WHERE DR.

EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 1 of 10

Click on the Menu Bar to Select a Section of the Gazette

BroJon
Home

The News of
USA
Business Weekly Science Your Comics Puzzles USA Feature
World the USA Politics Industry Magazine Techno Health Crafts Games Humor Articles

BROTHER JONATHAN'S

FRONT PAGE NEWS

BroJon Exclusive Report

Before Uncle Sam There Was Brother Jonathan

BroJon News: Wednesday April 6, 2005

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed
Michelson-Morley Experiment
In 1887, two scientists Michelson and Morley did an experiment to
measure the velocity of light and confirm the basic laws of nature. They sent
light beams along the direction of the earth's travel as it
went around the sun. The earth moves about 67,000
miles per hour around the sun, which is a small but
measurable percentage of the velocity of light.
Their experiment was to show that a beam of light
sent in the direction of the earth's travel should be the
speed of light PLUS the speed of
the earth. While a beam sent
backwards should be the speed of
light MINUS the speed of the
earth. No matter how many times
they and many other scientists
Albert A. Michelson in repeated that same experiment, it
1887 at the time of the
always failed. The measured speed
famous M-M experiment
of light was always the same in
any direction. For 20 years modern science was in a
quandary. Were Newton's easily provable laws of
physics wrong?
In 1905 Albert Einstein thought he had found a Edward W. Morley in 1887
at the time of the famous
solution -- but he was wrong.
M-M experiment
Earlier in 1873, the noted Scotsman mathematician/scientist James Maxwell wrote his famous four equations. His equations
have become a gold-standard in science and are still accepted without changes
or doubt. While integrating his differential equations,
Maxwell had to add the mathematically required
integration constant. In math, the integration constant is
usually called "C."
Maxwell's equations relate the static electric
attractive force of an electron to the same magnetic
attractive force of a moving electron traveling in a circle
or a coil of wire. To make the equations match the
James Clerk Maxwell as a experimental measurements, the integration constant C
young physicist
had to have the units of 186,000 miles per second.
Everyone made the incorrect assumption that C was the "velocity of
light." Today, science still calls the velocity of light C. But not so. It was only

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 2 of 10

an integration constant to make Maxwell's

equations match the measurements. What the 19th
century scientists, including Einstein, did not know
nor have any experience with, was some- thing
which we now know as "time zones." Time zones
relate time to distance. Even today most of Europe
is in the same time zone. None of the 19th century
European scientist had ever experienced the need
to change their watches as they traveled from
country to country.
Today as we travel around the earth in fast jet
planes we need to adjust our clocks and watches to Even today most of Europe is in
the new time zone at the rate of 1 hour for each
the same time zone
1,000 miles of travel. This "virtual velocity" is not
real, but simply the commonly accepted rate in "miles per hour" for
calculating by how much we need to adjust our wrist watch as we travel.
This "virtual velocity" could be called the "C" of time zones. This
"virtual velocity" or time conversion constant could be any arbitrary number,
as long as we all accept the same number. What is the "C" of time zones on
Mars or the moon? It's not the same
as on earth.
A proper analysis of the
Michelson-Morley experiment shows
that there are actually four possible
explanations for the null or failed
result. Most scientists, including
Einstein, who had no experience with
time zones, only saw three possibilities. Many scientists in 1905 could
not and some still do not fully accept
Michelson-Morely's first precisely accurate 1887 Einstein's choice among the three
experimental set up on a rotating optical table
possibilities - since his theory clearly
made from a slab of granite
violates our sense of reality, and
Newton's laws of physics.
Einstein's Relativity Theory also produces a series of well-known
paradoxes. In mathematics and logic, whenever a syllogism, system of logic or
theory produces a paradoxical result, it is almost always the result of an
incorrect premise.
That fourth possibility for explaining the mysterious result of the M-M
experiment falls directly from the result of the failed Michelson-Morley
experiment itself. That new fourth possibility is that the "virtual velocity" of
light is infinity, while the "actual velocity" seeming to come from Maxwell's
equations is 186,000 miles per second.
This is the same as when we travel in jet planes. We can measure our
"actual velocity" or local velocity on the jet plane as 350
miles per hour. But we must add or subtract the "virtual
velocity" of one hour for each 1,000 miles
of travel, or the change in time zones, to
make the answer match reality when we
arrive at the destination. That's not hard or
difficult to do. And we often do the calculation in our head.
Add three hours to your watch as you travel the 3,000 miles
from Los Angeles to New York.
This possibility of the "virtual velocity" of light solves the
dilemma of the repeatedly failed
Michelson-Morley experiment. If the

