|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Details at www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, "
wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Details at www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply mathematics. Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to have "completed" Einstein's work. In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of errors. Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work. Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is "completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with elementary errors. The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so- called "discovery" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 16, 8:38 pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:27 am, " wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Details at www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply mathematics. Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to have "completed" Einstein's work. In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of errors. Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work. Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is "completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with elementary errors. The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so- called "discovery"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Momentum is conserved in my paper. It is taught in 11th class. Learn Conservation of Mometum from the link below. I have explained the same and posted on the link below months ago, ADRRESSING YOU BY NAME AND INSTITUTION http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/...-postulate.htm Also at www.ajayonline.us AJAY SHARMA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 16, 6:21 pm, "
wrote: On Feb 16, 8:38 pm, wrote: On Feb 16, 8:27 am, " wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Details at www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply mathematics. Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to have "completed" Einstein's work. In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of errors. Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work. Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is "completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with elementary errors. The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so- called "discovery"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Momentum is conserved in my paper. It is taught in 11th class. Learn Conservation of Mometum from the link below. I have explained the same and posted on the link below months ago, ADRRESSING YOU BY NAME AND INSTITUTION http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/...o-not-einstein... Also at www.ajayonline.us AJAY SHARMA I replied and you still haven't fixed your simple math errors. Once again repeating the same mistakes over and over again doesn't fix the problem. Not only do you not understand physics you cannot do simple math. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 17, 8:20 am, wrote:
On Feb 16, 6:21 pm, " wrote: On Feb 16, 8:38 pm, wrote: On Feb 16, 8:27 am, " wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Details at www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply mathematics. Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to have "completed" Einstein's work. In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of errors. Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work. Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is "completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with elementary errors. The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so- called "discovery"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Momentum is conserved in my paper. It is taught in 11th class. Learn Conservation of Mometum from the link below. I have explained the same and posted on the link below months ago, ADRRESSING YOU BY NAME AND INSTITUTION http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/...o-not-einstein... Also at www.ajayonline.us AJAY SHARMA I replied and you still haven't fixed your simple math errors. Once again repeating the same mistakes over and over again doesn't fix the problem. Not only do you not understand physics you cannot do simple math.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Right Dr R PASKEN Tell me what is mistake? What mathematics mistake?. What is physics mistake? Everything is correct. Tell, how and why there is mistake? The law of conservation of momentum is COMPLETELY applicable and obeyed in my derivations. In June 2006, some lady objected, that CONSERVATION OF MOMEMTUM IS NOT obeyed in the paper. Probably she was undergraduate physics student or even in school. She remained NEAMELESS in the posts. She also posted a WRONG article (even 11th physics knowledge was not shown). The same article number of times posted by you. I specifically wrote an article here (addressed to you by name). I appealed you for discussion. But you never responded. What is the reason? The question of science must be discussed Scientifically. You have again posted that misunderstanding. I again point out in www.ajayonline.us Discussion II Article I Q.5 & Q 6 explains the law of conservation and how it is obeyed . I too big 6-8 page explanation for this. www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 16, 8:56 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Ajay Sharma *Plonk*- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - nice description of yourself. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 17, 1:15 am, "
