See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Physics laws flawed (Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. )
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20071012-16699-2.html
Published: Dec 13, 2007
Author: n
Post Date: 2007-12-13 11:26:08 by gengis gandhi
Keywords: None
Views: 1494
Comments: 89
Physics laws flawed E-mail to a Friend Monday, 10 December 2007 Swinburne University A Swinburne astrophysicist has leapt another hurdle in the path to proving that our fundamental theories of physics are not what they seem. Dr Michael Murphy is part of a team that has, over recent years, uncovered surprising and controversial evidence suggesting the laws of physics may have been changing through cosmic time. In this latest move, Murphy has debunked a study which claimed to disprove his findings. Murphy’s research into the laws of Nature goes back eight years, and concerns our understanding of electromagnetism, the force of nature that determines the sounds we hear, the light we see, and how atoms are held together to form solids. Through the study of electromagnetism in galaxies ten billion light years away, he has challenged the fundamental assumption that the strength of electromagnetism has been constant through time. “Back in 2001 we published evidence showing a small change in the fine structure constant, the number that physicists use to characterise the strength of electromagnetism,” Murphy said. “Even though the change that we think we see in the data is quite small, about five parts in a million, it would be enough to demonstrate that our current understanding must in fact be wrong. It’s an important discovery if correct. It suggests to physicists that there’s an underlying set of theories we’re yet to broach and understand.” Physicists have been chasing results like these for a number of years, but since 1999, Murphy and his co-researchers have been ahead of the pack. They’ve published a series of observations from the Keck Telescope in Hawaii as further evidence of a varying fine structure constant. But, a few years ago, another research team claimed that data from a different telescope contradicted Murphy’s observations. However, he’s been able to prove that the contradictory work itself was flawed. “We’ve shown that the way the data was analysed was faulty,” he said. “Their procedures were faulty so the numbers that came out are meaningless. Our paper points this out. When you replicate their analysis and fix their problems, you get a very very different answer indeed.” Murphy has a ‘comment’ about this latest work in this week's issue of the journal Physical Review Letters. It’s the most difficult journal for physicists to get published in, and is the one they turn to for important results in their field. This latest step is not the end of the road though in convincing scientists across the world that they need to rethink their ideas about electromagnetism. Even though this study also produced results that agree with his initial Keck findings, Murphy said there’s still work to be done. “There are some problems that need addressing,” he said. “It’s quite a surprising result and one that probably many people need a lot more convincing on. It will take some time, but we’re doing that job.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-48) not displayed.
.
.
.
#49. To: farmfriend (#47)
(Edited)
The idea of dark matter being antimatter is not new, but my admittedly vague way of looking at it from the perspective of a photon-graviton transformation loop involving gamma rays seems to match observations of gamma rays from dark matter. As I noted before, it seems possible that many positron-electron pairs generated from a large number of gamma-ray photons could escape annihilation if the pairs are generated within a large enough group, and I can envisage large masses of both particles separately being created on opposite sides of the group, with opposite trajectories such that they do not recombine appreciably for an appreciable amount of time. The form of quantum gravity mentioned already, with its gravity/anti-gravity phase changes, could maintain the separation. A positron also comes from a proton changing into a neutron. A neutron can decay into a proton plus an electron (and an anti-neutrino). Basically, with sufficient energy, photons can create any matter-antimatter pair of particles. Surviving the process seems to involve even more energetic photons in a larger bunch, or extremely rare chance collision events that might take place over a practically infinitely long amount of time.
Didn't mean to make you frown.
There is also man-made anti-gravity, apparently. A gravitomagnetic field is supposedly induced with a superconducting ring: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm It's a completely different effect from the alleged effect of quantum gravity undergoing a phase reversal after traveling galactic distances. My impression is that if one was moving from the center of Hoag's galaxy, the positive-phased (attracting) quantum gravity of the center would combine with a weaker negative- phased (repelling) quantum gravity from the ring such that both would work together against outward progress. Past the cross-over point, the effect is reversed, meaning the center then repels and the ring attracts. The phase crossover point is devoid of matter due to a sweepout effect that forces matter to the ring or to the center. One could imagine such a cross-over may also have a divergent effect on light passing though perpendicularly, along the line of sight in the photo. Many people say anti-matter has anti-gravity, and one possibility I haven't mentioned is that one of the center or ring of Hoag's galaxy could be antimatter, but I doubt that is really the case. Hoag's galaxy wouldn't gravity- lens the way it seems to be doing if one part of it is anti-matter and if anti- matter has anti-gravity. I don't think anti-matter has anti-gravity, anyway, meaning I think it would gravity-lens the smaller galaxy behind it in the same way regardless.
www.physorg.com/news98450367.htm l "It's like looking at the pebbles on the bottom of a pond with ripples on the surface. The pebbles' shapes appear to change as the ripples pass over them. So, too, the background galaxies behind the ring show coherent changes in their shapes due to the presence of the dense ring." Another ring that apparently lenses, but different and differently, it seems. Dark matter is supposed to be involved. People say most of the universe is dark matter, but I don't think that is necessarily the case.