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 3 of 10

"virtual velocity" of light is infinite, the "actual

velocity" or apparent velocity 186,000 m/s will always
appear to be the same regardless of the motion of the
light source. Infinity PLUS the velocity of the earth is
always the same as Infinity MINUS the velocity of the
earth. Infinity plus or minus any number is always
infinity. Thus the Michelson-Morley experiment was not
a failure. It proves that Dr. Einstein was wrong.
I should add that I have a degree in physics from the
University of Santa Clara. For years, I confounded my
professors by working out complex problems in
relativistic mechanics in my head. They said I was
mostly exactly correct but at extremely high velocities
near 99.99999 percent of the velocity of light, my
answers were just a tad bit too big, compared to
Einstein's equations. I said, that's because Einstein was
Dr. Albert Einstein,
wrong. I still got the physics degree anyway.
Professor at Princeton
I should also add that recent experiments and
measurements over long time periods or distances, such as the two Pioneer
spacecraft which recently left beyond the edges of our solar system, seem to
show that Einstein's equations give answers which are just a tad bit too small.

BroJon News: Wednesday July 19, 2005

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG (Part 2)

Was Special Relativity a Hoax Accidentally Perpetrated on Science?
One hundred years ago, in 1905, Dr. Albert Einstein published his Special
Theory of Relativity. It has become the basis for much of modern physics. In
1959 I read his paper and found that it contained a
simple arithmetic error, therefore the theory must be
false.
Years later as a college physics student I told my
professors about my discovery of the math error. They
didn't believe me, even when I showed them a much
simpler way to solve advanced physics problems. My
solution was so simple that I could solve most of the
problems in my head. Today as a senior physicist, I ask,
"Why is it that modern science for 100 years has
believed a theory which is based on a simple math
error?"
Dr. Abert Einstein
The answer is simple. It was a mistake in the normal
"peer review" process used by the prestigious physics
journal in which Einstein's Special Relativity paper was first published. In
1905 the famed peer-reviewed German journal "Annalen der Physik"
published Einstein's first paper on the Quantum Solution to the photoelectric
problem. That unique and widely acclaimed paper had just won Einstein the
Nobel Prize. To win the prize, obviously many esteemed
physicists had reviewed that paper and established its
reality and correctness.
But also in that very same journal issue, Einstein
published several other avant-garde theoretical papers,

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 4 of 10

including his "Special Theory of Relativity" which

contained the math error. Why did no one catch the
obvious error? It was simply because chief editor, Max
Planck or co-editor, Wilhelm
Wien, had made the fateful
decision not to send Einstein's
Relativity paper out for the usual
in-depth peer review. That
Relativity paper, along with
Einstein's other papers, were
published without any scientific
review.
Annalen der Physik
Both of the young editors,
Planck
and
Wien,
later
won
Nobel
The Young Max Planck
Chief Editor Annalen der Prizes themselves. They had made
Physik
the editorial decision for "Annalen
der Physik" that since Einstein
had already just received a Nobel Prize, his prestige and
popularity meant that his papers did not need to be peer
reviewed.
It could be that Planck and Wien felt that
publishing anything written by Einstein would enhance
the popularity and circulation of the journal. But using
the usual peer review process would slow down
publication of the exciting new Einstein papers until the
next year. Or it could be that Planck and Wien were so
Wilhelm Wien
overawed by the genius of Einstein that they felt
Co-Editor Annalen der
Einstein had no "peers." For whatever reason, the
Physik
journal editors, with their high regard for the Nobelist
Einstein, simply "broke the required rules" for publishing new theories in the
"peer reviewed" physics journal.
It seems from the historical record that none of the other scientists around
the world in the physics community knew that the journal had broken its own
publication rules. The other scientists all assumed that since "Annalen der
Physik" was a strictly "peer reviewed" journal, that Einstein's Relativity
paper, with the simple math error, had already been reviewed and approved
by a team of highly esteemed elite scientists. But not so.
Thus in the early 1900's no scientist would dare to point out the obvious
math error in the Relativity paper. To have done so, the scientists thought,
would be the same as calling the esteemed reviewers, the greatest minds of
physics, a bunch of dribbling idiots and drooling dolts. Not a good thing to do
if you want a future career in physics.
Because of the surreptitious and momentary Annalen der Physik change
in editorial policy, no respectable scientist would dare to proclaim, "Look, the
King has no clothes." It seemed to everyone that the whole scientific
community was all ooohing and aaahing over the "King's invisible royal
raiment" and how well it all seemed to match his new Nobel Prize.
In their competitive scramble to get along and go along within the physics
community, the scientists simply could not see the truth of what was in front of
them. It would take the innocence of a child to state the obvious. I was 14 at
the time when I found the obvious math mistake in Einstein's paper.
I was then too young and naive to know that winning a Nobel Prize would
automatically and magically correct math errors in physics papers. So I told
what I had discovered to my teachers and professors. This had several
unintended consequences.
As a student at Del Mar High School, I told my chemistry and physics

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 5 of 10

teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around
campus as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I was unanimously elected
president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.
I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made
outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local Silicon
Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects. Projects such as
wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV was invented. I later
met the man who invented cable TV, so I know.
I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really
cute girls who had wanted to wear my athletic sweater had precipitously
dropped to a nerdy zero. That athletic sweater, with the varsity block letters
for track, cross-country, wrestling and football, with all the medals and
ribbons cascading down the left arm. For an "active" teenager, this simply
wouldn't do. I began a curious double-life.
I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I
was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry, Donna,
what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place California gold
medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage boys can be.
The curious double-life continued for decades. I found it difficult to find
jobs in business and industry, even with multiple degrees in physics and
engineering, with the appellation "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I
never mentioned it during job interviews. Otherwise, I often did not get the
job because I was "way too over-qualified."
Jobs in academe were impossible. In the university
environment, not being a professed "believer" in
Relativity Theory, was considered the near equivalent to
being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing
anarchist.
By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already
been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in
so many advanced college textbooks, that most
professors simply could not see the obvious math error
which I had found.
Bertrand Russell
They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist.
Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were, such as
Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already
proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple
math error can't exist. For them, the error was invisible,
even when it was pointed out to them.
And what was that Simple Math Error? It's so
simple even a child could figure it out. It was a matter of
re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein had interpreted the negative results as
meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which
nothing can exceed. That "fact" actually has never been
proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by
George Gamow
Einstein. He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.
I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein
had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both
mathematically and logically incorrect. The Transform seems to give the
numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but
mathematically it is false. The Lorentz Transform uses
the square root of the velocity squared divided by C
squared.

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 6 of 10

Mathematically all square roots have two answers,

the positive and the negative root. Einstein, in his paper,
seemingly without telling anybody, had arbitrarily
tossed out the negative root as not having any physical
meaning. But that is a mathematical and scientific "nono" and means that the original premise of Einstein's
The Lorentz Transform
Special Relativity Theory must be incorrect. Under the
Lorentz Transform an object will travel at V = 1,000
mph East, and also -V = 1,000 mph West, at the same time. That clearly is
paradoxical.
This is equivalent to Einstein stating in his theory that the square root of
four is equal to two. For most people, those numbers seem absolutely correct.
But actually that is false, since the square root of four is equal to both plus two
AND minus two.
For the mathematically challenged, that is equivalent to Einstein claiming
that two plus two is equal to five (2 + 2 = 5). And that same mind-boggling
math error is published in every modern advanced physics textbook on
Relativity Theory. But since, supposedly it was published in a respected "peer
reviewed" physics journal, who would dare to argue with it?
The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false"
premise is a paradoxical result. For example: (1) All dogs have four legs, (2)
All four legged animals are cats. Therefore: All dogs are cats, AND/OR All
cats are dogs! Which premise is false? With the Special Theory of Relativity,
the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" along with several
others which were discovered later.
Amazingly, no theoretical physicist quickly tossed out Einstein's Special
Relativity Theory as false, eventhough it produced a paradoxical result indicating a false logical premise. The simple fact that Einstein himself
published the "twin paradox," should have been a strong warning or at least a
first clue that the Special Theory of Relativity must be wrong.
Actually, one noted physicist did toss it out and exactly for that reason. It
was Einstein's own professor, Dr. Lorentz, who never accepted Relativity as a
valid theory. Dr. Lorentz had developed the Lorentz
Transform as a classroom demonstration tool in an
attempt to explain the negative M-M experiment. He
taught it to his students in advanced physics classes,
including Einstein, as a simple "curiosity" which
produced the seemingly correct arithmetic answer. But
it did not produce the correct logical mathematic or
scientific answer.
Dr. Lorentz already knew that the Transform must
be false, for the reason I just mentioned. He already
knew that his young student, Albert Einstein, using the
Lorentz Transform, which Einstein had seemingly
Dr. Hendrik Lorentz
"lifted" out of his college classnotes, had produced a
false "Theory of Relativity." Dr. Lorentz never accepted
nor called it the "Theory of Relativity."
For the rest of his life, Lorentz always referred to it, in mock derision,
only as "the Einstein theory" since he knew it must be false, because it
produced the obvious paradox. Clearly, Lorentz did not get to "peer review"
his student's paper. That Relativity paper would never have made it through a
real and proper "peer review" process.
There actually is another simpler way to explain and solve the mysterious
negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. It uses the simple
physical constant called "alpha," the Fine Structure
Constant. It was the genius Einstein himself, who

