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 » Relativity
Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [11 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:22 pm    Post subject: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

The headline on the Space.com news release reads, Scientists Question
Nature's Fundamental Laws.

The article begins: "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may be
at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value of
certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the invisible
glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past.

"'There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,' says
astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. 'These are famous
numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they
are.'"

"Absolutely no reason these constants should be constant." "We have no
real reason for why they are what they are." Sure there is a reason. Its
called "infinity." Sure there are reasons. They are called "infinities."

In fractal chaos, or in infinity illustrations, there are spheres
illustrated within spheres, within spheres, within spheres, disappearing
down and in out of view....to infinity. Spheres within spheres, within
spheres.....disappearing up and out of view....to infinity. What then is the
constant? "Sphere" is the constant. The reduction to the stereotypical
constant, "sphere," [is] the constant. And it isn't finite as to its
existence...or as to its immortally continuing existence. The infinity makes
it absolute in nature (makes it "constant" in nature).

Down and in, the farther and farther away from an observer sphere gets,
the more and ever more point-like "sphere" gets until just before
disappearing into indistinguishability from zero (nothing there), the
absolute quality of absolute "point" rather than "sphere" is reached, that
is, or means, "absolute" with regard to its relativity to the observer. The
observer cannot possibly identify the "point" as being a "sphere." He
identifies it absolutely as a "point" because it is the point that is then
relative to him as the absolute, not the sphere.

The article goes on to quote some scientists speculating from data being
received nearer the farthest horizon of the universe that the speed of light
must have been "faster" (than it is now) back in the days of the so-called
beginning to the Universe, just as before they have speculated that "time"
itself must have passed much faster back in those days than it does now.
[Those] scientists are going ever more bizarrely berserk to sustain their
finite "beginning" to their finite Universe (Their politically correct
Religion; their version of Creationism). Thinking, and holding more than
thing in mind at a time as well, just has to be too much for today's
cosmologist ever shrinking in mind.

The horizon beyond their so far limit of observation has to be the speed
of light, or rather be at the speed of light. They are squaring the speed of
light, powering the speed of light (as in c^2, c^3, and so on) toward the
Big Bang Horizon. They are squaring time, powering time, toward the Big Bang
Horizon.

If you stand and draw a circle around where you stand, then walk one meter
out and draw another circle around that circle no more or less than one
meter from the line of the circle, and just keep on doing this until your
original circle has disappeared from view in the distant horizon, then walk
back to stand within your original circle, relative to you where you stand
are the most distant outer circles you've drawn exactly one meter out from
each distant inner circle? Do they look to be one meter apart? Or do they,
the rings, look to be crowding each other ever closer to each other, ever
shrinking in distance from each other, ever narrowing in "distance-time"
from each other, finally to literally disappear into just one final line of
circle well short of the last outermost lines of the circles you drew, the
farther out you look? The precisely spaced (timed) lines you drew and
laboriously measured to be so precise, would not look to be precise at all
from you stand.

They would look to be accelerating in metric expansion between rings
[toward] where you stand inside your innermost ring. From a metric
micro-micro-millimeter in distance-time apart somewhere nearer the outer
most rings you drew toward a metric micro-millimeter apart....continuing in
accelerating expansion toward a millimeter apart, toward a centimeter apart,
on and on and on toward finally the meter apart with regard to the very last
space-time of ring before the innermost ring within which you stand looking
out. "Relativity" is not "reality." It is wholly single frame of view (point
of view) orientated, the single frame of an observer, not multi-frame in any
way. Why is it that Ph. D'd physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, cannot
get that through their thick skulls to their pea brains?

That most distant of all horizons relative to us is constant ("c"). The
horizon of the infinite Universe ("c"). The horizon of the Big Bang infinity
("c"). The Planck horizon ("c"). The speed of light horizon ("c"). It is
there in the distance separated from us. Horizon separated from us. Yet
simultaneously we are in it. We are in the horizon....that particular
horizon. "One" with it (the meaning of "Uni-" in Universe). Being always in
its total coverage and yet always separate from it, it will be universally,
immortally, "constant" as constant can get to us. As absolute as absolute
can get. Astronomers are looking from the innermost viewpoint out into a
permanent "accelerator" toward the distant horizon of the speed of light and
can't seem to ever quite grasp that that is what it is.

GLB
Back to top
surrealistic-dream@hotmai
science forum Guru


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 409

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

G. L. Bradford wrote:

Quote:
"Relativity" is not "reality."