Interesting note on wikipedia about "Hoag's Object" (Hoag's Galaxy): "In the initial announcement of his discovery, Art Hoag proposed the hypothesis that the visible ring was a product of gravitational lensing. This idea was later discarded because the nucleus and the ring have the same redshift, and because more advanced telescopes revealed the knotty structure of the ring, something that would not be visible if the ring were the product of gravitational lensing." Wikipedia also calls the smaller galaxy a ring galaxy, rather than a galaxy with an Einstein ring. Maybe wikipedia missed out on identifying the Einstein ring, and Hoag was right about lensing if the "visible ring" mentioned above refers to the Einstein ring (or "ring galaxy" if Wikipedia's term is preferred) seen through Hoag's ring. I see Hoag's Galaxy as a gravity lens operating much like a glass toroid (donut- shaped piece of glass) optical lens where the galaxy is dark, possibly a concave version of a toroid (grooved donut shape). I guessed earlier it was concave, so I guess I'll stick to that for now. Makes sense as it is so distant and the eye focuses directly on the front of it. Reminds me of a concave-eye- side long eye-relief eyepiece lens. The typical Einstein ring is supposed to be formed by converging divergent light, which makes it like a typical (convex) toroid optical lens, or just a convex lens with the middle cored out, it seems.
The quantum gravity phases of Hoag's ring apparently reinforce those of Hoag's center by the distance between the two, seems to me. I can imagine glusters and intercluster space evolving to be filled with similar ripples despite no mass around to experience them. Yet if it's possible to build a Cherenkov microwave amplifier, then it seems it's possible to oscillate light using gravity, splitting it up into microwaves and thus reddening the light in the process.
I wish I understood that ;)
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today! I don't think he expects anyone here to understand it. If you throw in enough scientific mumbo-jumbo into each sentence one has to conclude that one is either far above everyone else in intellect and knowledge, or else is a very adept bs artist (much like the typical politician that answers questions with a series of half-sentences and non-sequitors, so as to make the mind glaze over in a stupor, having forgotten the original question). Guess which of the two possibilities here I'm concluding is most likely?
I need to come up with an elegant formula on the quantum red-shift part or give it up, I suppose. I am going to stick with the quantum gravity wave idea though. I know I'm not the first to come up with a push-pull quantum gravity, but nobody else has applied such an idea to explain Hoag's galaxy and the arms of spiral galaxies, as far as I know.
Just curious, you see any of that in what I've written? Which sentence is the worst?
Classical solar pressure, neutrinos etc. from the center cannot possibly be responsible for the way the matter of Hoag's ring avoids being drawn into the center, by my reckoning. In fact, looking at the ring closely, it appears the stars that make up much of the ring must be cycling around very evenly within its limits, looping around the ring while oscillating from the outside diameter of the ring, around to the inside diameter and around back again, spending about the same amount of time in any two halves of the ring.
The way I figure it, if light and gravity particles are interrelatable, and knowing the brightness of an object has practically no effect on its mass, if light is to carry gravity, it would have to do it using an an extremely low frequency of light, meaning the effect would have an extremely long wavelength. If that wavelength is added once each cycle (once per period) of the effect on a light wave, it does not appear to explain the red-shift, to my disappointment. I haven't completely thown out the accelerating expansionary universe that the velocity-assumption red-shift indicates, or the supposed changes in electromagnetism over time, or the changes in time itself, that it seems to demand, though.
When I say I believe quantum gravity oscillates, I do not mean the force of gravity from a mass would have to oscillate if one stands still next to the mass or moves short distances around the mass. Instead, the supposed effect apparently only comes into play on a scale that is about half the distance between the middle of Hoag's ring and the center of Hoag's galaxy. That is a scale of kiloparsecs. I hedge everything with disclaimers because it's science, not politics.