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 7 of 10

introduced the Fine Structure Constant in his first

Nobel Prize winning paper about the Quantum nature
of the photoelectric effect.
If Einstein had only used his own "alpha" as the
basis for solving the M-M Experiment, instead of the
Lorentz Transform in his Relativity paper, he would The definition of "Alpha"
have found that all the forces of nature; the nuclear, Fine Structure Constant
electric, magnetic, and gravitational forces, were all
simply variations of the same force.
Why is it that in the "time zone" of the nucleus of an atom, "time" seems
to "slow down" so that the "measured velocity" of the electron appears to be
only 1/137th the speed of light? But the electron's behavior seems to be that it
is everywhere around the atom at the same time, or has a "virtual velocity" of
infinity. The physical constant alpha turns out to be equal to 1/137.
It is as if the free energy of the electron has been gravitationally redshifted by a nucleon-sized black hole. This changes all observed measurements
of time and distance. The amount of time dilation or gravitational red-shifting
of the electron in its ground state compared to the masses of the electron and
proton are defined by the universally measured constant called "alpha."
The relationship between the "virtual" and "actual" velocity, meaning
distance to time, of the electron is "c." The relationship of mass/energy to
time, meaning gravity, is hidden within Planck's Constant "h." The
relationship of electrical charge "e" to time and gravity is found in the
"alpha" definition. Attempting to produce a complete system of universal
science based only on the triumverate of "measured constants" e, c, and h, has
proven to be insufficient and incomplete. It turns out that a minimum of four
constants are needed to define all the properties of time and space.
All the tools needed to solve the mystery of the M-M Experiment problem
are found in the definition of "alpha." No paradoxical square root of squares
Lorentz Transform is needed. But 100 years ago, before the common use and
experience of "time zones" to measure the passage of time in different
locations around the world, nobody could see it.
All the natural forces of the universe, using Einstein's "alpha" could be
described with a single equation. It was the "Unified Field Theory" which
Einstein and many other esteemed theoretical physicists had long sought, but
somehow had eluded them. Instead, for 100 years, a simple editorial mistake
in a "peer reviewed" physics journal has led science astray.
BroJon News: Monday August 22, 2005

THE SHOCKING GREAT WAR:

CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION
Who Has the Correct Answer?
It's Time to End the Insane Debate
ADDENDUM TO ALL THREE TRIPTYCH PARTS OF THE
KINECHRON INVESTIGATION
1. DID JOSHUA MAKE THE SUN STAND STILL -- Chapter 4
2. WHERE DOCTOR EINSTEIN WENT WRONG -- Chapter 3
3. WHAT REALLY KILLED THE DINOSAURS -- Chapter 6
RESOLVING THE GREAT DEBATE
Recently the Science Vs. Religion debate has heated up over the battle of
which "theory" is correct -Creation or Evolution. The debate has recently
ranged from the depths of the White House, to numerous School Boards,
lawsuits and even many college campuses. And which theory is correct? It

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 8 of 10

turns out that neither side can "prove" they are correct - for the simple
reason that both sides are wrong.
1.) CREATION: The biblical text does not say that the earth is only about
4,004 years old. That was Bishop Usher who made that mistake and he was
wrong -- not the bible. The bible, in fact, says nothing about age of the earth.
Bishop Usher made a mistake in assuming that Genesis Chapter 5 was about
the ages of the patriarchs.
Instead it contains a hidden critical piece of scientific information,
necessary for maintaining the Hebrew culture - the exact length of the year,
365 days. Before about 2,000 BC, most middle-eastern advanced cultures used
a 360 day lunar calendar which is good enough for being a shepherd or camel
herder. But to be a true farmer and use agriculture, you need to know the
exact length of the year to be able to know when to plant your crops the next
year. I will explain and prove that in detail later.
So Bishop Usher was wrong. People who believe in the "young earth" are
wrong, based on a mistaken translation by a Bishop who was not a scientist. A
Bishop who didn't understand the scientific and historical meaning of Genesis
5, which documents the "evolution" of ancient cultures from huntergathering-herding societies, into full-fledged agricultural societies which need
a proper 365 day solar calendar to survive.
2.) EVOLUTION: Charles Darwin was also very wrong. Evolution by
"natural selection" was not the process which created the myriad lifeforms
that now exist on earth. There is plenty of evidence which can prove that. The
one item of critical evidence to prove that Darwin's Evolution is not correct is
that after 150 years of diligent searching, not one, no, not even one example of
a missing link or any intermediate species form has ever been discovered. But
that is exactly what is needed to show Darwin's evolution theory was correct.
Since no intermediate species have ever been found, therefore Darwin's
gradual evolution theory by "natural selection" is shown to be false.
Thus the arguments for both sides of the heated debate between "creation
vs evolution" are non-starters. They are BOTH wrong. It's like two blind
people arguing over the color of the sky or the sun. Neither side can prove the
other side is correct or incorrect. It is a useless debate and a waste of time. I
won't mention the number of angels on heads of pins as another example of
useless philosophical debates.
Actually, creation and evolution are also BOTH correct, to some degree.
Not in anyway that most people believe -- but just enough to fool both sides
into thinking that they each might actually be correct.
Every 1 to 2 million years, the magnetic field of the earth reverses the
north and south magnetic poles. The earth itself does not reverse - just the
magnetic field. During the reversal process, the earth's magnetic field, which
usually acts as a shield protecting lifeforms from intense solar X-rays, gamma
rays, and deadly dangerous ionizing particle radiation, suddenly disappears.
The deadly intense solar radiation is momentarily allowed to strike the surface
of the earth.
Within hours, about 99 percent of all life on earth is instantly killed by the
intense radiation. Those few 1 percent of survivors, hidden in caves, in holes in
the earth, or under water are highly deformed, damaged and mutated by the
intense radiation causing direct damage to the DNA molecules in their
reproductive cells. But the radiation damage is not visible in those survivors,
but it is clearly seen in their direct offspring.
Within months or a year, or less than one generation, the surviving
mutants which may or may not still be viable, may be able to reproduce. This
results in multitudes of numerous competing similar but highly modified
mutant lifeforms. Then and only then, does Darwin's evolution process of

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

10.09.2007

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

Page 9 of 10

"natural selection," enter the scene, to cull the less able or disabled
mutant forms to be lost to history, while the strong survivors with many new
adaptable traits become numerous new species. The new species were
suddenly "created" by the intense radiation within one generation.
Example: About 1 million years ago, during the last magnetic field
reversal, one species, Saber Tooth tigers, were extremely irradiated and in less
than a year became, modern lions, tigers, pumas, ocelots, bobcats, pussycats
and numerous other feline species. None of the new species was ever seen
before the massive radiation event at the magnetic field reversal. Darwin's
"evolution" didn't and couldn't do all of that within several years. But that is
what the geologic record shows -- almost instantaneous "creation" of many
new species by intense random radiation with no intermediate "missing link"
forms, and all within one generation.
Since the time of the age of dinosaurs, which ended 65 million years ago,
there have been about 15 to 20 magnetic field reversals. At each reversal, there
is almost instantaneous creation of multitudes of new lifeforms, usually
resulting in many forms coming from just one earlier life form. And usually
the earlier life form disappears, since it is no longer competitive.
Another example: The early horse, eohippus, about the size of a dog,
disappeared, but became donkeys, horses and several equine variants such as
zebras which are almost related species. Notice, in this process there is no
gradual evolution -- and thus no "missing links" between species.
Charles Darwin, when he invented his evolution theory, knew nothing
about this, since "radiation" was not "discovered" until 50 years later by
Madame Currie. And the effect of radiation on DNA was completely
unknown, until DNA was "discovered" by Watson and Crick 100 years after
Darwin. Thus Darwin, in the mid-19th century, had no clue as to what might
be the actual cause to make one species change into another species. Thus
Darwin's Theory is wrong.
No missing links between species have ever been discovered. Now you
know why. The new species were "created" almost in the blink of an eye, by
intense solar radiation. No intermediate species or "missing link" were ever
born. The new mutant species were born directly from their highly radiated
and DNA-modified parents.
Thus, almost instantaneously, in geologic time, the new lifeforms are
"created" by the intense radiation, and then the survivors quickly "evolved"
in just one generation into the many viable new species.
Thus, it is time to end the inane debate between "creation versus
evolution." Both scientific and religious "beliefs" are wrong and cannot be
proved to be true. Both can be proved to be false. And also both are partly
"right" -- but for the wrong reason.
Marshall Smith
Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette
newseditor@brojon.com
-- BROTHER JONATHAN GAZETTE

BroJon Exclusive Report

TELL A FRIEND ABOUT THIS ARTICLE
If you wish, you can add additional addresses, comments
and messages after the email window opens.
Enter the email address

Keep Up With the Latest BroJon Articles

CLICK TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE FREE
BROJON DAILY DIGEST

Send this Article

http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html

Subscribe

10.09.2007