPECIAL CONDITIONS, and under GENERAL CONDITIONS the result,
E 'proportional to' mc2 or E
=Ac2m (5)
It is justified by Ajay Sharma in manuscript DQ10345A.
What is meant by Special Conditions in Einstein's Sep. 1905
derivation?
In Einstein's derivation of E=mc2 of Sep. 1905 there are four
variables and Einstein took suitable values of variables. This
derivation involves emission of light energy by luminous body.
(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 ( =
0 and =180).
(d) Einstein has taken velocity in classical region (v<<c and applied
binomial theorem).
Under the Special or handpicked conditions, Einstein derived
L =
mc2 (6)
where L is light energy emitted by body. Then Einstein replaced L by E
to get
E =
mc2 (7)
What is meant by General Conditions in Einstein's derivation?
The conditions other than taken by Einstein are called General
conditions. For example,
(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 the General or handpicked conditions, Einstein derived (typical
calculations)
L = mc2/1141 = 0.000876mc2
(8)
L 'proportional to' mc2
As above,
E 'proportional to' mc2 or E =Ac2m.
(5)
Then, E =Ac2m. is applied in various cases.
For further information visit
www.AjayOnLine.us
Email ajay.s...@rediffmail.com, 0091 94184 50899
AJAY SHARMA 02 October 2009
Uncle Al
>
> 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
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
ajay
> ajay wrote:
>
> > 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]
>
> It's hyperbolic geometry, git, not Euclidean.
>
> Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
>
> idiot
>
> --
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Ask Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, to explain
the simple subtraction.
AJAY SHARMA
Dono.
> Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
> subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
>
Nah, he just showed you that you are the same old imbecile that tries
to peddle the SAME old tired piece of shit to any journal you can
bugger.
eric gisse
> Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
> subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
[...]
The "Dr." in his title suggests otherwise.
ajay
Ask Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review A p...@aps.org,
001-631-591-4000, to explain simple 8th class mathematics here. It is
open REQUEST to Dr Drake for the sake of science and honor of American
Physical Society. He did not so since past 15 months so I have to
come here.
Subtract
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
hf* = Mc2 + hf
---------------------------
interpreted further to save limitations of Einstein's Sep 1905 paper.
The above equations were also devised by Dr Drake. I can post his
Emails here.
Further information. www.AjayOnLine.us
AJAY SHARMA
Robert Higgins
> Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG
> subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
>
You wasted the time of the editor of Physical Review A with this
shit?
Dono.
You are an idiot, the editor is showing you that the "A" in your AMc^2
is equal to ...1!
That is, you did not discover anything and you have wasted everybody's
time.
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are mistaken, read complete posting. The correspondence on
DQ10345A between author (Ajay Sharma), Editor, Dr Drake and Board
Member is of 44 pages, which cannot be pasted here. If someone wants I
can email ajay.s...@rediffmail.com
(i) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 is
subtracting equations wrongly for willful to contradict my work which
is against ethics of science.
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
hf* = Mc2 + hf (2)
.
In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS and RHS is subtracted from
RHS. 8th class students knows.
Thus right answer is (8th class student gives)
0 = hf/A-hf or A=1
In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is
subtracted from RHS (hf/A – hf).
(ii) But Dr Gordon W.F. Drake:
Ignores basic rule to subtract LHS from LHS (which are equal in this
case i.e. hf*- hf*=0 ). Dr Drake only subtracts RHS from RHS, he does
not subtract LHS from LHS , as it does not suit his willful thinking.
Dr drake writes difference of eq.(1) and eq.(2) (technically, so
called cyclic process)
Left over energy or difference (non-zero) of LHSs = hf(1/A-1)
Then he incorrectly explains various values of A (A<1, A>1).
It is done in his Email dated 19 June 2008.
There are also many other elementary mistakes in his report. The total
correspondence consists of 44 pages.
(iii) When I pointed out the mistakes, he on 11 July 2008 Dr Drake
wrote
IT IS PRIVATE CORRESPONECE AND SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE.
From office of Physical Review A, American Physical Society, New
York, on official capacity NO CORREPONDCE can be private. For doing
private correspondence one should retire from official capacity, then
one is free to write anything.
ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify
(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.
AJAY SHARMA
ajay
wrote:
You are mistaken, read complete posting. The correspondence on
DQ10345A between author (Ajay Sharma), Editor, Dr Drake and Board
Member is of 44 pages, which cannot be pasted here. If someone wants I
can email ajay.s...@rediffmail.com
(i) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 is
subtracting equations wrongly for willful to contradict my work which
is against ethics of science.
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
hf* = Mc2 + hf (2)
.
In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS and RHS is subtracted from
RHS. 8th class students knows.
Thus right answer is (8th class student gives)
0 = hf/A-hf or A=1
In subtraction LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is
subtracted from RHS (hf/A – hf).
(ii) But Dr Gordon W.F. Drake:
Dono.
>
> (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.
>
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?
eric gisse
[...]
> You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till
> date none has so done.
That's because you are stupid.
>
> AJAY SHARMA
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer
review found correct.
If you think otherwise, you are most welcome to CONTRADICT in the
journals in scientiifc way.
ASK ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to
clarify, matter will be over.
original issue
You are most welcome to contradict it in peer review journals. Till
date none has so done.
AJAY SHARMA
eric gisse
[snip screed]
Whatever you say, fruitloop.
Feel free to fade back into obscurity when you return to taking your
medications.
ajay
Editors of various journals have published my work, as after peer
review found correct.
If you think otherwise, you are most welcome to CONTRADICT in the
journals in scientiifc way.
ASK ASK Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to
clarify, matter will be over.
original issue
You are mistaken, read complete posting. The correspondence on
DQ10345A between author (Ajay Sharma), Editor, Dr Drake and Board
Member is of 44 pages, which cannot be pasted here. If someone wants
I
can email ajay.shar...@rediffmail.com
Robert Higgins
> On Oct 4, 1:20 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@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.
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.
ajay
wrote:
As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
in different countries. Do you think scientific achievements of Poland
are nothing as their first language is not English?
(i) The main paper is at
http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf
It was received on 14 Feb. 2006 and accepted on 20 May 2006.
It took nearly 3 months for review, before it was recommended by an
expert.
SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DON’T SHOW YOUR FOOLISHNESS HERE.
I have published in countries like USA, ENGLAND, CANADA both in
journals and conferences.
(ii) Then some half wit person showed his foolishness and wrote to
Editor CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS, University of Lodz, Editor knew he was
wrong. Then Editor contacted me for explanation which I sent and was
readily accepted. It is right.
(iii) Let me again add, Einstein's Sep. 1905 is true under SPECIAL
CONDITIONS only not under GENERAL CONDITIONS. It is justified in
paper.
Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question Einstein?
You are welcome to CONTRADICT the same, journal. When you will read
the papers, only you will understand and appreciate them.
(iv) Coming back to original aim
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Robert Higgins
The problem with your "English" isn't the spelling - there are
differences between "British" and "American" English. Your "English"
is laughably bad - it is impossible to read it for two sentences
without knowing instantly that you are not a native speaker. Of
course, ieven in the Queen's English, it is still shit.
> Do you think scientific achievements of Poland
> are nothing as their first language is not English?
I know a number of excellent Polish scientists. None of them would be
caught dead accepting shit like you write. I have been to numerous
conferences in Europe (including Poland) - the presentations were
always in English, and at an infintely higher a level of
sophistication.
>
> (i) The main paper is at
>
> http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf
>
> It was received on 14 Feb. 2006 and accepted on 20 May 2006.
>
> It took nearly 3 months for review, before it was recommended by an
> expert.
Or, it sat on a desk for three months. It is still ridiculous.
> SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DON’T SHOW YOUR FOOLISHNESS HERE.
You've shown your foolishnes by posting shit npapers and personal
correspondence. Were you raised in a cave, or by wolves?
> I have published in countries like USA, ENGLAND, CANADA both in
> journals and conferences.
In which journals? Let me know, so I wouldn't waste my time reading
them. The only "journal" article you've posted is from an open-source
journal in POLAND.
>
> (ii) Then some half wit person
Other than you?
> showed his foolishness and wrote to
> Editor CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS, University of Lodz, Editor knew he was
> wrong. Then Editor contacted me for explanation which I sent and was
> readily accepted. It is right.
If your work has merit, why isn't it published in a real journal? IF
YOU have merit, why don't you have a real academic affiliation?
>
> (iii) Let me again add, Einstein's Sep. 1905 is true under SPECIAL
> CONDITIONS only not under GENERAL CONDITIONS. It is justified in
> paper.
> Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question Einstein?
No. It is sin to "write" shit and waste everyone's time with nonsense.
>
> You are welcome to CONTRADICT the same, journal. When you will read
> the papers, only you will understand and appreciate them.
>
> (iv) Coming back to original aim
> Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
> Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
>
> AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Thanks! I have neer laughed so hard in my life. I think you have
finally exceeded Monty Python's "Funniest Joke ever." This man has
just invented the world's funniest joke - and he will DIE laughing.
You should send your papers to Pakistan. No better way to defeat the
Pakistanis than to kill them with their own laughter.
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
in different countries. Do you think scientific achievements of Poland
are nothing as their first language is not English?
(i) The main paper is at
http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf
It was received on 14 Feb. 2006 and accepted on 20 May 2006.
It took nearly 3 months for review, before it was recommended by an
expert.
SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? DON’T SHOW YOUR FOOLISHNESS HERE.
I have published in countries like USA, ENGLAND, CANADA both in
journals and conferences.
(ii) Then some half wit person showed his foolishness and wrote to
Editor CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS, University of Lodz, Editor knew he was
wrong. Then Editor contacted me for explanation which I sent and was
readily accepted. It is right.
(iii) Let me again add, Einstein's Sep. 1905 is true under SPECIAL
CONDITIONS only not under GENERAL CONDITIONS. It is justified in
paper.
Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question Einstein?
You are welcome to CONTRADICT the same, journal. When you will read
Inertial
"ajay" <ajayon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8191ac59-9499-412a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
> in different countries.
Yours is wrong in every country.
You are certainly very prolific when it comes to producing crap.
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
----------
As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
Inertial
> On Oct 4, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8191ac59-9499-412a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
>> > in different countries.
>>
>> Yours is wrong in every country.
>>
>> You are certainly very prolific when it comes to producing crap.
>
> ----------
> As far as English language is concerned,
... yours is plain wrong in EVERY version of English ... can't you read
either?
[snip same old copy\paste spam]
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19451e7f-a35a-439f...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 4, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8191ac59-9499-412a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
> >> > in different countries.
>
> >> Yours is wrong in every country.
>
> >> You are certainly very prolific when it comes to producing crap.
>
> > ----------
> > As far as English language is concerned,
>
> ... yours is plain wrong in EVERY version of English ... can't you read
> either?
>
As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be different
Dono.
>
>
> (i) The main paper is at
>
> http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf
>
http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/549.pdf
You never answered the question: why do you try to push the SAME paper
all over the internet?
ajay
-------
(i) See the same journals CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS Vol. V No. 3 (2008) pp.
553-558
Link http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma13.pdf
Title Ajay Sharma re-justifies his paper on Generalization of
Einstein's E=mc2
after pointing out elementary mistake in Andrew George's paper
(ii) A person ANDREW GEORGE, who gave his false identity
( that he is at University of Denver Physics Dept, Denver, Colorado,
80208 , USA)
wrote a contradictory article and sent to Editor. Editor welcomed the
same as different opinion and asked me to clarify. I did the same. So
my reply is also published side by side.
I AGAIN ADD ANDREW GEORGE has committed elementary mistakes. You can
read.
(iii) I invite you to contradict my work. When you will read , try to
write , you will understand the papers. And you will appreciate.
Let me again add, Einstein's Sep. 1905 is true under SPECIAL
CONDITIONS only not under GENERAL CONDITIONS. It is justified in
paper. It is being extended.
Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question
Einstein?
(iv) Reason for posting on internet.
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 and American Physical
Society.
So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience.
(v) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
ajay
(i) See the same journals CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS Vol. V No. 3 (2008) pp.
553-558
Link http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma13.pdf
Title Ajay Sharma re-justifies his paper on Generalization of
Einstein's E=mc2
after pointing out elementary mistake in Andrew George's paper
(ii) A person ANDREW GEORGE, who gave his false identity
( that he is at University of Denver Physics Dept, Denver, Colorado,
80208 , USA)
wrote a contradictory article and sent to Editor. Editor welcomed the
same as different opinion and asked me to clarify. I did the same. So
my reply is also published side by side.