Note: Where I say light I mean electromagnetic energy particles.
To put it very simply, if the graviton exists and has an extremely miniscule mass, then its de Broglie wavelength is extremely long. Also, if quantum gravity is to be combined with Einstein's cosmological constant, a reversed gravity phase must exist. Maybe the weak force's confining effect could have a similar quantum explanation operating at the de Broglie wavelength of nucleons.
this is in reply to post#59 I did not have a chance to read the posts below that Half-sentences and non-sequitors are the perview of politicians. I apologize for implying that that is your writing style. But I do have a problem with excessive terminology being used in vertually every sentence, the net effect is the same. I get a headache trying to make sense of it as I read it. And some of it DOES make sense, but it becomes too laborious to read. Here are some examples where you lose me. The middle portion of post #8, pretty much the entirety of post #20. This sentence from post #33 probably gets my vote for most brain-glazing: Now, I've been interested in science for a long time, so I'm really quite familiar with most of these terms when presented clearly. I've heard of string theory and membrane theory. But some terms like "Spin-1" and "Spin-2" (or "zero-crossing zones") are unfamiliar to me, and likely to anyone else here. So we have to take your word for it that you're talking about something real. In all fairness, I've seen real bs-ing in science forums where the so-called theoretician was throwing terms right out of science-fiction movies. And what you posted is not like that. But my initial impression was that your mo was similar -- "baffle them with (at least some) bull if you can't dazzle them with brilliance". So, if you are a real student of physics (and having to re-read at least some of your posts at least makes me willing to give you more benefit of the doubt), then I implore upon you to work on communicating your ideas more clearly, using scientific terminology in moderation. I'm just an amateur, and I imagine most of the folks here are too -- though my specialty is astronomy.
I will insist the zero-crossing concept came from my imagination. It cannot be tested experimentally. Whether it's real or not is important to me, but I wouldn't be saying it's speculating if I knew. It is quite reminiscent of the borders of magnetic domains under a magnetic field in an optically active material when viewed through polarizing microscope, as I visualize it.
Do you think it's a red Einstein ring on that smaller object inside Hoag's ring? In that ring I see at least three brightness maxima, two in a pair near the bottom of the ring and one faint one near the top. There's even a fourth spot right between the pair. Almost like an oval red target pattern is phase- interfering with the straight lines in a red peace sign. Classic Einstein ring pattern, like a bent cross or the corners of a tetrahedron, but very red and very wide from the supposed lensing object at its center, it looks red-shifted and/or magnified, to me, maybe flattened or rotated a bit too. It's fuzzy, I know. I'm thinking of all sorts of paintings I could make based on multiplying this idea. The symbolism is fantastic. Practically can't believe the PTB haven't known about it for a while.
I couldn't say. It looks like it could also be another ring galaxy like Hoag's. Galactic densities (and the chances of a head-on collision between galaxies) would be much higher at the greater distances, so it wouldn't be an impossible coincidence. A detailed set of spectrograms of the galaxy in question might resolve the question. If I understand correctly, if this is just a ring galaxy, the core and the ring should have similar redshifts. If it is an Einstein ring, I would guess that the core and ring would have very different redshifts, since they were coming from different sources. Or so that would be my understanding. Maybe you could request time on the Hubble to do spectrums of the galaxy and the ring.
Not likely, unfortunately. Besides, the tiny red-appearing Einstein ring pattern there just needs to be imaged more sharply to be more convincing. Above I've added some late description of the pattern, which is visible between Hoag's ring and the center of Hoag's galaxy, observations that convince me without a doubt it's an Einstein ring and only sharper pictures of the spatial brightness pattern on that small red ring and oval dot, not the light frequency, will be dispositive on the correctness of that. The redness is I believe because of lensing caused by Hoag's galaxy, so the red-appearing ring's color, size and average thickness with respect to the center spot are not typical of normal Einstein rings. The Einsteing ring is, seems clear to me, overall much redder than one could reasonably expect from its red center lensing object, with the size ratio to Hoag's ring that it has. The red- appearing lensing object there and the red-appearing lensed object making a ring around it would both have to be amazingly bright compared to the usual, equivalently, if using the Hubble-constant scale. No other person that I am aware of has even recognized that it's an Einstein ring showing through Hoag's opening, yet alone what is so unusual about it, which is kind of neat. I can imagine weaker versions of the same apparent magnifying and reddening gravity structure being stacked up between Hoag's galaxy and the camera, like Hoag's galaxy is fitting harmoniously in this supposed weaker stack of gravity waves that are sort of "cloned off it", or just plain radiated all around it. They would have an effect on the entire image. It all seems to say that the apparent accelerating expansion conclusion based on a Hubble constant yardstick is really just an illusion, there is no need for invoking dark energy, and the cosmological constant effect is built into gravity. It is all a standing gravity wave-caused light-reddening effect. Very simple. Where a standing quatum gravity wave in the stack is circular and centered, it magnifies in addition to reddening, otherwise as a semi-randomly randomly stacked wave (much like magnetic domain walls in shape) it would apparently just redden the image at about half the effectiveness of the ring, not considering the diminished magnitude of the wave at greater distances from any mass, I guess. With some calculations, a well-calculated red-shift effect in the opening of Hoag's ring could be used as a baseline to calibrate the expected average quantum gravity redshift of the rest of the visible universe, I suppose.