wrote: On Feb 17, 8:20 am, wrote: On Feb 16, 6:21 pm, " wrote: On Feb 16, 8:38 pm, wrote: On Feb 16, 8:27 am, " wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , m = mass annihilated. Details at www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply mathematics. Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to have "completed" Einstein's work. In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of errors. Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work. Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is "completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with elementary errors. The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so- called "discovery"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Momentum is conserved in my paper. It is taught in 11th class. Learn Conservation of Mometum from the link below. I have explained the same and posted on the link below months ago, ADRRESSING YOU BY NAME AND INSTITUTION http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/...o-not-einstein.... Also at www.ajayonline.us AJAY SHARMA I replied and you still haven't fixed your simple math errors. Once again repeating the same mistakes over and over again doesn't fix the problem. Not only do you not understand physics you cannot do simple math.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Right Dr R PASKEN Tell me what is mistake? What mathematics mistake?. What is physics mistake? Everything is correct. Tell, how and why there is mistake? The law of conservation of momentum is COMPLETELY applicable and obeyed in my derivations. In June 2006, some lady objected, that CONSERVATION OF MOMEMTUM IS NOT obeyed in the paper. Probably she was undergraduate physics student or even in school. She remained NEAMELESS in the posts. She also posted a WRONG article (even 11th physics knowledge was not shown). The same article number of times posted by you. I specifically wrote an article here (addressed to you by name). I appealed you for discussion. But you never responded. What is the reason? The question of science must be discussed Scientifically. You have again posted that misunderstanding. I again point out in www.ajayonline.us Discussion II Article I Q.5 & Q 6 explains the law of conservation and how it is obeyed . I too big 6-8 page explanation for this. www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma Once again from a fellow physicist: "You mean the one that Ajay Sharma has been peddling for years at all the imaginable conferences. The one that he tried to wallpaper over all the imaginable links in all the imaginable forums. The one in which he takes the momentum variation caused by recoil as mass variation. Yes, a very interesting piece of junk. " or possibly another fellow physicist: "He makes a gross error right off the bat, at equation (13) on page 201. The author has as a starting point a famous Einstein paper seen he http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf In it, Einstein derives the relationship between the mass and the energy variation. Einstein uses two symmetrical em waves radiating from the same body as it can be seen. The immediate consequence of the symmetry is that there is no momentum variation. By conreast, Ajay Sharma, uses only one em wave. As such, instead of producing mass variation, the em radiation produces momentum variation thru recoil. A. Sharma incorrectly attributes the momentum variation to a "mass increase" More specifically: Ajay Sharma writes: "Thus energy is emitted due to ‘annihilation of mass’ in Einstein’s derivation body remain at rest, When I consider one wave is emitted at 89o , then body remain at rest . In this case equation is. (ii) When one wave is emitted say at angle of 89o Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89o) Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c) Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13) Ma ( mass of body after emission) = 0.03490L/cv – L/c2 + Mb ( mass of body before emission) which implies mass of body increases when light energy is emitted. It is contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter. " Well, the term – 0.03490L/c is not mass variation , it is momentum variation, it has the dimension mv. Einstein used the simple approach in his paper ( "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy- Content?") of : 1. Using TWO em waves in 180 degress opposition (in order to make sure that there is NO RECOIL) 2. divinding both the right hand and the left hand of his expression by v^2. This is why the term 0.03490L/c can have any sign in the Ajay Sharma paper. To prove this, if one changes the direction of the wave in the "experiment" : Ho = H1 + β L( 1 +v/c cos89o) Ho = H1 + β L (1+ 0.017452406 v/c) Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get Δ m = + 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 (13) Contrast this with your earliear expression: Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 The "mass variation" has changed sign with the change in the direction of the em radiation. This is obvious crackpottery." Is this detailed enough? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 18, 4:48Â*am, wrote:
On Feb 17, 1:15 am, " wrote: On Feb 17, 8:20 am, wrote: On Feb 16, 6:21 pm, " wrote: On Feb 16, 8:38 pm, wrote: On Feb 16, 8:27 am, " wrote: E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi English Nobel Laureate (1921) Chemist Â*F. Soddy stated that ---- Material mass is converted to energy during the radioactive decay ---- It is evident from Â*book Radioactivity: An Elementary Treatise ("The Electrician " Printing and Publishing, London, 1904) in the chapter "Anticipations" published in 1904. In his 1905 paper Einstein also mentioned About radioactive Radium salts and energy emitted by them. And gave equation E=mc2 E= energy emitted , Â*m = mass annihilated. Details at Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma You seem to believe that by repeating the same mistakes and lies often enough it will make you right. You simply cannot do simply mathematics. Mr. Ajay Sharma has produced a fraudulent paper in which he claims to have "completed" Einstein's work. In reality, "100 years of E=mc2" is nothing but a collection of errors. Mr. Ajay Sharma simply mistakes the trivial change in a system's momentum for a n "increase in mass". Mr Ajay Sharma perpetrates the same gross mistakes over 28 pages of torture replete with misunderstandings, errors and slanders to Einstein's work. Mr.Sharma is attempting to convince the reader that he has found errors in Einstein's work (there aren't any) and that he is "completing" Einstein's "unfinished " work. In reality, Einstein's work is correct and complete while Ajay Sharma's is full with elementary errors. The tone of the paper is as arrogant as it is ignorant, Ajay Sharma simply does not understand one of the basic laws of physics: the law of conservation of momentum which is conspicously absent from his so- called "discovery"- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Momentum is conserved in my paper. It is taught in 11th class. Learn Conservation of Mometum from the link below. I have explained the same and posted on the link below months ago, ADRRESSING YOU BY NAME AND INSTITUTION http://physicsajay.sulekha.com/blog/...o-not-einstein... Also at Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â*www.ajayonline.us AJAY SHARMA I replied and you still haven't fixed your simple math errors. Once again repeating the same mistakes over and over again doesn't fix the problem. Not only do you not understand physics you cannot do simple math.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Right Dr R PASKEN Tell me what is mistake? What mathematics mistake?. What is physics mistake? Everything is correct. Tell, how and why there is mistake? Â*The law of conservation of momentum is COMPLETELY applicable and obeyed in my derivations. In June 2006, some lady objected, that Â*CONSERVATION OF MOMEMTUM IS NOT obeyed in the paper. Probably she was undergraduate physics student or even in school. She remained NEAMELESS in the posts. She also posted a WRONG article (even 11th physics knowledge was not shown). The same article number of times posted by you. I specifically wrote an article here (addressed to you by name). I appealed you for discussion. But you never responded. What is the reason? The question of science must be discussed Scientifically. You have again posted that misunderstanding. Â*I again point out in www.ajayonline.us Discussion II Article I Q.5 & Q 6 explains the law of conservation and how it is obeyed . I too big 6-8 page explanation for this. www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma Once again from a fellow physicist: "You mean the one that Ajay Sharma has been peddling for years at all the imaginable conferences. The one that he tried to wallpaper over all the imaginable links in all the imaginable forums. The one in which he takes the momentum variation caused by recoil as mass variation. Yes, a very interesting piece of junk. " or possibly another fellow physicist: "He makes a gross error right off the bat, at equation (13) on page 201. The author has as a starting point a famous Einstein paper seen he http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf In it, Einstein derives the relationship between the mass and the energy variation. Einstein uses two symmetrical em waves radiating from the same body as it can be seen. The immediate consequence of the symmetry is that there is no momentum variation. By conreast, Ajay Sharma, uses only one em wave. As such, instead of producing mass variation, the em radiation produces momentum variation thru recoil. A. Sharma incorrectly attributes the momentum variation to a "mass increase" More specifically: Ajay Sharma writes: "Thus energy is emitted due to ‘annihilation of mass’ in Einstein’s derivation body remain at rest, When I consider one wave is emitted at 89o , then body remain at rest . In this case equation is. (ii) When one wave is emitted say at angle of 89o Ho = H1 + β L( 1 – v/c cos89o) Ho = H1 + β L (1– 0.017452406 v/c) Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c2 (13) Ma ( mass of body after emission) = 0.03490L/cv – L/c2 + Mb ( mass of body before emission) which implies mass of body increases when light energy is emitted. It is contradiction of Law of Conservation of Matter. " Well, the term – 0.03490L/c is not mass variation , it is momentum variation, it has the dimension mv. Einstein used the simple approach in his paper ( "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon its Energy- Content?") of : 1. Using TWO em waves in 180 degress opposition (in order to make sure that there is NO RECOIL) 2. divinding both the right hand and the left hand of his expression by v^2. This is why the term 0.03490L/c can have any sign in the Ajay Sharma paper. To prove this, if one changes the direction of the wave in the "experiment" : Ho = H1 + β L( 1 +v/c cos89o) Ho = H1 + β L (1+ 0.017452406 v/c) Now proceeding as in Eq.(5) to Eq.(10) we get Δ m = + 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 (13) Contrast this with your earliear expression: Δ m = – 0.03490L/cv + L/c^2 The "mass variation" has changed sign with the change in the direction of the em radiation. This is obvious crackpottery." Is this detailed enough?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - R PASKEN Don’t beat about the bush, it means you are NILL in topic, you are discussing. You are borrowing the information and posting here. (i) WHAT IS THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE FELLOW PHYSICIST , TO WHOM YOU ARE POSTING. (ii) Earlier you misunderstood the LAW OF CONSERVATION OF MOMETUM that too was pointed out by FELLOW PHYSICSIST. MONTHS have passed you could not defend it , which is worth for 12th class student. Now you are picking up similar thing (posted by NAMELSS and PLACELESS person). 100s times I replied. such replies are there on web. But that person did not disclose the identity , with fear of being exposed. Read www.ajayonline.us Einstein derivation is (INTER-CONVERION OF MASS –ENERGY) applicable under all conditions (as long as v is in classical region). Paper is available at www.ajayonline.us Under general conditions Einstein's derivation does not give correct results. So it is true under special conditions only I THOUGHT YOU WILL DISCUSS 'conservation of momentum ' which you are misunderstanding, (11th class physics) Now you are evading this issue because you are being exposed as lack OF knowledge of 11th class physics. www.ajayonline.us Ajay Sharma |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
More drool from Ajay Sharma
I didn't post the names as all of the names are available from a simple google search of your name physics and kooks. I found over 10 pages of physicists who have tried to make you understand your mistakes. In each case they tried to explain to you your mistakes but you simply ignored them or in one case contacted CERN looking for a physicist named "I am in pain" insisting that he be fired since he didn't understand 10th level physics. Contacting CERN provided weeks worth of mirth across the world. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi
On Feb 18, 11:05 am, wrote:
More drool from Ajay Sharma I didn't post the names as all of the names are available from a simple google search of your name physics and kooks. I found over 10 pages of physicists who have tried to make you understand your mistakes. In each case they tried to explain to you your mistakes but you simply ignored them or in one case contacted CERN looking for a physicist named "I am in pain" insisting that he be fired since he didn't understand 10th level physics. Contacting CERN provided weeks worth of mirth across the world. ---------------- More drool from R PASKEN (I) Firtsly you said , law of conservation of momentum is not obeyed in my derivation. YOU COULD NOT JUSTIFY, simply it is 11th class physics. a (ii) Then you gave another rubbish written by someone. You could not justify the same as well. (iii) Now you say I have seen 10 postings on the web. ALL are incorrect and I have given replied. (iv) About CERN , there was a foosh who was posting that he is at CERN boastfully, but he was not there. Kindly let know are a labourer who collects others articles and post. and argue without brain. If you some understading of physics , pick up a point say conservation of momentum and discuss. Everything is correct, and described on www.ajayonline.us AJAY SHARMA |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
E=mc2 and British Nobel Laureate Frederick Soddi | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | February 16th 07 02:44 PM |
NASA deputy administrator Frederick D. Gregory resigns | Jacques van Oene | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 9th 05 05:19 PM |
Caltech Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman Honored on 2005 U.S. Commemorative Stamp | [email protected] | History | 1 | May 4th 05 11:42 PM |
Frederick Gregory as NASA Administrator? | Greg Kuperberg | Policy | 0 | February 24th 05 10:29 PM |