Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
in [Relativity]
|
From: ajay on 5 Oct 2009 04:43 On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)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. 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(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, Should explain why he did 8th class math wrong. AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
From: Dono. on 5 Oct 2009 10:21 On Oct 5, 1:43 am, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)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.
From: ajay on 5 Oct 2009 11:00 On Oct 5, 7:21 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 5, 1:43 am, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 9:11 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Oct 4, 7:20 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)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.- Hide quoted text - > > - 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 â¦â¦â¦â¦. 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(a)aps.org, 001-631-591-4000, should explain why he did 8th class math wrong. AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
From: ajay on 6 Oct 2009 01:59 On Oct 6, 6:08 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9d5095cd-8784-4dd0-a4a9-1e42be1da790(a)o35g2000vbi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 5, 11:00 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez > > <juanREM...(a)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. 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(a)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 dont discuss it anywhere. It implies he knows his mistakes. Why he is silent after committing mistakes? Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 5 Oct 2009 14:00
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/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html |