Editor of Physical Review A, Dr Gordon W.F. Drake does WRONG subtraction of 8th Class mathematics.
in [Relativity]
|
From: ajay on 25 Oct 2009 22:21 On Oct 26, 4:23 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:fdd462a3-2a74-4a46-8ba2-8c9255bc678c(a)e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:24042f47-0c84-480c-9ff5-456fe39c6372(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Oct 25, 4:28 am, tomy tomy <tomytomy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 24, 6:07 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > On Oct 24, 5:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > "ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > >news:ef4961ff-3ab3-4d03-8f67-21efd534376e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > > > On Oct 23, 8:04 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> ajay wrote: > >> >> > > >> > On Oct 23, 8:36 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >>ajay wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> -------- > > >> >> > > >> >>>To > > >> >> > > >> >>>Inertial > > >> >> > > >> >>>How I can believe you , when did not form correct eqaution > >> >> > > >> >>>for > >> >> > > >> >>>pharse > > >> >> > > >> >>>''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 '' > > >> >> > > >> >>>There are three energies here , but you say 4. > >> >> > > >> >>> there is no left over energy as you have claimed. > > >> >> > > >> >>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us > > >> >> > > >> >>Do you have any clue how silly you look with your constant > >> >> > > >> >>whining? Drake explained your mistake. You cannot understand > >> >> > > >> >>it. That is not his problem, it is yours. Get over it.- Hide > >> >> > > >> >>quoted > >> >> > > >> >>text - > > >> >> > > >> >>- Show quoted text - > > >> >> > > >> > --------- > >> >> > > >> > To > >> >> > > >> > Doug > > >> >> > > >> > Drake has simply shown his limitations in understanding of > >> >> > > >> > LAW > >> >> > > >> > OF > >> >> > > >> > CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. > > >> >> > > >> No, he was explaining to you why you do not conserve energy. > >> >> > > >> You having tantrums here does not help your credibility here > >> >> > > >> which is at zero. > > >> >> > > >> > Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequotedtext- > > >> >> > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> >> > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > > > ------------- > >> >> > > > To > >> >> > > > Doug > > >> >> > > > Under what conditions energy is conseved? > > >> >> > > You mean you don't know? And you're submitting papers? Your > >> >> > > theory > >> >> > > (that A > >> >> > > is not always 1) results in energy not being conserved where it > >> >> > > should be. > >> >> > > Your theory breaks conservation laws. Your theory is refuted..- > >> >> > > Hide > >> >> > > quoted text - > > >> >> > > - Show quoted text - > > >> >> > -------------- > > >> >> > To > >> >> > Doug > > >> >> > Give specific reply so that we may proceed further > > >> >> > Under what conditions energy is conseved? > > >> >> > Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequoted > >> >> > text - > > > ------------ > > To > > Inertial > > > Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy and which conditions it > > holds? > > If you don't know what it is, you shouldn't be publishing physics. If you > do know, then there is no point in asking me to tell you what it is. You > are wasting everyone's time with your nonsense.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -------- To Inertial Like 8th class math, Dr Drake has misinterpretted Law of Conservation of Energy. He has applied Law of Conservation of energy, to NON-ISOLATED SYETEM. The value of 'A' has been calculated simply implies the condition, when LAW OF COSERVATION OF ENERGY HOLDS good to ISOLATED SYSTEM . Here condition is A=1, it has nothing to do with E=Ac^2m. If we apply E=Ac^2m , to isolated system then results are OK. Recently I have replied him in 15 page reply. I am also sending the letter to other officials of American Physical Society, so the they may also understand his high handedness and misuse of office and bad name he os getting to APS , New York AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us -
From: doug on 26 Oct 2009 00:29 ajay wrote: > On Oct 26, 4:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>news:26e25ae3-b3c7-48f4-9ded-79ac2088f30e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>On Oct 25, 7:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> >>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>news:24042f47-0c84-480c-9ff5-456fe39c6372(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>On Oct 25, 4:28 am, tomy tomy <tomytomy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Oct 24, 6:07 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>On Oct 24, 5:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>news:ef4961ff-3ab3-4d03-8f67-21efd534376e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:04 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:36 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> -------- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>To >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Inertial >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>How I can believe you , when did not form correct eqaution >>>>>>>>>>>>>for >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharse >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>''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 '' >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>There are three energies here , but you say 4. >>>>>>>>>>>>>there is no left over energy as you have claimed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us >> >>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any clue how silly you look with your constant >>>>>>>>>>>>whining? Drake explained your mistake. You cannot understand >>>>>>>>>>>>it. That is not his problem, it is yours. Get over it.- Hide >>>>>>>>>>>>quoted >>>>>>>>>>>>text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>--------- >>>>>>>>>>>To >>>>>>>>>>> Doug >> >>>>>>>>>>>Drake has simply shown his limitations in understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>LAW >>>>>>>>>>>OF >>>>>>>>>>>CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. >> >>>>>>>>>>No, he was explaining to you why you do not conserve energy. >>>>>>>>>>You having tantrums here does not help your credibility here >>>>>>>>>>which is at zero. >> >>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequotedtext- >> >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>------------- >>>>>>>>>To >>>>>>>>> Doug >> >>>>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? >> >>>>>>>>You mean you don't know? And you're submitting papers? Your >>>>>>>>theory >>>>>>>>(that A >>>>>>>>is not always 1) results in energy not being conserved where it >>>>>>>>should be. >>>>>>>>Your theory breaks conservation laws. Your theory is refuted.- >>>>>>>>Hide >>>>>>>>quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>-------------- >> >>>>>>>To >>>>>>> Doug >> >>>>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further >> >>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? >> >>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequoted >>>>>>>text - >> >>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>interesting- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>------- >> >>>>>To >>>>> Doug >> >>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further >> >>>>There is no 'further' to proceed. Drake has already explained it to you. >>>>We here have explained how he is correct and how you have misread what he >>>>wrote. All have shown that your theory is wrong.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>To >> >>> Doug >> >>>Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy and which conditions it >>>holds? >> >>Yes .. but that would serve no purpose. Drake has explained nicely why your >>theory results in lack of conservation of energy (indeed, it generates >>energy from nothing when A is not 1). If you don't understand conservation >>of energy, you should not be publishing physics. If you do, you don't need >>to ask me to explain it to you. Stop wasting everyone's time.- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > ---------- > > To > Inertial > > Like 8th class math, Dr Drake has misinterpretted Law of Conservation > of Energy. > He has applied Law of Conservation of energy, to NON-ISOLATED SYETEM. > The value of 'A' has been calculated > simply implies the condition, when LAW OF COSERVATION OF ENERGY HOLDS > good to ISOLATED SYSTEM . > > Here condition is A=1, it has nothing to do with E=Ac^2m. > If we apply E=Ac^2m , to isolated system then results are OK. > > Recently I have replied him in 15 page reply. I am also sending the > letter to other officials of American Physical Society, > so the they may also understand his high handedness and misuse of > office and bad name he os getting to APS , New York He will have a good laugh except for being pestered by a crank. The APS people will also have a good laugh. > > AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
From: ajay on 26 Oct 2009 08:14 On Oct 26, 9:29 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > ajay wrote: > > On Oct 26, 4:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:26e25ae3-b3c7-48f4-9ded-79ac2088f30e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com.... > > >>>On Oct 25, 7:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>>news:24042f47-0c84-480c-9ff5-456fe39c6372(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > >>>>>On Oct 25, 4:28 am, tomy tomy <tomytomy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>On Oct 24, 6:07 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>On Oct 24, 5:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>>>>>>news:ef4961ff-3ab3-4d03-8f67-21efd534376e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups..com... > > >>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:04 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:36 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -------- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>To > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Inertial > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>How I can believe you , when did not form correct eqaution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharse > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>''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 '' > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>There are three energies here , but you say 4. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>there is no left over energy as you have claimed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any clue how silly you look with your constant > >>>>>>>>>>>>whining? Drake explained your mistake. You cannot understand > >>>>>>>>>>>>it. That is not his problem, it is yours. Get over it.- Hide > >>>>>>>>>>>>quoted > >>>>>>>>>>>>text - > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>>>>--------- > >>>>>>>>>>>To > >>>>>>>>>>> Doug > > >>>>>>>>>>>Drake has simply shown his limitations in understanding of > >>>>>>>>>>>LAW > >>>>>>>>>>>OF > >>>>>>>>>>>CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. > > >>>>>>>>>>No, he was explaining to you why you do not conserve energy. > >>>>>>>>>>You having tantrums here does not help your credibility here > >>>>>>>>>>which is at zero. > > >>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequotedtext- > > >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>>------------- > >>>>>>>>>To > >>>>>>>>> Doug > > >>>>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? > > >>>>>>>>You mean you don't know? And you're submitting papers? Your > >>>>>>>>theory > >>>>>>>>(that A > >>>>>>>>is not always 1) results in energy not being conserved where it > >>>>>>>>should be. > >>>>>>>>Your theory breaks conservation laws. Your theory is refuted.- > >>>>>>>>Hide > >>>>>>>>quoted text - > > >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>>-------------- > > >>>>>>>To > >>>>>>> Doug > > >>>>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further > > >>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? > > >>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www..AjayOnLine.us-Hidequoted > >>>>>>>text - > > >>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > >>>>>>interesting- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > >>>>>------- > > >>>>>To > >>>>> Doug > > >>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further > > >>>>There is no 'further' to proceed. Drake has already explained it to you. > >>>>We here have explained how he is correct and how you have misread what he > >>>>wrote. All have shown that your theory is wrong.- Hide quoted text - > > >>>>- Show quoted text - > > >>>To > > >>> Doug > > >>>Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy and which conditions it > >>>holds? > > >>Yes .. but that would serve no purpose. Drake has explained nicely why your > >>theory results in lack of conservation of energy (indeed, it generates > >>energy from nothing when A is not 1). If you don't understand conservation > >>of energy, you should not be publishing physics. If you do, you don't need > >>to ask me to explain it to you. Stop wasting everyone's time.- Hide quoted text - > > >>- Show quoted text - > > > ---------- > > > To > > Inertial > > > Like 8th class math, Dr Drake has misinterpretted Law of Conservation > > of Energy. > > He has applied Law of Conservation of energy, to NON-ISOLATED SYETEM. > > The value of 'A' has been calculated > > simply implies the condition, when LAW OF COSERVATION OF ENERGY HOLDS > > good to ISOLATED SYSTEM . > > > Here condition is A=1, it has nothing to do with E=Ac^2m. > > If we apply E=Ac^2m , to isolated system then results are OK. > > > Recently I have replied him in 15 page reply. I am also sending the > > letter to other officials of American Physical Society, > > so the they may also understand his high handedness and misuse of > > office and bad name he os getting to APS , New York > > He will have a good laugh except for being pestered by a crank. > The APS people will also have a good laugh. > > > > > > > AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - ----- To INERTIAL Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy ? Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us
From: ajay on 26 Oct 2009 17:05 On Oct 26, 5:14 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 26, 9:29 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > > > ajay wrote: > > > On Oct 26, 4:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:26e25ae3-b3c7-48f4-9ded-79ac2088f30e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com.... > > > >>>On Oct 25, 7:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>>>news:24042f47-0c84-480c-9ff5-456fe39c6372(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > >>>>>On Oct 25, 4:28 am, tomy tomy <tomytomy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>On Oct 24, 6:07 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>On Oct 24, 5:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>>>>>>>news:ef4961ff-3ab3-4d03-8f67-21efd534376e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > > > >>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:04 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:36 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> -------- > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>To > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Inertial > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>How I can believe you , when did not form correct eqaution > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>pharse > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>''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 '' > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>There are three energies here , but you say 4. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>there is no left over energy as you have claimed. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any clue how silly you look with your constant > > >>>>>>>>>>>>whining? Drake explained your mistake. You cannot understand > > >>>>>>>>>>>>it. That is not his problem, it is yours. Get over it.- Hide > > >>>>>>>>>>>>quoted > > >>>>>>>>>>>>text - > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > > >>>>>>>>>>>--------- > > >>>>>>>>>>>To > > >>>>>>>>>>> Doug > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Drake has simply shown his limitations in understanding of > > >>>>>>>>>>>LAW > > >>>>>>>>>>>OF > > >>>>>>>>>>>CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. > > > >>>>>>>>>>No, he was explaining to you why you do not conserve energy. > > >>>>>>>>>>You having tantrums here does not help your credibility here > > >>>>>>>>>>which is at zero. > > > >>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequotedtext- > > > >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > > >>>>>>>>>------------- > > >>>>>>>>>To > > >>>>>>>>> Doug > > > >>>>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? > > > >>>>>>>>You mean you don't know? And you're submitting papers? Your > > >>>>>>>>theory > > >>>>>>>>(that A > > >>>>>>>>is not always 1) results in energy not being conserved where it > > >>>>>>>>should be. > > >>>>>>>>Your theory breaks conservation laws. Your theory is refuted..- > > >>>>>>>>Hide > > >>>>>>>>quoted text - > > > >>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > > >>>>>>>-------------- > > > >>>>>>>To > > >>>>>>> Doug > > > >>>>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further > > > >>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? > > > >>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequoted > > >>>>>>>text - > > > >>>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > > >>>>>>interesting- Hide quoted text - > > > >>>>>>- Show quoted text - > > > >>>>>------- > > > >>>>>To > > >>>>> Doug > > > >>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further > > > >>>>There is no 'further' to proceed. Drake has already explained it to you. > > >>>>We here have explained how he is correct and how you have misread what he > > >>>>wrote. All have shown that your theory is wrong.- Hide quoted text - > > > >>>>- Show quoted text - > > > >>>To > > > >>> Doug > > > >>>Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy and which conditions it > > >>>holds? > > > >>Yes .. but that would serve no purpose. Drake has explained nicely why your > > >>theory results in lack of conservation of energy (indeed, it generates > > >>energy from nothing when A is not 1). If you don't understand conservation > > >>of energy, you should not be publishing physics. If you do, you don't need > > >>to ask me to explain it to you. Stop wasting everyone's time.- Hide quoted text - > > > >>- Show quoted text - > > > > ---------- > > > > To > > > Inertial > > > > Like 8th class math, Dr Drake has misinterpretted Law of Conservation > > > of Energy. > > > He has applied Law of Conservation of energy, to NON-ISOLATED SYETEM. > > > The value of 'A' has been calculated > > > simply implies the condition, when LAW OF COSERVATION OF ENERGY HOLDS > > > good to ISOLATED SYSTEM . > > > > Here condition is A=1, it has nothing to do with E=Ac^2m. > > > If we apply E=Ac^2m , to isolated system then results are OK. > > > > Recently I have replied him in 15 page reply. I am also sending the > > > letter to other officials of American Physical Society, > > > so the they may also understand his high handedness and misuse of > > > office and bad name he os getting to APS , New York > > > He will have a good laugh except for being pestered by a crank. > > The APS people will also have a good laugh. > > > > AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us-Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > ----- > > To > INERTIAL > > Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy ? > > Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us
From: doug on 26 Oct 2009 18:22
