FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Hey georgie...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 232 [3478 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 230, 231, 232 Next
Author Message
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: string theory Reply with quote

No, of course the big people told me what to write..
Back to top
forever
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: string theory Reply with quote

If you talk to Michio Kaku and others in the right setting it would probably
be like talking with Feyman, quick to point out the numerous things we
simply don't know. That's what makes physics worth being involved.

Those actually working on the theories tend to be humble, that's my
impression. The problem is that the public is extremely hungry to think we
have made it to the top, and to institutionalize or cement those theories,
not realizing they are just part of the journey.

So here's my view on it. In the same way that the square root of negative
numbers (imaginary numbers) are merely a tool or bridge to get to some sort
of result (because we don't know how else to make the math seem to work),
those other dimensions are merely a thought tool, basically saying, there's
something there, we don't know what it is. They are variables, grey,
undefined, mysterious, lets call them something vague until we know better.
Mathematical leap necessary, lets call that a dimension.

I certainly don't like the notion of two dimensions intersecting and causing
the big bang at a point of intersection. They were portrayed in the show as
somewhat planar. Sounds to me more spherical if the big bang source was a
point. But there, as pointed out, the other "dimensions" can be defined
within x, y, and z axes, no? Of course they can.

Extra Dimension (noun) -- Just someone's way of saying they don't know.

Meanwhile, the worship of math is what got Hawking in trouble with his
theory that the universe would stop expanding, then collapse, and at that
point time would go in reverse, and we would all live our lives backwards.
One of his students corrected his math, and he took another look at his own
equations and admitted his mistake then humbly.

Math (noun) -- A tool, merely a tool. NOT to be worshipped.

There's the problem. Some people forgot to read the definition.

-- Gary
==============================================
A Billionaire's New Home-based Business Launching Now
http://www.betteruniverse.com/gh0087745


<bpj1138@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107456140.506678.154360@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

D,

Whenever I tell people to always derive theories from common
experience, they invariably accuse me of being a simpleton. Well, if
the laws of physics are universal, there better be only three
dimensions or else we're not living in the same universe.

Physics today is suffering from the same disease as the rest of the
world: too many ego's trying to feed too many hungry families, so they
have to keep turning out theories. You know "Publish or perish". It's
like at school they made you come up with a 1000 word essay, and you
have to add a few extra unnecessary words here and there.. they added a
few extra dimensions... I bet these people don't even care about
physics, they treat it like they're working in a sausage factory.
People who care about physics are actually here, you're talking to
them.

--Bart
Back to top
ring_theory
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Gravity is nothing more than Reply with quote

Correct on the ariel in it's various forms. However wavelength provides a
delema in some waveforms. A gaussmeter is standard for detecting EMFs
It has limitations as finding an exact zero field to calibrate it properly
is beyond mankinds ability at this point. I don't believe that the fields
surrounding the sun is infinate thru all space it's more likely that it's
zero outside our universe and between other universes and anomolies. However
the general perception of zero and unity are the same ("=0"). achieve unity
and exact zero will be achieved as well. What we percieve as nature is unity
in action naturally.

Ring
Back to top
Tim K.
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 7

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE Reply with quote

"Fish! - of Arcadia." <tastyfish@fugu.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c6aad2bd3576f40989a8a@News.Individual.net...
Quote:
In article <1107295775.327316.191290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
REM121504@aol.com says...

Radioactive Dating Is NOT RELIABLE



Too dangerous, Speed Dating is the only truly reliable way to get women.

Very nearly a beer-through-the-nose moment there;)
Back to top
Vendicar Decarian
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: FREE ENERGY Devices and Technology Reply with quote

"slavek krepelka" <slavek.krepelka@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:4203160D.511E69E5@sympatico.ca...
Quote:
In any case, learn and grow and let mosquitoes buzz with spite. They are
of no concern to you.

Mosquito's often carry fatal diseases. Particularly dangerous if the
disease is communicable.

Truth must struggle to be free.
Back to top
forever
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Announcement - Bielek-debunked.com online again Reply with quote

That's unfortunate. While I think your conclusion may be partially correct,
the website reads to a large extent as though based on opinion and
conjecture rather than obvious facts as I had hoped, although interesting.
I had a chance to speak with Al personally, casually over the course of
several hours. If I were to engage in the same sort of thing as on the
webpage, my own conjecture would be ... if I had to take a wild guess (and
you would agree with some of this) ...

He was involved -- yes.
Part of what he says is true -- yes.
All of what he says is true -- no.
He "elaborates" on his own -- yes and no.
His intentions are good -- yes.
Others coach him what to say -- yes. (I should say the better word is
"programmed"--past tense-- rather than "coach"--present tense)
He is paid to do it, by those "others" -- yes, but not very well. Instead,
he is largely driven by deeply ingrained beliefs, loyalties, fears of not
towing the line (the mission provided to him), and promises to him that they
have never fully kept. It is as if he serves (in a military sense) a group
of geniuses, that may no longer exist, but with whom he was so impressed
that his mind locked unalterably into total loyalty to them and their goals,
whether they are there now or not. It is difficult to get a sense of
whether he has an existing collaborator on the story, merely someone
offering support when needed, none, or both.
Motive -- to obfuscate the real story.

So, I asked Al questions about the experiment. I don't remember exactly
what my questions were, now, it was years ago, but I do remember the
impressions I had at the time. He didn't connect very well with you while
conversing. It was as if he knew you were there but he didn't want to
acknowledge people's individual presence. My speculation on that was that
he knows if he were to read you more it would in turn make him more
readable. There's a wall there. So it always seems like he's on a talk
show, and in fact as if he is using you to practice for them. Instead, I
would have expected, if the story were completely true, all channels open.
Here's one single person asking a specific question, in person, a chance to
really deliver a sense of that time and the reality of it all, hold nothing
back, look that person in the eye, use facial expression and all of the
other subtleties of human interaction to convince one of the truth of that
strange message. Didn't happen. Very guarded.

That, in itself, doesn't prove anything. So my mind has to draw some sort
of conclusion on its own. To do that, it reverts back to a common "what
if". What if I were running the show behind the scenes. The experiment
happened, produces extraordinary results, and we can't let that information
out. I would pay, coerce, brainwash, or whatever it takes to obtain a
representative to tell some degree of truth along with some--shall we
say--coloring, with a couple of important details ... neglected. And I
think the result would look quite a bit like a Bielek, and also a Nichols,
etc. I met Nichols too. Bielek is a certainly a gentleman, but Nichols is
just--er, uh--rude. I think it is the same defense mechanism, same game,
the former a neat brick wall, the latter broken concrete, barbed wire, and
rabid angry dogs.

-- Gary
==============================================
A Billionaire's New Home-based Business Launching Now
http://www.betteruniverse.com/gh0087745


"gschelm" <gschelm@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3662be31.0501311544.670131df@posting.google.com...
Quote:
After a four months period, bielek-debunked.com finally is online
again. Read all the background information about one of the biggest
hoaxes of the last two decades and why self-proclaimed "eye-witness"
Alfred Bielek actually never participated in the Philadelphia
Experiment. Finally, learn about why the Montauk Experiment as claimed
by Alfred Bielek and his amigos Preston Nichols, Duncan Cameron and
publisher Peter Moon aka Vince Barbarick happened only in their
imagination.
Indeed, the Philadelphia Experiment most likely happened, maybe also
the Montauk Project, but none of the above mentioned fellows
participated or know any reliable facts about it.

See the full story at http://www.bielek-debunked.com

Golf Sierra
Back to top
forever
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 9

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Announcement - Bielek-debunked.com online again Reply with quote

My apologies gschelm, I made my comment about the website before realizing
there were more links to other pages at the bottom of each page. I haven't
read them yet so -- no comment.

-- Gary
==============================================
A Billionaire's New Home-based Business Launching Now
http://www.betteruniverse.com/gh0087745


"forever" <ghawk_alreadyonyourspamlist@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:cu1l8j$crb$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
Quote:
That's unfortunate. While I think your conclusion may be partially
correct, the website reads to a large extent as though based on opinion
and conjecture rather than obvious facts as I had hoped, although
interesting. I had a chance to speak with Al personally, casually over the
course of several hours. If I were to engage in the same sort of thing as
on the webpage, my own conjecture would be ... if I had to take a wild
guess (and you would agree with some of this) ...

He was involved -- yes.
Part of what he says is true -- yes.
All of what he says is true -- no.
He "elaborates" on his own -- yes and no.
His intentions are good -- yes.
Others coach him what to say -- yes. (I should say the better word is
"programmed"--past tense-- rather than "coach"--present tense)
He is paid to do it, by those "others" -- yes, but not very well.
Instead, he is largely driven by deeply ingrained beliefs, loyalties,
fears of not towing the line (the mission provided to him), and promises
to him that they have never fully kept. It is as if he serves (in a
military sense) a group of geniuses, that may no longer exist, but with
whom he was so impressed that his mind locked unalterably into total
loyalty to them and their goals, whether they are there now or not. It is
difficult to get a sense of whether he has an existing collaborator on the
story, merely someone offering support when needed, none, or both.
Motive -- to obfuscate the real story.

So, I asked Al questions about the experiment. I don't remember exactly
what my questions were, now, it was years ago, but I do remember the
impressions I had at the time. He didn't connect very well with you while
conversing. It was as if he knew you were there but he didn't want to
acknowledge people's individual presence. My speculation on that was that
he knows if he were to read you more it would in turn make him more
readable. There's a wall there. So it always seems like he's on a talk
show, and in fact as if he is using you to practice for them. Instead, I
would have expected, if the story were completely true, all channels open.
Here's one single person asking a specific question, in person, a chance
to really deliver a sense of that time and the reality of it all, hold
nothing back, look that person in the eye, use facial expression and all
of the other subtleties of human interaction to convince one of the truth
of that strange message. Didn't happen. Very guarded.

That, in itself, doesn't prove anything. So my mind has to draw some sort
of conclusion on its own. To do that, it reverts back to a common "what
if". What if I were running the show behind the scenes. The experiment
happened, produces extraordinary results, and we can't let that
information out. I would pay, coerce, brainwash, or whatever it takes to
obtain a representative to tell some degree of truth along with
some--shall we say--coloring, with a couple of important details ...
neglected. And I think the result would look quite a bit like a Bielek,
and also a Nichols, etc. I met Nichols too. Bielek is a certainly a
gentleman, but Nichols is just--er, uh--rude. I think it is the same
defense mechanism, same game, the former a neat brick wall, the latter
broken concrete, barbed wire, and rabid angry dogs.

-- Gary
==============================================
A Billionaire's New Home-based Business Launching Now
http://www.betteruniverse.com/gh0087745


"gschelm" <gschelm@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3662be31.0501311544.670131df@posting.google.com...
After a four months period, bielek-debunked.com finally is online
again. Read all the background information about one of the biggest
hoaxes of the last two decades and why self-proclaimed "eye-witness"
Alfred Bielek actually never participated in the Philadelphia
Experiment. Finally, learn about why the Montauk Experiment as claimed
by Alfred Bielek and his amigos Preston Nichols, Duncan Cameron and
publisher Peter Moon aka Vince Barbarick happened only in their
imagination.
Indeed, the Philadelphia Experiment most likely happened, maybe also
the Montauk Project, but none of the above mentioned fellows
participated or know any reliable facts about it.

See the full story at http://www.bielek-debunked.com

Golf Sierra

Back to top
nightbat
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 131

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: More Findings in The Torah Matrix Code Reply with quote

nightbat wrote

"S. Enterprize Company" wrote:
Quote:

Smart Jan 26, 9:50 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.math
From: "Smart" <Smart1...@aol.com> - Find messages by this author
Date: 26 Jan 2005 21:50:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Torah Matrix Code Prediction by Smart1234
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse

[Smart1234]
A letter I sent to the Pope.


snip

But what is this sin? I am sorry God.
Quote:
You are this sin.

nightbat

I see you have bought into your referenced link of contradictory
Biblical adulterated writtings. Stop fantasizing Officer Smart that you
are a so called imagined religious savior or true enlightener of the
world, you're not. A bright fellow, yes, but don't get fooled by the
altered religious hype. And I see by your opinion that apparently your
parents never disciplined you for any disobediance nor are you of the
opinion that they should have. Water and electricity don't mix, should
we not penalize manufacturers of appliances for not warning consumers
and letting the clueless consumers get fried. All children that are
loved and have a protective guardian are warned against disobeying for a
reason, to hopefully keep them out of arms way. The referenced Biblical
story of original sin was the turning away from guardian protective
instructions and the pair listening to false logic and going it alone to
reap the repricusions of said disobedience. The reported Biblical
referenced dark one likes company in the purported misery of his own
disobedience, what's new? Theoretically, an all positive powerful
creator designer can only do good and knows all the Universe rules
because He/She supposedly made them. But responsibility of playing in
that field naturally rests on Him/Her to instinctively warn his/her top
highest made, per referenced Biblical story, flesh living creations that
electricity and water don't mix. If you buy into creation dialog at
least try to keep the story straight before pontificating about already
religious council possibly examined and rejected one.

Stick with attempting net posted Officer Smart scientific predictions
not making yourself out as a religious prophet, or hopefully just get
the Xtian Biblical story straight in a more suited proper religious net
group.

ponder on,
the nightbat
Back to top
G=EMC^2 Glazier
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 527

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Gravity is nothing more than Reply with quote

Hi ring The sun has a strong magnetic field,and that goes to infinity.
The weak tiny magnet that you have on your refrigerator door its
magnetic field goes to infinity, Bert
Back to top
george Hammond1
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:1107d3mpv7o3icb@corp.supernews.com...

<snip.

Cite your CV or get off this thread, hecklebot.
Back to top
gschelm
science forum beginner


Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Announcement - Bielek-debunked.com online again Reply with quote

No need to apology, at least you are reading the web sites information
to make up your mind. I'd like to point out 3 major points that for
sure prove that Bielek isn't telling the truth:

1. The photo of one "A. Cameron" who turned out to be a yarn salesman,
but not Al Bielek as "Edward Cameron" as he caliamed repeatedly.
2. The photo "Final Briefing of the Test Crew" which shows a room
definitely not onboard of a Cannon Class DE, and which shows neon
lights at the ceiling, which were introduced to military ships as late
as the early 1960ties.
3. The Austrian scientist Kurtenauer, who is a fictitious character
lend from the book "Thin Air". Bielek claimed that Kurtennauer was
part of the team developing the PX and that Kurtenauer had studied in
Duesseldorf / Germany in the 1930ties, but there was only a medical
school in Duessledorf until 1965.

Beside this, none of the claims that Bielek made about himslef as
Edward cameron or his (fictitious) brother could be proven, no 90-day
boot camp on Rhode Island, no entry in the muster roll of the USS
Pennsylvania, not listed among the graduates of Harvard, Princeton or
Edinburgh (his brother), no military records of him, his brother or
even his father. BTW: Whe located and contacted the real grandchilds
of Bielek's "father" and they were outraged to hear about Bielek's
claims !
The rest is on the internet site, together with names and email
addresses of various institutions which were contacted by us, so you
can verify our claims - contrary to Bielek who could not provide only
a single source to prove HIS claims up to today.


"forever" <ghawk_alreadyonyourspamlist@eskimo.com> wrote in message news:<cu1n7n$d72$1@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
Quote:
My apologies gschelm, I made my comment about the website before realizing
there were more links to other pages at the bottom of each page. I haven't
read them yet so -- no comment.

-- Gary
==============================================
A Billionaire's New Home-based Business Launching Now
http://www.betteruniverse.com/gh0087745


"forever" <ghawk_alreadyonyourspamlist@eskimo.com> wrote in message
news:cu1l8j$crb$1@eskinews.eskimo.com...
That's unfortunate. While I think your conclusion may be partially
correct, the website reads to a large extent as though based on opinion
and conjecture rather than obvious facts as I had hoped, although
interesting. I had a chance to speak with Al personally, casually over the
course of several hours. If I were to engage in the same sort of thing as
on the webpage, my own conjecture would be ... if I had to take a wild
guess (and you would agree with some of this) ...

He was involved -- yes.
Part of what he says is true -- yes.
All of what he says is true -- no.
He "elaborates" on his own -- yes and no.
His intentions are good -- yes.
Others coach him what to say -- yes. (I should say the better word is
"programmed"--past tense-- rather than "coach"--present tense)
He is paid to do it, by those "others" -- yes, but not very well.
Instead, he is largely driven by deeply ingrained beliefs, loyalties,
fears of not towing the line (the mission provided to him), and promises
to him that they have never fully kept. It is as if he serves (in a
military sense) a group of geniuses, that may no longer exist, but with
whom he was so impressed that his mind locked unalterably into total
loyalty to them and their goals, whether they are there now or not. It is
difficult to get a sense of whether he has an existing collaborator on the
story, merely someone offering support when needed, none, or both.
Motive -- to obfuscate the real story.

So, I asked Al questions about the experiment. I don't remember exactly
what my questions were, now, it was years ago, but I do remember the
impressions I had at the time. He didn't connect very well with you while
conversing. It was as if he knew you were there but he didn't want to
acknowledge people's individual presence. My speculation on that was that
he knows if he were to read you more it would in turn make him more
readable. There's a wall there. So it always seems like he's on a talk
show, and in fact as if he is using you to practice for them. Instead, I
would have expected, if the story were completely true, all channels open.
Here's one single person asking a specific question, in person, a chance
to really deliver a sense of that time and the reality of it all, hold
nothing back, look that person in the eye, use facial expression and all
of the other subtleties of human interaction to convince one of the truth
of that strange message. Didn't happen. Very guarded.

That, in itself, doesn't prove anything. So my mind has to draw some sort
of conclusion on its own. To do that, it reverts back to a common "what
if". What if I were running the show behind the scenes. The experiment
happened, produces extraordinary results, and we can't let that
information out. I would pay, coerce, brainwash, or whatever it takes to
obtain a representative to tell some degree of truth along with
some--shall we say--coloring, with a couple of important details ...
neglected. And I think the result would look quite a bit like a Bielek,
and also a Nichols, etc. I met Nichols too. Bielek is a certainly a
gentleman, but Nichols is just--er, uh--rude. I think it is the same
defense mechanism, same game, the former a neat brick wall, the latter
broken concrete, barbed wire, and rabid angry dogs.

-- Gary
==============================================
A Billionaire's New Home-based Business Launching Now
http://www.betteruniverse.com/gh0087745


"gschelm" <gschelm@libero.it> wrote in message
news:3662be31.0501311544.670131df@posting.google.com...
After a four months period, bielek-debunked.com finally is online
again. Read all the background information about one of the biggest
hoaxes of the last two decades and why self-proclaimed "eye-witness"
Alfred Bielek actually never participated in the Philadelphia
Experiment. Finally, learn about why the Montauk Experiment as claimed
by Alfred Bielek and his amigos Preston Nichols, Duncan Cameron and
publisher Peter Moon aka Vince Barbarick happened only in their
imagination.
Indeed, the Philadelphia Experiment most likely happened, maybe also
the Montauk Project, but none of the above mentioned fellows
participated or know any reliable facts about it.

See the full story at http://www.bielek-debunked.com

Golf Sierra

Back to top
Guest






PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Gravity is nothing more than Reply with quote

Here you would be better off noting that gravity is really atomic
attraction on various scales. All atoms fall to the earth at the same
rate of acceleration. Mass is conserved as a result.
Back to top
ring_theory
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 164

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Gravity is nothing more than Reply with quote

Hello bert,
I would be an idiot if i didn't have the ability to better understand what i
don't understand. Here's the delema, I undertand that light waves are
infinate and travel the vast distances that it does. I have come across the
conclusion in the past that magnetic fields are infinate as well. your not
the first to tell me that.

However i want to better understand what brings you to the conclusion that
magnetic fields are infinate.

I have a color tv that i have totally messed up due to placing magnets too
close to in the name of experimentation. Just having a rare earth magnet in
the room doesn't effect the color of it. moving the magnet 3 feet away
doesn't effect the color however when i reach the outer edge of the magnet's
field the color starts to distort and change. if the fields was infinate
than the color would be constantly distorting and changing as i moved the
magnet around the room.

this is not the only observation that brought me to this conclusion I look
at other galaxies in images from hubble etc. the galaxies appear to have a
field of asteroids that seem to outline the outer edge of the fields created
by that galaxies sun. I would think that if the suns field was infinate we
could jump from galaxie to galaxie on this asteroid field.

Two bar magnets laid on a surface 3 feet apart with attracting fields
faceing eachother would attract eachother if the fields was infinate.
however the friction of the surface between them does create a problem.
however the magnetic fields will overcome this friction once the magnets
fields get close enough to interact and attract eachother.

Observation of localized magnetic fields of the planets if the fields was
infinate the planets would attract eachother when they reach their nearest
orbital paths
However this doesn't happen.

If there is an error in my thinking please let me know as i need to
understand where i'm wrong in my observations.

Ring
Back to top
G=EMC^2 Glazier
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2005
Posts: 527

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: Fifty-Fifty Probability,and Uncertainty Reply with quote

Bart You are most probably crazy. Humankind is crazy,and i don't think
you would like to be the only sane person walking the Earth Bert
Back to top
ZenIsWhen
science forum Guru


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 413

PostPosted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:56 pm    Post subject: Re: GOD=G_uv PROVES CATHOLICISM Reply with quote

"George Hammond" <nospam1@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:aC3Nd.840$mG6.736@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Quote:

"ZenIsWhen" <here'slooking@youkid.com> wrote in message
news:1107d3mpv7o3icb@corp.supernews.com...

snip.

Cite your CV or get off this thread, hecklebot.

You don't run this group, asswipe!!!
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 232 [3478 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ..., 230, 231, 232 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Dec 13, 2017 5:15 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » New Theories
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Lawyer: come georgie, pay me pay me Geo Incog New Theories 0 Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:13 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0409s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0086s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]