Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk:E=mc² (view source)

Revision as of 04:05, February 10, 2013

185 bytes added ,  04:05, February 10, 2013
→‎Robert Dicke: There is no other plausible explanation. Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.
Line 630: Line 630:     
Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)
 
Is there any source for this claim? I couldn't find one. Is this just made up? --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:11, 9 February 2013 (EST)
 +
 +
:There is no other plausible explanation.  Surely you don't expect a physics journal or any academic to admit such bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:05, 9 February 2013 (EST)
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,622

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1033857"

Navigation menu