ajay wrote: > On Oct 26, 5:14 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Oct 26, 9:29 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>ajay wrote: >>> >>>>On Oct 26, 4:22 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>news:26e25ae3-b3c7-48f4-9ded-79ac2088f30e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>On Oct 25, 7:15 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>news:24042f47-0c84-480c-9ff5-456fe39c6372(a)l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>>>On Oct 25, 4:28 am, tomy tomy <tomytomy...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>On Oct 24, 6:07 pm, ajay <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>On Oct 24, 5:13 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>"ajay" <ajayonline...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>>>>>news:ef4961ff-3ab3-4d03-8f67-21efd534376e(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:04 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Oct 23, 8:36 am, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ajay wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-------- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>To >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Inertial >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How I can believe you , when did not form correct eqaution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pharse >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>''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 '' >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There are three energies here , but you say 4. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>there is no left over energy as you have claimed. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Do you have any clue how silly you look with your constant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whining? Drake explained your mistake. You cannot understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it. That is not his problem, it is yours. Get over it.- Hide >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>quoted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>--------- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>To >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Doug >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Drake has simply shown his limitations in understanding of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>LAW >>>>>>>>>>>>>>OF >>>>>>>>>>>>>>CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>No, he was explaining to you why you do not conserve energy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>You having tantrums here does not help your credibility here >>>>>>>>>>>>>which is at zero. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequotedtext- >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>>------------- >>>>>>>>>>>>To >>>>>>>>>>>> Doug >> >>>>>>>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? >> >>>>>>>>>>>You mean you don't know? And you're submitting papers? Your >>>>>>>>>>>theory >>>>>>>>>>>(that A >>>>>>>>>>>is not always 1) results in energy not being conserved where it >>>>>>>>>>>should be. >>>>>>>>>>>Your theory breaks conservation laws. Your theory is refuted.- >>>>>>>>>>>Hide >>>>>>>>>>>quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>>-------------- >> >>>>>>>>>>To >>>>>>>>>> Doug >> >>>>>>>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further >> >>>>>>>>>>Under what conditions energy is conseved? >> >>>>>>>>>>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us-Hidequoted >>>>>>>>>>text - >> >>>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>interesting- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>------- >> >>>>>>>>To >>>>>>>>Doug >> >>>>>>>>Give specific reply so that we may proceed further >> >>>>>>>There is no 'further' to proceed. Drake has already explained it to you. >>>>>>>We here have explained how he is correct and how you have misread what he >>>>>>>wrote. All have shown that your theory is wrong.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>To >> >>>>>> Doug >> >>>>>>Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy and which conditions it >>>>>>holds? >> >>>>>Yes .. but that would serve no purpose. Drake has explained nicely why your >>>>>theory results in lack of conservation of energy (indeed, it generates >>>>>energy from nothing when A is not 1). If you don't understand conservation >>>>>of energy, you should not be publishing physics. If you do, you don't need >>>>>to ask me to explain it to you. Stop wasting everyone's time.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>---------- >> >>>>To >>>>Inertial >> >>>>Like 8th class math, Dr Drake has misinterpretted Law of Conservation >>>>of Energy. >>>>He has applied Law of Conservation of energy, to NON-ISOLATED SYETEM. >>>>The value of 'A' has been calculated >>>>simply implies the condition, when LAW OF COSERVATION OF ENERGY HOLDS >>>>good to ISOLATED SYSTEM . >> >>>>Here condition is A=1, it has nothing to do with E=Ac^2m. >>>>If we apply E=Ac^2m , to isolated system then results are OK. >> >>>>Recently I have replied him in 15 page reply. I am also sending the >>>>letter to other officials of American Physical Society, >>>>so the they may also understand his high handedness and misuse of >>>>office and bad name he os getting to APS , New York >> >>>He will have a good laugh except for being pestered by a crank. >>>The APS people will also have a good laugh. >> >>>>AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us-Hide quoted text - >> >>>- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >>>- Show quoted text - >> >>----- >> >>To >> INERTIAL >> >>Can you define Law of Conservation of Energy ? >> >>Ajay Sharma www.AjayOnLine.us- Hide quoted text - >> >>- Show quoted text - > > > AJAY SHARMA www.AjayOnLine.us Have you made any progress trying to understand Drakes explanation of your mistake? |