Yikes, I can tell by the typos that I went a little too late last night. The vague explanation for calculating red-shift (1/2 the Hoag's galaxy effect per wavelength) is a wild guess that looks worse than it did just before I gave up trying to think last night.
laughing...
It is awful. I stick my neck out again and again, thinking I'm going to be able to pull it back.
I don't think any of us would have noticed. Now I remember a poster on FR way back when who was very knowledgeable, by the name of "RightWhale". He is probably long gone from there (I haven't visited it to check), but I think he could have noticed the errors were he to post here.
The rest of it about the rings I'm 99% satisfied with. Mostly curious what other people think. It's become for me a yardstick of other peoples' human nature and observational abilities at this point. I get terminal like that sometimes.
What I'm going to suggest now is that the fraction is not 1/2, it's a ratio involving pi, one that I will give later, and the red-shift in Hoag's ring also has to be divided by the number of Hoag's ring diameters between Hoag's ring and the Einstein ring behind it, before it is scaled by mass density in the intervening medium, to give the red-shift of Hoag's galaxy itself, per Hoag's ring diameter from the Earth. Anyway, it's probably not right, not right at all. A nice thing for me to do now would be to give the estimated size of Hoag's ring, but at the moment I can only recall that Hoag's entire galaxy is as about as big as the Milky Way. Now I'm hungry again. I swear I am not fat, I just look that way in print.
Where I said mass density last night, I meant to say the classical density of gravitational flux. I am sorry.
2/pi
Happy New Year, everyone. I wanted to elaborate now on the major cosmic evolutionary cycle as formed in view of quantum gravity as I visualize it. The basic concept here is for the cold extremum to be populated with aligned cold cosmic strings and loops, much like a mass of spaghetti, maybe with some noodle rings mixed into it, organized so by quantum gravity. These cold strings have quantum gravity holding them together and apart from other strings. Where the rest of the universe exerts a twisting action on this cold fabric of sorts, it eventually over-stretches the coherence of the strings, snapping them and causing them to be ejected from the group as energetic globs carrying a lot of energy released in the consequent collisions, sometimes forming in opposite pairs spinning a little, sometimes a spinning a lot. Sometimes in nearly spherical bits breaking up and becoming Gaussianized, not spinning at all.
If you go here: www.walterzorn.com/graphe r/grapher_e.htm .... and enter "-1/(x*x); (-1/(x*x))*cos(2x); cos(2x)" without the quotes, you get three lines. The green line is similar to what I think gravity does across the galaxy, the red line is similar to 1/(r^2) Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity, and the blue sinusoidal line is similar to the supposed force-magnitude and force-direction (negative is the reversed gravity phase, positive is the conventional gravity phase) of the gravity-carrying quanta (gravity particles), which always start (at x=0) at the positive peak. Hoag's ring fits outside the green humps, in the shallow green valleys at about x=3 and -3.
