852
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 125:
Line 125: + + +
→I'm sure you have a good reason for reverting.
I'm sure you have good answers to these points, or you wouldn't have reverted without using the talk page first, right?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm sure you have good answers to these points, or you wouldn't have reverted without using the talk page first, right?-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 12:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
==Reference #2==
The article used for reference 2 says that Dirac's theory still hasn't been proven and that there isn't strong enough evidence that the laws have changed. Maybe this reference and claim should be removed until a better source (if one exists) can be found. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)