I AGAIN ADD ANDREW GEORGE has committed elementary mistakes. You can
read.
(iii) I invite you to contradict my work. When you will read , try to
write , you will understand the papers. And you will appreciate.
Let me again add, Einstein's Sep. 1905 is true under SPECIAL
CONDITIONS only not under GENERAL CONDITIONS. It is justified in
paper. It is being extended.
Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question
Einstein?
(iv) Reason for posting on internet.
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.
(v) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Inertial
> On Oct 4, 10:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:19451e7f-a35a-439f...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:8191ac59-9499-412a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be
>> >> > different
>> >> > in different countries.
>>
>> >> Yours is wrong in every country.
>>
>> >> You are certainly very prolific when it comes to producing crap.
>>
>> > ----------
>> > As far as English language is concerned,
>>
>> ... yours is plain wrong in EVERY version of English ... can't you read
>> either?
>>
> As far as English language is concerned,
What are you, a spamming robot. Fuck off you idiot
Dono.
> On Oct 4, 9:47 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 4, 8:52 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > (i) The main paper is at
>
> > >http://merlin.fic.uni.lodz.pl/concepts/2006_4/2006_4_351.pdf
>
> > And the rebuttal is in the same journal:
>
> >http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/549.pdf
>
> > You never answered the question: why do you try to push the SAME paper
> > all over the internet?
>
> -------
>
> (i) See the same journals CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS Vol. V No. 3 (2008) pp.
> 553-558
>
The rebuttal is correct, this is why it was published.
>
> Title Ajay Sharma re-justifies his paper on Generalization of
> Einstein's E=mc2
> after pointing out elementary mistake in Andrew George's paper
>
The errors are all yours.
> wrote a contradictory article and sent to Editor. Editor welcomed the
> same as different opinion and asked me to clarify. I did the same. So
> my reply is also published side by side.
>
You just repeated the same errors.
> Hence I critically analyzed the same. Is it sin to question
> Einstein?
>
No, it is not a sin but in your case it is an idiocy.
> (iv) Reason for posting on internet.
> 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.
And he refused since :
1. You are trying to publish the SAME paper over and over again.
2. Your paper has been proven wrong already.
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------
(i) I have proved in 6 page rebuttal that there are elementary
mistakes in George's article.
It is title of article itself.
See the same journal CONCEPTS OF PHYSICS Vol. V No. 3 (2008) pp.
553-558
Link http://www.wbabin.net/ajay/sharma13.pdf
Title Ajay Sharma re-justifies his paper on Generalization of
Einstein's E=mc2
after pointing out elementary mistake in Andrew George's paper
My explanation is correct, was accepted after George's remarks and
published. Just read it.
Andrew George who gave false identity in the paper
(that he is at University of Denver Physics Dept, Denver, Colorado,
80208 , USA)
does not even know how to interpret an equation for final results.
Chairman of Physics Dept University of DENVER said he has been never
member of Dept of Physics. Such liars can not be believed.
(ii) How many times I am to tell you
GO TO JOURNALS AND PROVE I AM WRONG, if you have little sense.
I have proved in broad day light, in number of journals improving my
papers. Do you think all Editors are wrong? Every Editor is right, and
you are wrong.
(iii) Reason for posting on internet.
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.
(vi) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
(v) 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
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e34db18-4c18-405c...@o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 10:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:19451e7f-a35a-439f...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 4, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:8191ac59-9499-412a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be
> >> >> > different
> >> >> > in different countries.
>
> >> >> Yours is wrong in every country.
>
> >> >> You are certainly very prolific when it comes to producing crap.
>
> >> > ----------
> >> > As far as English language is concerned,
>
> >> ... yours is plain wrong in EVERY version of English ... can't you read
> >> either?
>
> > As far as English language is concerned,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------
Use civilized language. The language indicates your character and
country you belong to.
I am feeling pity on your situation.
If you feel I am wrong GO to journal and come out with
publications.Everything will settle.
SHOW WHAT YOU KNOW SCIENTIFICALLY.
Don't beat about the bush, show what you know.
I have published against Einstein in journals, in broad day light.
(i) Reason for posting on internet.
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: p...@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
Inertial
> On Oct 5, 6:14 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5e34db18-4c18-405c...@o21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 4, 10:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:19451e7f-a35a-439f...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Oct 4, 8:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:8191ac59-9499-412a...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > As far as English language is concerned, the spelling can be
>> >> >> > different
>> >> >> > in different countries.
>>
>> >> >> Yours is wrong in every country.
>>
>> >> >> You are certainly very prolific when it comes to producing crap.
>>
>> >> > ----------
>> >> > As far as English language is concerned,
>>
>> >> ... yours is plain wrong in EVERY version of English ... can't you
>> >> read
>> >> either?
>>
>> > As far as English language is concerned,
>>
>> What are you, a spamming robot. Fuck off you idiot- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> ---------
> Use civilized language.
Stop spamming the same reply over and voer
> The language indicates your character and
> country you belong to.
Your poor spelling in a supposedly published paper shows your lack of
attention to detail and that of the publisher.
> I am feeling pity on your situation.
I feel none for you
> If you feel I am wrong GO to journal and come out with
> publications.Everything will settle.
> SHOW WHAT YOU KNOW SCIENTIFICALLY.
> Don't beat about the bush, show what you know.
> I have published against Einstein in journals, in broad day light.
And you're clearly an idiot
> (i) Reason for posting on internet.
> 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.
Because you're clearly an idiot
> He is misusing the resources of PHYSICAL REVIEW A,
> AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, New York.
No .. he's doing his job by not publishing nonsense from idiots
> I have my highest regards for Physical Review A, American Physical
> Society.
Unlikely. You're shown nothing but professional contempt for others.
> So I am pointing out the facts on the internet for wider audience.
No .. you're behaving like a little child
> (ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
> Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Where? Your incomprehensible initial post doesn't say anything.
> (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?
Probably because you're just a little whinger and not worth his time and
trouble. Though I'm sure if you keep it up, you'll end up sued.
Dono.