Scientists basically judged the light from the universe and decided that, because the light is so much less energetic than they believe is to be expected if the universe is stable or collapsing, the universe must be more energetic than could be expected. They conclude the universe must be unstable and flying apart faster over time because of the way the light was red-shifted. With only Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity, scientists correctly figured the universe should be unstable in exactly the opposite direction, the direction of accelerating collapse and of strengthened light, but the light they see is apparently telling them the exact opposite. In my opinion the problem started when gravity was assumed to be an attractive force only, then when the suggestion came along that light is supposedly saying the universe is expanding, scientists first came up with the Big Bang, and then when that wasn't enough, scientists resurrected the cosmological constant, which was originally intended to make the universe stable and is sometimes described as a force that supposedly pushes things apart everywhere. Some scientists apparently modified the cosmological constant idea so it is destabilizing and operates with increasing effectiveness over time or over increasing separation, to explain the supposed accelerating expansion. Voila, gravity became reduced to a practically-irrelevant bit player that doesn't have a significant role in the big picture. Newton and Einstein recognized only the inverse-square gravity-force density law for gravity density around gravity sources, analogous to the density of light flux (flow) from a light source, but they ignored the possibility of a wavelike property of gravity particles that could carry the gravity flow. Interestingly enough, perhaps, a product of the inverse square law and a cosine law that I have suggested is applicable to gravity is also used in light- metering for angled walls in photography. Where else could gravity carriers possibly hide themselves from scientists besides as small packets of energy with long wavelength, what would keep gravity quanta from mixing with and separating from light quanta if gravity can red-shift light, and if gravity red-shifts passing light and it blue-shifts impinging light, then it seems a series of undulations in gravitational potential can red-shift passing light in proportion to number of waves passed. There goes the supposed expansion. Suppose the ripples have increased over observable time due to matter gravitating toward ripple low points. There goes the accelerating expansion. Anyway, because mainstream science theory apparently doesn't appreciate the suggestion that gravity is carried by extremely small wavelike (having complementary positive and negative phases) particles with consequently extremely long wavelengths, scientists also apparently created a force (dark energy) that does a similar thing as the cosmological constant, but more in some places than in others, along with an invisible form of matter (dark matter) that has apparently a complementary effect to the dark energy. As if that wasn't enough, now the red-shift-is-expansion assumption, which spawned all that dark energy/matter stuff in the first place, is apparently spawning the idea that the fine structure constant isn't constant. It almost seems to me that politics, the mainstream media, including mainstream book publishers, and players in the major religions, simply refuse to let facts get in the way of their favorite theory, the accelerating inexplicable Big Bang. No one who is building a gravity wave detector seems willing to admit that gravity waves are practically staring them right in the face in the form of galactic structure. They insist gravity waves haven't been detected. The same sort of truth-avoidance that inflicts the social sciences and economics experts has found its way back into cosmology and basic physics again, full circle from the days of Copernicus, with charitable funding no less. Perhaps the elite like the idea of an ustable universe because it helps them to think all stability in society comes from their control. That's the best guess I can come up with at the moment, anyway.
The spin profiles of galaxies are flat, meaning galaxies apparently spin like a wheel, not like a collection of corks going down a drain. The wheel-like synchronism of galactic spinning is, I will suppose for the moment, has some sort of quantum gravity wave origin. Supposing the core dominates the shape of the gravity wave and the core is spinning, the resulting gravity waves apparently act like the spokes of a wheel in generating the motion of the surrounding matter. That's about all I can think of on that at the moment.
I suppose I was a little rough on gravity wave detector builders earlier. The waves that they want to detect are not really quantum gravity waves, although when it comes right down to it, all gravity is quantum gravity, I believe. They are looking for waves carrying a large numbers of gravity quanta, not the waves making up each gravity quantum.
Because I multiply the inverse-square rule with the cosine rule to come up with a quantum gravity rule for the radial direction from the center, I sometimes get the impression gravity is like the light from a slowly-spinning light-wall, which photographers can appreciate follows the same combination of rules. Suppose that instead of merely reversing direction, the gravity quantum force slowly rotates, when it gets to the circular race-way-like valley of the ring, some of the time it is pushing matter sideways a little bit, one way or the other.
I get the impression that if photons are like gigantic sitting snowpiles as big as a city, then gravitons are like slow bipolar cyclonic systems of freezing rain and dry heat, or a plague of spinning microwave ovens. I don't know. It'll pass.
Here is Sir Roger Penrose on keeping the Big Bang. He shoulder-jumps off Hawking a lot. Says his own ideas are crazy but plausible. GR produces singularities with infinite energy, density and space-time curvature, he explains. Before the BB is explained as non-consequential, meaningless. His universe is cyclic and the cyclic extremum ("final state"/BB-precursor) is a pre-timelessness-phase decay of all mass into energy. he says the BB itself is highly organized ("highly ordered") using the 2nd-law of thermodynamics worked backward. He has some ideas about the characterics of gravity waves supposedly to be verifable sometime after 2017 or so. I believe he should've said his TOE was "informative" rather than "plausible." Anyway, for me, Neil Turok seems to be the top guy at this point because he looks at cold string hypotheses. His Ekpyrotic universe idea is apparently informative. BTW, there's a youtube with Hawking mentioning the NWO and then counting to ten at the end. He focuses on evolution by speech, and it's subtitled in Spanish because it's filmed somewhere in S. America. Interesting to note that DNA is NDA, or something like that, in Spanish.