Relativity is a theory that works very well. Physical theories that
work well --- all of them, not just relativity --- are about "reality"
depending on how one defines "reality." One thing is sure though:
physics is not supposed to be metaphysics.
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:05 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

<surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152894091.897418.80750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| G. L. Bradford wrote:
|
| > "Relativity" is not "reality."
|
| Relativity is a theory that works very well.

Bullshit, it doesn't "work" at all, you disgusting liar.
Relativity is a stupid math game, complete inconsistent
and totally unconnected with Natural events.

Bradford is right, now take ME on, you ugly fucker.
You don't have the balls, you coward. All you can do is run your
mouth for the lying troll that you are.

Androcles.
Back to top
Dirk Van de moortel
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 May 2005
Posts: 3019

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message news:u9Qtg.315737$8W1.89463@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Quote:

surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152894091.897418.80750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| G. L. Bradford wrote:
|
| > "Relativity" is not "reality."
|
| Relativity is a theory that works very well.

Bullshit, it doesn't "work" at all, you disgusting liar.
Relativity is a stupid math game, complete inconsistent
and totally unconnected with Natural events.

Bradford is right, now take ME on, you ugly fucker.
You don't have the balls, you coward. All you can do is run your
mouth for the lying troll that you are.

Charming, as always.

Dirk Vdm
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

In article <uvQtg.536924$ci6.12886149@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, Dirk Van
de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
"Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote in message
news:u9Qtg.315737$8W1.89463@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...

surrealistic-dream@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152894091.897418.80750@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
|
| G. L. Bradford wrote:
|
| > "Relativity" is not "reality."
|
| Relativity is a theory that works very well.

Bullshit, it doesn't "work" at all, you disgusting liar.
Relativity is a stupid math game, complete inconsistent
and totally unconnected with Natural events.

Bradford is right, now take ME on, you ugly fucker.
You don't have the balls, you coward. All you can do is run your
mouth for the lying troll that you are.

Charming, as always.

Dirk Vdm



With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked
"ignorant idiot"

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
PD
science forum Guru


Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 4363

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked
"ignorant idiot"


Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age:
"If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging."
Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is
out of sight.

PD
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1152906841.114411.305760@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
| > With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked
| > "ignorant idiot"
| >
|
| Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age:
| "If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging."
| Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is
| out of sight.
|
| PD


Fuddlefuck is a duck like you, but his feathers are all stubby and brown.

This is beyond both of you:
http://tinyurl.com/rv9z4

so have this instead.


There once was an ugly duckling
With feathers all stubby and brown
And the other birds said in so many words
Get out of town
Get out, get out, get out of town
And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack
In a flurry of eiderdown
http://www.angelfire.com/film/dannykaye/UglyDuckling.htm


Androcles
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:30 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

In article <1152906841.114411.305760@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, PD
<TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked
"ignorant idiot"


Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age:
"If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging."
Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is
out of sight.

PD



He's either searching for oil, or trying to disprove the Hoolow Earth
theory ;-)

--
Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Back to top
Bill Habr
science forum beginner


Joined: 14 Jul 2006
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

1) Murphy's Keck Observatory results have not been repeated.

2) Even if they are repeatable it would not necessarily disprove general
relativity (it might mean that the theory is incomplete).

"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:bsSdnUvzX9oDByrZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Quote:
The headline on the Space.com news release reads, Scientists Question
Nature's Fundamental Laws.

The article begins: "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may
be
at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value of
certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the
invisible
glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the past.

"'There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,'
says
astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. 'These are
famous
numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they
are.'"

"Absolutely no reason these constants should be constant." "We have no
real reason for why they are what they are." Sure there is a reason. Its
called "infinity." Sure there are reasons. They are called "infinities."

In fractal chaos, or in infinity illustrations, there are spheres
illustrated within spheres, within spheres, within spheres, disappearing
down and in out of view....to infinity. Spheres within spheres, within
spheres.....disappearing up and out of view....to infinity. What then is
the
constant? "Sphere" is the constant. The reduction to the stereotypical
constant, "sphere," [is] the constant. And it isn't finite as to its
existence...or as to its immortally continuing existence. The infinity
makes
it absolute in nature (makes it "constant" in nature).

Down and in, the farther and farther away from an observer sphere gets,
the more and ever more point-like "sphere" gets until just before
disappearing into indistinguishability from zero (nothing there), the
absolute quality of absolute "point" rather than "sphere" is reached, that
is, or means, "absolute" with regard to its relativity to the observer.
The
observer cannot possibly identify the "point" as being a "sphere." He
identifies it absolutely as a "point" because it is the point that is then
relative to him as the absolute, not the sphere.

The article goes on to quote some scientists speculating from data being
received nearer the farthest horizon of the universe that the speed of
light
must have been "faster" (than it is now) back in the days of the so-called
beginning to the Universe, just as before they have speculated that "time"
itself must have passed much faster back in those days than it does now.
[Those] scientists are going ever more bizarrely berserk to sustain their
finite "beginning" to their finite Universe (Their politically correct
Religion; their version of Creationism). Thinking, and holding more than
thing in mind at a time as well, just has to be too much for today's
cosmologist ever shrinking in mind.

The horizon beyond their so far limit of observation has to be the speed
of light, or rather be at the speed of light. They are squaring the speed
of
light, powering the speed of light (as in c^2, c^3, and so on) toward the
Big Bang Horizon. They are squaring time, powering time, toward the Big
Bang
Horizon.

If you stand and draw a circle around where you stand, then walk one
meter
out and draw another circle around that circle no more or less than one
meter from the line of the circle, and just keep on doing this until your
original circle has disappeared from view in the distant horizon, then
walk
back to stand within your original circle, relative to you where you stand
are the most distant outer circles you've drawn exactly one meter out from
each distant inner circle? Do they look to be one meter apart? Or do they,
the rings, look to be crowding each other ever closer to each other, ever
shrinking in distance from each other, ever narrowing in "distance-time"
from each other, finally to literally disappear into just one final line
of
circle well short of the last outermost lines of the circles you drew, the
farther out you look? The precisely spaced (timed) lines you drew and
laboriously measured to be so precise, would not look to be precise at all
from you stand.

They would look to be accelerating in metric expansion between rings
[toward] where you stand inside your innermost ring. From a metric
micro-micro-millimeter in distance-time apart somewhere nearer the outer
most rings you drew toward a metric micro-millimeter apart....continuing
in
accelerating expansion toward a millimeter apart, toward a centimeter
apart,
on and on and on toward finally the meter apart with regard to the very
last
space-time of ring before the innermost ring within which you stand
looking
out. "Relativity" is not "reality." It is wholly single frame of view
(point
of view) orientated, the single frame of an observer, not multi-frame in
any
way. Why is it that Ph. D'd physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, cannot
get that through their thick skulls to their pea brains?

That most distant of all horizons relative to us is constant ("c"). The
horizon of the infinite Universe ("c"). The horizon of the Big Bang
infinity
("c"). The Planck horizon ("c"). The speed of light horizon ("c"). It is
there in the distance separated from us. Horizon separated from us. Yet
simultaneously we are in it. We are in the horizon....that particular
horizon. "One" with it (the meaning of "Uni-" in Universe). Being always
in
its total coverage and yet always separate from it, it will be
universally,
immortally, "constant" as constant can get to us. As absolute as absolute
can get. Astronomers are looking from the innermost viewpoint out into a
permanent "accelerator" toward the distant horizon of the speed of light
and
can't seem to ever quite grasp that that is what it is.

GLB

Back to top
glbrad01
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Posts: 105

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 11:31 am    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

"G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:bsSdnUvzX9oDByrZnZ2dnUVZ_qWdnZ2d@insightbb.com...
Quote:
The headline on the Space.com news release reads, Scientists Question
Nature's Fundamental Laws.

The article begins: "Public confidence in the 'constants' of nature may
be at an all time low. Recent research has found evidence that the value
of certain fundamental parameters, such as the speed of light or the
invisible glue that holds nuclei together, may have been different in the
past.

"'There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,' says
astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. 'These are
famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are
what they are.'"

"Absolutely no reason these constants should be constant." "We have no
real reason for why they are what they are." Sure there is a reason. Its
called "infinity." Sure there are reasons. They are called "infinities."

In fractal chaos, or in infinity illustrations, there are spheres
illustrated within spheres, within spheres, within spheres, disappearing
down and in out of view....to infinity. Spheres within spheres, within
spheres.....disappearing up and out of view....to infinity. What then is
the constant? "Sphere" is the constant. The reduction to the stereotypical
constant, "sphere," [is] the constant. And it isn't finite as to its
existence...or as to its immortally continuing existence. The infinity
makes it absolute in nature (makes it "constant" in nature).

Down and in, the farther and farther away from an observer sphere gets,
the more and ever more point-like "sphere" gets until just before
disappearing into indistinguishability from zero (nothing there), the
absolute quality of absolute "point" rather than "sphere" is reached, that
is, or means, "absolute" with regard to its relativity to the observer.
The observer cannot possibly identify the "point" as being a "sphere." He
identifies it absolutely as a "point" because it is the point that is then
relative to him as the absolute, not the sphere.

The article goes on to quote some scientists speculating from data being
received nearer the farthest horizon of the universe that the speed of
light must have been "faster" (than it is now) back in the days of the
so-called beginning to the Universe, just as before they have speculated
that "time" itself must have passed much faster back in those days than it
does now. [Those] scientists are going ever more bizarrely berserk to
sustain their finite "beginning" to their finite Universe (Their
politically correct Religion; their version of Creationism). Thinking, and
holding more than thing in mind at a time as well, just has to be too much
for today's cosmologist ever shrinking in mind.

The horizon beyond their so far limit of observation has to be the speed
of light, or rather be at the speed of light. They are squaring the speed
of light, powering the speed of light (as in c^2, c^3, and so on) toward
the Big Bang Horizon. They are squaring time, powering time, toward the
Big Bang Horizon.

If you stand and draw a circle around where you stand, then walk one
meter out and draw another circle around that circle no more or less than
one meter from the line of the circle, and just keep on doing this until
your original circle has disappeared from view in the distant horizon,
then walk back to stand within your original circle, relative to you where
you stand are the most distant outer circles you've drawn exactly one
meter out from each distant inner circle? Do they look to be one meter
apart? Or do they, the rings, look to be crowding each other ever closer
to each other, ever shrinking in distance from each other, ever narrowing
in "distance-time" from each other, finally to literally disappear into
just one final line of circle well short of the last outermost lines of
the circles you drew, the farther out you look? The precisely spaced
(timed) lines you drew and laboriously measured to be so precise, would
not look to be precise at all from you stand.

They would look to be accelerating in metric expansion between rings
[toward] where you stand inside your innermost ring. From a metric
micro-micro-millimeter in distance-time apart somewhere nearer the outer
most rings you drew toward a metric micro-millimeter apart....continuing
in accelerating expansion toward a millimeter apart, toward a centimeter
apart, on and on and on toward finally the meter apart with regard to the
very last space-time of ring before the innermost ring within which you
stand looking out. "Relativity" is not "reality." It is wholly single
frame of view (point of view) orientated, the single frame of an observer,
not multi-frame in any way. Why is it that Ph. D'd physicists,
cosmologists, astronomers, cannot get that through their thick skulls to
their pea brains?

That most distant of all horizons relative to us is constant ("c"). The
horizon of the infinite Universe ("c"). The horizon of the Big Bang
infinity ("c"). The Planck horizon ("c"). The speed of light horizon
("c"). It is there in the distance separated from us. Horizon separated
from us. Yet simultaneously we are in it. We are in the horizon....that
particular horizon. "One" with it (the meaning of "Uni-" in Universe).
Being always in its total coverage and yet always separate from it, it
will be universally, immortally, "constant" as constant can get to us. As
absolute as absolute can get. Astronomers are looking from the innermost
viewpoint out into a permanent "accelerator" toward the distant horizon of
the speed of light and can't seem to ever quite grasp that that is what it
is.

GLB

"'Relativity' is not 'reality'." Did I write that?! It would not exist if
had no reality to it. There would be no word for it. No concept of it. Argh,
how embarrassing.

GLB
Back to top
tendon
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 18

PostPosted: Sat Jul 15, 2006 4:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Scientists Question Nature's Fundamental Laws Reply with quote

PD wrote:
Quote:
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
With every post, Sorceror digs himself deeper into that hole marked
"ignorant idiot"


Most people are taught by their mamas at an early age:
"If you find yourself standing in a hole, stop digging."
Androcles has perfected the strategy of continuing to dig until he is
out of sight.

stop crying, you have nice legs too

Quote:

PD
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 1 [11 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:31 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Relativity
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Question about Life. socratus Probability 0 Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:01 pm
No new posts Probability Question dumont Probability 0 Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:38 pm
No new posts Question about exponention WingDragon@gmail.com Math 2 Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:13 am
No new posts question on solartron 1260 carrie_yao@hotmail.com Electrochem 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:11 am
No new posts A Combinatorics/Graph Theory Question mathlover Undergraduate 1 Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:30 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: 0.7029s ][ Queries: 16 (0.6460s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]