>
> -----------
> (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.
ajay
----
(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: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Dono.
> On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@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.
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.
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------------------
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 ( =
0 and =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: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, should explain
Juan R.
(...)
> 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/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
ajay
------
(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: p...@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
Inertial
> On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." Gonz�lez-�lvarez
> <juanREM...@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.
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <juanREM...@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
>
> - Show quoted text -
------
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: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Inertial
> On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > <juanREM...@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]
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > <juanREM...@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.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
WELL SUE, I WILL SEE TRUTH ALWAYS WINS.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@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
Inertial
> On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
[snip more whinging .. you're like a broken record. get over yourself and
put some effort into learning physics instead of complaining]
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------------
(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: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
Inertial
> On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
[snip more whinging and complaining .. truly pathetic]
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:21b32313-a894-4857...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> - 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.
Inertial
> On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:21b32313-a894-4857...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
That's all you've been doing
> 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.
You've not yet shown what this supposed math error is.
Your post so far have been almost unintelligible. If that is any indication
of the quality of your submissions, then it is no wonder they are rejected.
See if you can do this:
Write "This is what my article contained:"
And follow that with exactly what it is your article said (the maths in
particular)
Then write "This is what Dr Drake said about it:"
And follow that with exactly what he said about your article (the maths in
particular)
No interpretation or paraphrasing, just what you wrote and what he comented.
And then see if people agree with his review.
Robert Higgins
"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....
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:15eba414-ce50-4ccc...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:21b32313-a894-4857...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >>news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> >> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
------
MISTAKE OF Dr DRAKE
Dr Drake and devised two equations hf* = Mc2 + hf/A and
hf* =Mc2 + hf
where h is Planck's constant , f* and f are frequencies , M is mass
of hydrogen
atom in ground state , c is speed of light. Then Dr Drake has
subtracted equations as
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
---------------------------
Difference = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1)
(3)
and interpreted it for A> 1 and thus contradicted my work in his
designed conception. Then he generalized his 'research' in other cases
as well.
WRONG, 8th class subtraction by Editor Dr W.F. Drake as in eq.(3).
Dr Drake has forgotten the basic definition of equation that it has
LHS and RHS. Further basic rule which is taught to 8th class student
is while subtraction is that LHS of one equation is subtracted from
LHS from second equation. RHS of one equation is subtracted from the
RHS of second equation.
Mistake of Dr Drake: Dr Drake did not subtract LHS of eq.(1) i.e.
from LHS of eq.(2), which is absolutely wrong. It is reflected from eq.
(3) , as in LHS he writes 'DIFFERENCE'.
Correct version is
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
hf* = Mc2 + hf
---------------------------
0 = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4)
LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from
RHS (hf/A – hf).
As the Left Hand Sides of both the equations are equal, hence the
difference is zero.
Thus Dr Drake applied 8th class mathematics incorrectly.
This is mistake of Dr Drake.
(ii) Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
Dono.
>
> MISTAKE OF Dr DRAKE
>
> Dr Drake and devised two equations hf* = Mc2 + hf/A and
> hf* =Mc2 + hf
> where h is Planck's constant , f* and f are frequencies , M is mass
> of hydrogen
> atom in ground state , c is speed of light. Then Dr Drake has
> subtracted equations as
>
> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
> hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
> ---------------------------
> Difference = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1)
Drake is telling you something very simple:
E^2-(p*c)^2=(m_0*c^2)^2 (1)
According to experimen, E=Mc^2. According to you: E=A*(Mc^2). So:
(Mc^2)^2-(p*c)^2=(m_0*c^2)^2 (2)
(A*Mc^2)^2-(p*c)^2=(m_0*c^2)^2 (3)
-------------------------------------
(A-1)^2*(Mc^2)^2=0 (4)
so A=1.
End of story.
ajay
ajay
--------
(i) Don’t raise the false issues. The equations you have given are
irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class math.
Come to real issues, the set of equations devised and interpreted by
Dr Drake.
Dr Drake has perceived CYCLIC PROCESS and tried to give false
contradiction, with value of A>1 in eq.(3).
Dr Drake has written and discussed, eqs.(1-2) , subtracted incorrectly
as eq.(3) and interpreted it in letter dated 19 June 2008.
The correct subtraction is eq.(4).
Read and understand previous post
MISTAKE OF Dr DRAKE
Dr Drake and devised two equations hf* = Mc2 + hf/A and
hf* =Mc2 + hf
where h is Planck's constant , f* and f are frequencies , M is mass
of hydrogen
atom in ground state , c is speed of light. Then Dr Drake has
subtracted equations as
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
---------------------------
Difference = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1)
(3)
and interpreted it for A> 1 and thus contradicted my work in his
designed conception. Then he generalized his 'research' in other cases
as well.
WRONG, 8th class subtraction by Editor Dr W.F. Drake as in eq.(3).
Dr Drake has forgotten the basic definition of equation that it has
LHS and RHS. Further basic rule which is taught to 8th class student
is while subtraction is that LHS of one equation is subtracted from
LHS from second equation. RHS of one equation is subtracted from the
RHS of second equation.
Mistake of Dr Drake: Dr Drake did not subtract LHS of eq.(1) i.e.
from LHS of eq.(2), which is absolutely wrong. It is reflected from eq.
(3) , as in LHS he writes 'DIFFERENCE'.
Correct version is
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
hf* = Mc2 + hf
---------------------------
0 = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4)
LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from
RHS (hf/A – hf).
As the Left Hand Sides of both the equations are equal, hence the
difference is zero.
Thus Dr Drake applied 8th class mathematics incorrectly.
This is mistake of Dr Drake.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
Inertial
> On Oct 6, 12:53 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:15eba414-ce50-4ccc...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 6, 1:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:21b32313-a894-4857...@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Oct 6, 12:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >>news:fc730a08-3e4d-44cf...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> > On Oct 6, 12:03 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >>news:856c2fc8-3e4a-44ee...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >> >> >> >>news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0...@o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>>
I asked you for "No interpretation or paraphrasing, just what you wrote and
what he commented"
Can't you do that?
Inertial
> On Oct 6, 7:01 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 6:52 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > MISTAKE OF Dr DRAKE
>>
>> > Dr Drake and devised two equations hf* = Mc2 + hf/A and
>> > hf* =Mc2 + hf
>> > where h is Planck's constant , f* and f are frequencies , M is mass
>> > of hydrogen
>> > atom in ground state , c is speed of light. Then Dr Drake has
>> > subtracted equations as
>>
>> > hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
>> > hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
>> > ---------------------------
>>
>> Drake is telling you something very simple:
>>
>> E^2-(p*c)^2=(m_0*c^2)^2 (1)
>>
>> According to experimen, E=Mc^2. According to you: E=A*(Mc^2). So:
>>
>> (Mc^2)^2-(p*c)^2=(m_0*c^2)^2 (2)
>>
>> (A*Mc^2)^2-(p*c)^2=(m_0*c^2)^2 (3)
>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> (A-1)^2*(Mc^2)^2=0 (4)
>>
>> so A=1.
>>
>> End of story.
>
> --------
> irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class math.
> Come to real issues, the set of equations devised and interpreted by
> Dr Drake.
>
> Dr Drake has perceived CYCLIC PROCESS and tried to give false
> contradiction, with value of A>1 in eq.(3).
>
> Dr Drake has written and discussed, eqs.(1-2) , subtracted incorrectly
> as eq.(3) and interpreted it in letter dated 19 June 2008.
> The correct subtraction is eq.(4).
>
> Read and understand previous post
>
> MISTAKE OF Dr DRAKE
>
> Dr Drake and devised two equations hf* = Mc2 + hf/A and
> hf* =Mc2 + hf
> where h is Planck's constant , f* and f are frequencies , M is mass
> of hydrogen
> atom in ground state , c is speed of light. Then Dr Drake has
> subtracted equations as
>
> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
> hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
> ---------------------------
> (3)
> and interpreted it for A> 1 and thus contradicted my work in his
> designed conception. Then he generalized his 'research' in other cases
> as well.
> WRONG, 8th class subtraction by Editor Dr W.F. Drake as in eq.(3).
>
> Dr Drake has forgotten the basic definition of equation that it has
> LHS and RHS. Further basic rule which is taught to 8th class student
> is while subtraction is that LHS of one equation is subtracted from
> LHS from second equation. RHS of one equation is subtracted from the
> RHS of second equation.
>
> Mistake of Dr Drake: Dr Drake did not subtract LHS of eq.(1) i.e.
> from LHS of eq.(2), which is absolutely wrong. It is reflected from eq.
> (3) , as in LHS he writes 'DIFFERENCE'.
>
> Correct version is
> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
> hf* = Mc2 + hf
> ---------------------------
> LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from
> As the Left Hand Sides of both the equations are equal, hence the
> difference is zero.
> Thus Dr Drake applied 8th class mathematics incorrectly.
> This is mistake of Dr Drake.
>
> Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
> Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
> Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
I'm still waiting for you to show exactly what Dr Drake wrote, and not your
interpretation of it.
Even you *own* 'correct' interpretation shows A=1, which appears to refutes
your claims.
I imagine that that is what Dr Drake was pointing out. That if you have A
<> 1, then you end up with nonsense.
I asked before, and will ask again .. see if you can manage this simple
copy/paste task
Write "This is what my article contained:"
And follow that with exactly what it is your article said (the maths in
particular)
Then write "This is what Dr Drake said about it:"
And follow that with exactly what he said about your article (the maths in
particular)
No interpretation or paraphrasing, just what you wrote and what he
commented.
Dono.
> > (i) Don’t raise the false issues. The equations you have given are
> irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class math.
Don't be such an idiot, the equation is the conservation of energy/
momentum.
ajay
----
You hace written discuss HOW Dr Drake did 8th class math wrong . I did
giving all equations.
Comment on those what Dr Drake did and perceived.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
doug
ajay wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:59 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 6, 8:10 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>(i) Don�t raise the false issues. The equations you have given are
>>>
>>>irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class math.
>>
>>Don't be such an idiot, the equation is the conservation of energy/
>>momentum.
>
>
> ----
> You hace written discuss HOW Dr Drake did 8th class math wrong . I did
> giving all equations.
> Comment on those what Dr Drake did and perceived.
>
> AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
You have looked like a baby having a tantrum but you have
not shown any problem. What is your complaint? You have
ignored Dono's request to show the comments. So far, you
just look silly.
Dono.
No, dumbbell, I am showing the ERRORS in YOUR paper.
eric gisse
> On Oct 7, 3:59 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 8:10 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > (i) Don?t raise the false issues. The equations you have given are
>> > irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class math.
>>
>> Don't be such an idiot, the equation is the conservation of energy/
>> momentum.
>
> ----
> You hace written discuss HOW Dr Drake did 8th class math wrong . I did
> giving all equations.
> Comment on those what Dr Drake did and perceived.
>
> AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Aren't your friends and family concerned about you being off your
antipsychotics?
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----
(i) There are no errors in papers. Error is in subtraction of 8th
class level. In comments dated 17 June 2008. I explain below.
Dono.
> On Oct 7, 7:42 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 7:12 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 7, 3:59 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 6, 8:10 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > (i) Don’t raise the false issues. The equations you have given are
> > > > > irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class math.
>
> > > > Don't be such an idiot, the equation is the conservation of energy/
> > > > momentum.
>
> > > ----
> > > You hace written discuss HOW Dr Drake did 8th class math wrong . I did
> > > giving all equations.
> > > Comment on those what Dr Drake did and perceived.
>
> > > AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
>
> > No, dumbbell, I am showing the ERRORS in YOUR paper.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> -----
> (i) There are no errors in papers.
Listen, wackjob. A=1, so all of your "papers" contain the same
mistake.
Drake showed you that A=1, I showed you that A=1 through a different
way.
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
i) THE MAIN THEME HERE IS , Dr Gordon W.F. Drake has done 8th class
math wrong. Dr Drake should explain it. Why is not coming up?
Dono.
>
> > Listen, wackjob. A=1, so all of your "papers" contain the same
> > mistake.
> > Drake showed you that A=1, I showed you that A=1 through a different
> > way.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> i) THE MAIN THEME HERE IS , Dr Gordon W.F. Drake has done 8th class
> math wrong.
Listen, wackjob, dr. Drake has shown you that A=1. I have shown you
through a different method that A=1.
Einstein is right, all your papers are wrong.
Inertial
> On Oct 7, 6:23 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 12:30 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 7, 7:42 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Oct 6, 7:12 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Oct 7, 3:59 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Oct 6, 8:10 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > irrelevant. A=1 from right subtraction based upon 8th class
>> > > > > > math.
>>
>> > > > > Don't be such an idiot, the equation is the conservation of
>> > > > > energy/
>> > > > > momentum.
>>
>> > > > ----
>> > > > You hace written discuss HOW Dr Drake did 8th class math wrong . I
>> > > > did
>> > > > giving all equations.
>> > > > Comment on those what Dr Drake did and perceived.
>>
>> > > > AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
>>
>> > > No, dumbbell, I am showing the ERRORS in YOUR paper.- Hide quoted
>> > > text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > -----
>> > (i) There are no errors in papers.
>>
>> Listen, wackjob. A=1, so all of your "papers" contain the same
>> mistake.
>> Drake showed you that A=1, I showed you that A=1 through a different
>> way.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> i) THE MAIN THEME HERE IS
... that you keep spamming the same nonense over and over.
I asked you to very simple copy and paste here what you wrote, and copy and
paste what Dr drake said in reply.
You seem incapable of even that simple request and keep spamming and
whinging instead. you'd a petulant little child. If I were Dr Drake I'd
simply delete any communications from you unread, as it would be a gross
waste of his (or anyone else's time) reading them.
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a4309d00-4228-4f02...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 7, 6:23 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Oct 7, 12:30 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 7, 7:42 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > On Oct 6, 7:12 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Oct 7, 3:59 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On Oct 6, 8:10 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review A p...@aps.org,
001-631-591-4000,
SHOULD explain simple 8th class mathematics here which he did wrong.
It is misuse of power of American Physical Society for which I have
deep request.
It is open REQUEST to Dr Drake for the sake of science and honor of
American Physical Society.
He did not do so since past 15 months so I have to come here.
Whole correspondence (44 pages in pdf) is also posted
http://www.wbabin.net/
in right handside buttons title
Ajay Sharma - American Physical Society
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
ajay
---------
DONO
See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
previous post.
comment on it.
My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
of parameters.
Einstein's paper is available at
A. Einstein, Annalen. der Physik 17, 891-921 (1905).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
Under general conditions that value of value A (COEFFICIENT OF
PROPORTIONALITY) is different from unity i.e. A<1 or A>1.
Editors found this work correct and published. It is simple.
Dono.
>
> My research shows Einstein's paper is VALID under SPECIAL CONDITIONS
> of parameters.
Listen, whackjob, your paper is false under ALL conditions. Your
parameter "A" in your incorrect energy formula , E=AMc^2 is ALWAYS
equal to 1.
Inertial
> On Oct 8, 4:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a4309d00-4228-4f02...@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 7, 6:23 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 7, 12:30 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 7, 7:42 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Oct 6, 7:12 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > On Oct 7, 3:59 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > On Oct 6, 8:10 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
You seriously wrote a letter like that to an editor? Making petty personal
attacks on a reviewer? And your grammar and style is terrible and totally
unprofessional. No wonder you're not taken seriously. it would have gone
straight in the rubbish bin if I had received nonsense like that.
Reading form the end Dr Drake has behaved professionally, and explained why
your paper is (to be blunt) crap. Showing that if E = Amc^2 where A is not
a universal constant, you could convert between mass and energy in processes
with differing A values to result in a net increase in energy. Which is not
possible. Your response to the rejections are no better than childish
tantrums.
You are simply wasting everyone's valuable time and resources (including
your own).
Inertial
> On Oct 7, 10:23 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 8:32 am, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > > Listen, wackjob. A=1, so all of your "papers" contain the same
>> > > mistake.
>> > > Drake showed you that A=1, I showed you that A=1 through a different
>> > > way.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > i) THE MAIN THEME HERE IS , Dr Gordon W.F. Drake has done 8th class
>> > math wrong.
>>
>> Listen, wackjob, dr. Drake has shown you that A=1. I have shown you
>> through a different method that A=1.
>> Einstein is right, all your papers are wrong.
>
> ---------
> DONO
>
> See that I pasted HOW Dr Drake simply did 8th class math wrong in
> previous post.
> comment on it.
His math is fine. You just can't understand 8th class math.
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----
INERTIAL
See my previous post.
Dr Drake has done 8th class math wrong.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Inertial
I've seen enough of them
> Dr Drake has done 8th class math wrong.
No .. you just haven't understood it .. big difference
> Dr Gordon W.F. Drake: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000 to clarify
I have no need to talk to him, the correspondence from him to you was very
clear
> AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
You should choose a new career .. Physics and writing are not for you.
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
---------
INERTIAL
There is established rule in schools to teach students the subtraction
of algebraic equations.
(i) LHS is subtracted from LHS
(ii) RHS is subtracted from RHS
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
Society, New York
Has not followed this rule.
Now he is silent it will never prove him correct.
Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
Society , New Yok: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
------
If Iam wrong rell me.
AJAY SHARMA wwww.AjayOnLine.us
Robert Higgins
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> ------
> If Iam wrong rell me.
YOU ARE WRONG. Among other things, you claim to observe the law of
conservation of momentum, but then you claim that the recoil of an
atom that emits a photon is very small. You then arbitrarily make that
recoil exactly zero, which is not correct. From that point (having
violated the law of conservation of momentum), you derive unreasonable
results. Having thrown the law of conservation of momentum out the
window (because you felt like it), you fought with the editor who
clearly saw that your derivation was mistaken. You continued to act
like a baby with him, and continued to act like a baby in this NG.
Not only can't you do math or physics, you can't even act like an
adult. Stop acting like a two-year old.
and, once again...
YOU ARE WRONG. Time to STFU (with all love, peace, and
consideration).
>
> AJAY SHARMA wwww.AjayOnLine.us
bz
$26943$c3e...@news.astraweb.com in sci.physics.relativity:
Most of my comments are addressed to AJAY, rather than Inertial.
>> Dr Drake and devised two equations hf* = Mc2 + hf/A and
>> hf* =Mc2 + hf
>> where h is Planck's constant , f* and f are frequencies , M is mass
>> of hydrogen
>> atom in ground state , c is speed of light. Then Dr Drake has
>> subtracted equations as
>>
>> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
>> hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
>> ---------------------------
>> Difference = hf/A - hf = hf (1/A-1)
He SHOULD have written this as
DELTA hf* = hf (1/A-1)
Where DELTA indicates 'change in', and is commonly so used in calculus.
Your failure to understand this indicates the fact that you failed to
understand that
hf* sub 1 =/= hf* sub 2, so DELTA hf* is NOT zero.
the hf* in equation (1) is NOT equal to the hf* in equation (2).
Your failure to understand this is made clear when you said:
>>
>> Correct version is
>> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
>> hf* = Mc2 + hf
>> ---------------------------
>> 0 = hf/A - hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4)
You should study the importance of finite differences. They are fundamental
to taking derivatives in calculus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_difference.
In Drake's case, the difference is NOT a small difference, as one would
find in calculus, it is the difference between different energy states.
One comment to Inertial: going ballistic and using terms that would not be
used in polite society is rude (remember your grandchildren may someday
read what you post now, or a prospective boss may read them) and does
nothing to improve your credibility. I applaud your attempts to educate but
deplore some of the things you have said in some of your articles. There is
no excuse for some of the things that some people say here.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
Dono.
wrote:
>
> YOU ARE WRONG. Among other things, you claim to observe the law of
> conservation of momentum, but then you claim that the recoil of an
> atom that emits a photon is very small.
Precisely. The same thing that was shown here:
http://www.conceptsofphysics.net/V_3/549.pdf
Sam Wormley
<smiling>
ajay
wrote:
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > ------
> > If Iam wrong rell me.
>
> YOU ARE WRONG. Among other things, you claim to observe the law of
> conservation of momentum, but then you claim that the recoil of an
> atom that emits a photon is very small. You then arbitrarily make that
> recoil exactly zero, which is not correct. From that point (having
> violated the law of conservation of momentum), you derive unreasonable
> results. Having thrown the law of conservation of momentum out the
> window (because you felt like it), you fought with the editor who
> clearly saw that your derivation was mistaken. You continued to act
> like a baby with him, and continued to act like a baby in this NG.
>
> Not only can't you do math or physics, you can't even act like an
> adult. Stop acting like a two-year old.
>
> and, once again...
>
> YOU ARE WRONG. Time to STFU (with all love, peace, and
> consideration).
>
Addressed to Robert Higgins
Subject: Momentum is conserved in my paper.( as in case of recoil of
gun).
(i) The momentum is conserved.
The conservation of momentum means
IN AN ISOLATED SYETEM THE MOMETUM IS CONSERVED i.e.
Initial momentum =Final momentum
(ii) 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
(iii) 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 from Einstein's Sep 1905 paper 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
(iv) Thus everything is consistent in paper.
ajay
> On 06 Oct 2009, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote news:00554f5a$0
> $26943$c3e8...@news.astraweb.com in sci.physics.relativity:
>
> In Drake's case, the difference is NOT a small difference, as one would
> find in calculus, it is the difference between different energy states.
>
> One comment to Inertial: going ballistic and using terms that would not be
> used in polite society is rude (remember your grandchildren may someday
> read what you post now, or a prospective boss may read them) and does
> nothing to improve your credibility. I applaud your attempts to educate but
> deplore some of the things you have said in some of your articles. There is
> no excuse for some of the things that some people say here.
>
> --
> bz
>
> please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
> infinite set.
-------
------
Addressed to BZ
You gave written
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
---------------------------
Difference = hf/A - hf = hf (1/A-1)
He (Dr Drake )SHOULD have written this as
DELTA hf* = hf (1/A-1)
Where DELTA indicates 'change in', and is commonly so used in
calculus.
Will Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
Society , New York: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
agree to this ?
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
-----
ajay
-----
ajay
----------
Addressed to DONO
Einstein's Sep 1905 derivation
A. Einstein, Annalen. der Physik 17, 891-921 (1905).
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
is also meant for body of any mass.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
Inertial
Of course, what Drake said was (as a formula)
hf* =Mc2 + hf + Energy Difference (2)
I didnt' see in any of Drakes correspondence that you presented in that PDF
where he gave a particular formula. Only your interpretation of what he
said
And that for energy difference to be zero, A must be 1. So your claim that
A can be other than 1 is wrong.
Your theory therefore would break laws of physics
Get a new hobby.
Inertial
I have shown you you error already
The formula you wrote down as your interpretation of what Drake said in his
letter (from your 40-odd-page pdf record of your correspondence) is
incorrect.
The problem is yours, not his.
Your continual whinging about it just makes you look more foolish.
Inertial
> Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
> Society , New Yok: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
> Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
He didn't. You didn't write the correct equatinos.
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Addressed to INERTIAL
Subtraction by Editor Gordon W.F.Drake of eq.(1) and eq.(2)
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
---------------------------
Difference = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1)
(3)
and interpreted it, sometime positive and negative.
WRONG, 8th class subtraction by Editor Dr W.F. Drake.
Correct version is
Correct version is
hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
hf* = Mc2 + hf
---------------------------
0 = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4)
LHS is subtracted from LHS, (hf* - hf* = 0) and RHS is subtracted from
RHS (hf/A – hf).
As the Left Hand Sides of both the equations are equal, hence the
difference is zero.
Thus Dr Drake applied 8th class mathematics incorrectly.
Will Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
Dono.
>
> Correct version is
> Correct version is
> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
> hf* = Mc2 + hf
> ---------------------------
> 0 = hf/A – hf = hf (1/A-1) or A =1 (4)
>
Correct, A=1. So ALL your papers are wrong. Congratulations, you
managed to prove ALL your papers incorrect.
Inertial
> On Oct 10, 3:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:d4de4db9-a374-4bd2...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
>> > Society , New Yok: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
>> > Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
>>
>> He didn't. You didn't write the correct equatinos.
> ----
> Addressed to INERTIAL
>
> Subtraction by Editor Gordon W.F.Drake of eq.(1) and eq.(2)
>
> hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
> hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
Show me where in your correspondence with him that he wrote that.
And stop your whining and whining
And stop asking Dr Drake if he will agree.. HE ISN'T READING THIS !!!!
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eec992f8-9b52-448d...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 3:43 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:d4de4db9-a374-4bd2...@j39g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Dr Gordon W.F. Drake, Editor Physical Review, American Physical
> >> > Society , New Yok: p...@aps.org, 001-631-591-4000,
> >> > Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong.
>
> >> He didn't. You didn't write the correct equatinos.
> > ----
> > Addressed to INERTIAL
>
> > Subtraction by Editor Gordon W.F.Drake of eq.(1) and eq.(2)
>
> > hf* = Mc2 + hf/A (1)
> > hf* =Mc2 + hf (2)
>
> Show me where in your correspondence with him that he wrote that.
>
> And stop your whining and whining
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
-----------
Addressed to INERTIAL
All correspondnece ( 43 PAGES) with Dr Drake is posted at
http://www.wbabin.net/
See Right Hand Side buttons
Title AJAY SHARMA - American Physical Society.
Dr Drake has committed mistake of 8th class standard, so he has to
addressed the situation. He is writing me on other issues but not on
this.
ajay
ajay
----
Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
class mistake in comments.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Inertial
I already did .. nothing there supports what you say
> Title AJAY SHARMA - American Physical Society.
> Dr Drake has committed mistake of 8th class standard,
No .. he has not. You have.
> so he has to
> addressed the situation.
No .. he does not
> He is writing me on other issues but not on
> this.
More fool him for bothering to correspond with an whinging little idiot like
you
Inertial
> On Oct 10, 4:52 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 9:29 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 9, 8:41 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Correct version is
>> > > Correct version is
>> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
>> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf
>> > > ---------------------------
>>
>> > Correct, A=1. So ALL your papers are wrong. Congratulations, you
>> > managed to prove ALL your papers incorrect.
>>
>> ----------
>> Addressed to Dono
>>
>> No link in your statement and above post.
>>
>> Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
>
> ----
> Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
> class mistake in comments.
Because HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY MISTAKE .. you moron.
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:280f96df-2c18-4c90...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:52 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 10, 9:29 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 9, 8:41 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Correct version is
> >> > > Correct version is
> >> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
> >> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf
> >> > > ---------------------------
>
> >> > Correct, A=1. So ALL your papers are wrong. Congratulations, you
> >> > managed to prove ALL your papers incorrect.
>
> >> ----------
> >> Addressed to Dono
>
> >> No link in your statement and above post.
>
> >> Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
>
> > ----
> > Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
> > class mistake in comments.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
--------
Addressed to
iNERTIAL
Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
class mistake in comments?
Because know he is wrong. I will further ask him come to the point
and
dont evade the issue.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ajay Sharma
Robert Higgins
<snipped more whining from baby>
> Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
"It implies that Einstein's this derivation is true under special
conditions not in general. Hence more generalized equation ?E = Ac2?m
has been suggested, here A is coefficient of proportionality like many
others existing in physics, since days of Aristotle, Newton etc. It
starts news discussion on the basic science. E = Ac2?m is very useful
in understanding the pre-Big Bang origin of the universe besides many
other phenomena elaborated in the book." - Ajay Sharma
Could you tell me in which language this is written?
Inertial
> On Oct 11, 6:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:280f96df-2c18-4c90...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Oct 10, 4:52 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Oct 10, 9:29 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Oct 9, 8:41 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Correct version is
>> >> > > Correct version is
>> >> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
>> >> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf
>> >> > > ---------------------------
>>
>> >> > Correct, A=1. So ALL your papers are wrong. Congratulations, you
>> >> > managed to prove ALL your papers incorrect.
>>
>> >> ----------
>> >> Addressed to Dono
>>
>> >> No link in your statement and above post.
>>
>> >> Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
>>
>> > ----
>> > Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
>> > class mistake in comments.
>>
>> Because HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY MISTAKE .. you moron.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --------
> Addressed to
> iNERTIAL
>
> Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
> class mistake in comments?
You've still not shown where in your correspondence PDF he committed this
mistake. Please supply the page number
> Because know he is wrong. I will further ask him come to the point
> and
> dont evade the issue.
You mean like the way YOU are evading the issue now?
ajay
wrote:
To
Robert Higgins
I am getting your question translated, then will reply.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
ajay
> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f429712c-95e7-4871...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 11, 6:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "ajay" <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:280f96df-2c18-4c90...@b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Oct 10, 4:52 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Oct 10, 9:29 am, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:41 pm, ajay <ajayonline...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> > > Correct version is
> >> >> > > Correct version is
> >> >> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf/A
> >> >> > > hf* = Mc2 + hf
> >> >> > > ---------------------------
>
> >> >> > Correct, A=1. So ALL your papers are wrong. Congratulations, you
> >> >> > managed to prove ALL your papers incorrect.
>
> >> >> ----------
> >> >> Addressed to Dono
>
> >> >> No link in your statement and above post.
>
> >> >> Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
>
> >> > ----
> >> > Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
> >> > class mistake in comments.
>
> >> Because HE DID NOT COMMIT ANY MISTAKE .. you moron.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > --------
> > Addressed to
> > iNERTIAL
>
> > Dr Drake has written me but did not discuss why did he commit 8th
> > class mistake in comments?
>
> You've still not shown where in your correspondence PDF he committed this
> mistake. Please supply the page number
>
> > Because know he is wrong. I will further ask him come to the point
> > and
> > dont evade the issue.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
To
INERTIAL
I have already given you link where my complete correspondence is
posted.
I again give the link
www.wbabin.net
Location : LHS button
Title Ajay Sharma - American Physical Society,
Page no. 8-9
At page no. 8-9 Dr Drake has illustrated CYCLIC PROCESS , in the
conclusions he does 8th
class mathematics wrong.
Recently on 06 October 2009 I got another message from him but he
remain silent over 'subtraction' issue
but committed more mistakes.
Dr Drake cannot prove 'wrong thing' , right by repeating mistakes
again and again.
These will also posted here with solution.
Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
Robert Higgins
May someday you get you papers translated into English - I hear it a
very popoular language for science. Maybe you could also take a couple
courses in elementary math and physics at the local community college
(or the equivalent institution in India).
ajay
>
> - Show quoted text -
----------
To
Robert Higgins
You need to take MANY courses in math and physics
to understand the things.
AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
Robert Higgins
That is why I HAVE taken many such courses. When will YOU take even a
few?
>
> AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us