More random thoughts: Balancing particles and waves, I end up at particles with surfaces that match toroids, not spheres. In part, this is what heterotic string theory does.
Hoag's alleged quantum gravity well bump. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2020601/posts I think people do not get it yet. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2026921/posts The milky way is a typical barrred spiral, what happens when the center stretches out (decoheres) and thus puts holes in the coherent radial quantum well barrier and draws in the well accretion ring, almost like a blender. That's my take, anyway.
Spinning galaxies don't spin like a wheel after a certain radius the radial speed become flat (constant), but they're more wheel-like than expected from estimating mass by starlight, as if there is dark matter mixed in with the stars further out. My guess is the matter gets channelled, much like rain to a river, by quantum gravity potential wells generated from the center. A spiral river would have a constant velocity in the radial direction.
Are the stars in the paired arms of a spiral galaxy like the sparks shed from a pinwheel or are they like two glowing schools of fish drawn into a whirlpool? My sense of things favors the pinwheel. Classical gravity favors something whirlpool- like, I suppose, at least based on how scientists apparently look at galactic spin profiles and suggest galaxies should spin much slower at the perimeter. In any case, the symmetry of paired arms is usually explained (but not simulated using classical gravity very realistically, in my opinion) with a collision scenario. But, from my observations, there's typically a rather empty "sweep-out" zone of sorts about half-way to the center in many spiral galaxies, and that's where useful quantum gravity concepts come into play, I think. The spiral arms themselves are often made of loose spirals. Rather than a center like a pinwheel's paired source of sparks I see a spinning center stretching outward, reaching out to the sweep-out accreted ring's well and partly spilling over into it, with the spillage then spiralling around within the well while ripping it apart at the same time. Then the center can restabilize to a more compact form as a result of losing mass at the extremes, which would help repair the sweep-out zone.
#50. To: nobody (#49)
My spelling is Wobbly. It's good spelling but it Wobbles, and the letters get in the wrong places. -- Winnie the Pooh
#51. To: farmfriend (#50)
#52. To: ghostdogtxn (#26)
(Edited)
#53. To: robin (#36)
#54. To: robin (#36)
(Edited)
#55. To: robin (#36)
#56. To: nobody (#55)
The Revolution will not be televised!
#57. To: robin (#56)
(Edited)
From Two Party System... ...to Two Family System.
#58. To: robin (#56)
(Edited)
#59. To: PnbC (#57)
a series of half-sentences and non-sequitors
#60. To: robin (#56)
(Edited)
#61. To: PnbC (#57)
#62. To: PnbC (#57)
#63. To: PnbC (#57)
#64. To: PnbC (#57)
(Edited)
#65. To: nobody, robin (#59)
(Edited)
ust curious, you see any of that in what I've written? Which sentence is the worst?
I suppose galactic-intergalactic distributions have significantly evolved toward maximizing intergalactic quantum gravity zero-crossing zones, giving a red- shifting graviton-coupled quantum ripple to much of intergalactic space.
From Two Party System... ...to Two Family System.
#66. To: PnbC (#65)
(Edited)
So we have to take your word for it that you're talking about something real.
#67. To: PnbC (#65)
(Edited)
my specialty is astronomy
#68. To: nobody (#67)
From Two Party System... ...to Two Family System.
#69. To: PnbC (#68)
(Edited)
Maybe you could request time on the Hubble to do spectrums of the galaxy and the ring.
#70. To: PnbC (#68)
#71. To: nobody (#70)
is a wild guess that looks worse than it did just before I gave up trying to think last night.
#72. To: christine (#71)
#73. To: nobody (#72)
From Two Party System... ...to Two Family System.
#74. To: PnbC (#73)
(Edited)
#75. To: christine (#71)
#76. To: PnbC (#73)
#77. To: christine (#71)
#78. To: All (#4)
(Edited)
#79. To: PnbC (#73)
(Edited)
#80. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
(Edited)
#81. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#82. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#83. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#84. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#85. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
(Edited)
#86. To: gengis gandhi (#0)
#87. To: christine (#71)
#88. To: All (#81)
(Edited)
#89. To: All (#88)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest