Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 205 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 ... 19 20 >
Topic Options
#21827 - 05/27/07 08:12 PM The universes expansion accelleration solved.
Marchimedes Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/22/07
Posts: 204
I usually go by the screen name teacher.





_________________________
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?

Top
.
#21828 - 05/28/07 01:25 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Thanks for another entertaining post. Just a few points:-

The current estimate for the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.

The Big Bang started without any matter - it was too hot, so there was only energy. The matter could form only after expansion had begun.

"Now they say we might just barely be able to see the edge of our universe"

- The universe has no edge, but the observable universe does. That's not a limitation of observation technology. We can observe only that part of the universe from which light has had time to travel, i.e., within a distance of about 13.7 billion lt.yrs.

"I say our visible universe is just one spot on our ball"

- Yes, so do the experts. It's estimated that the actual size of the universe is at least 156 billion lightyears.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

"The outside edge of our universe would have to be travelling faster than the inside edge."

- The Big Bang started from an infinitely small point, in an infinitely dense state. So, the Big Bang happened everywhere. So, there is no centre, i.e., no one place where the Big Bang happened - it happened everywhere; and there is no edge. On large scales, matter is mutually receding a rate proportional to the separation distance.

"All the mass gets hurled out at the same velocity"

- No, it doesn't. The Big Bang was not like a conventional explosion. Matter was not ejected 'through' space. Space itself expanded. This expansion caused wavelengths to stretch and temperature to fall. This allowed matter to form. Since space was expanding, matter was separated by ever increasing distance, except where that was prevented by gravity, the electroweak force and the strong force. There is no single point in the universe from which all else is receding. The whole universe was that 'point'; so, the velocity of any object can be measured not in relation to a point of origin 'within' the universe, but only relative to another object, and these velocities, on the large scale, increase with distance.

"All moving away from the centre at pretty much the same speed. Leaving the middle empty, and the empty center growing larger as the material expands"

- The material doesn't expand, only the space.

- Studies of the large scale (observable) universe show that the distribution of matter is regular, i.e., the universe is homogenous and isotropic, throughout. There is no 'middle' and, on the large scale, there is no empty region:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~colbert/lecturecosmoI.htm

"So, the egg heads came up with something called dark matter"

- They didn't just "come up with it". The evidence for it is very strong, since it's effects are observable in the rotation of galaxies and in gravitational lensing.

"They theorised this dark matter is "pushing" matter away."

- No, they didn't do that. I think you're confusing "dark matter" with "dark energy"

From: http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/dark-energy.html

"In an article titled "The Cosmic Triangle: Revealing the State of the Universe," which appears in the May 28, 1999 issue of the journal Science, a group of cosmologists and physicists from Princeton University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory survey the wide range of evidence which, they write, "is forcing us to consider the possibility that some cosmic dark energy exists that opposes the self-attraction of matter and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate." "

"In physics we have 4 known forces. weak and strong nuclear, electronegativity and gravity"

- You mean "electromagnetic". True, but these days we often find the term 'electroweak' applied as a unified description of electromagnetism and the weak interaction, because current theory models them as two different aspects of the same force.

"A pushing force is not really in the mix here"

- Not entirely true. Like magnetic poles repel each other, and like charges also repel. For example, protons repel each other (by electrostatic repulsion) and are held together only by the strong force (from mesons). Furthermore, it's accepted that the standard model of physics is an approximation of reality, so there's room for new discoveries.

"Quasars are the force that is pulling our universe apart"

- Quasars are not actually at the edge of the universe, nor is their gravitational force significant. Among all the 100,000,000,000 galaxies, only 100,000 quasars have yet been discovered. The consensus is that they are super-massive black holes within a halo of matter. Their distance (therefore, their age) is consistent with the theory that they are proto-galaxies, as is the fact that they exhibit many of the same properties as active galaxies (those containing just such a super-massive black hole). The theory is:- primordial gas cloud >> black hole >> quasar >> active galaxy.

Marchimedes, thanks for making me think about these things. I've had to check a few facts, and I'm sure I learned something in the process! smile
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#21829 - 05/28/07 03:12 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: Marchimedes]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
This should probably be on the physics forum (or NQSci.), but....

I'll begin at the end.
[Hey, cool! Now I see how your post works (...that I can't cut n' paste from it)].

So you end with acceleration due to getting our mass closer to the quasers?
I think observations show their getting farther away.
But that could still be due to expansion from the original explosion, I guess.

There's a couple of points early on in your idea that are open to discussion, i.e. "the center," and "explosion;" but I'll respond more generally based on your statement, 'It makes no sense logically or common sense-wise; so I'm gonna stick with what's known'.

Hey, even relativity is counter-intuitive.

Overall I'd say it's fairly impossible to construct a viable model based on 3-dimensional, inside the box vs. outside the box, kind of thinking.

If you think of our familiar spacetime as being only one dimension, and then think of the "Forces" as being other dimensions, intercalating in a fractal manner with "our" dimension; then you'll get beyond problems like "the "center" of the universe being in every direction that you can look."

Hey! Google "fractals" for a beautiful little journey.
...or try "anti deSitter space"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/nut.html
for a look at higher dimensional spaces

...and there's books like,

The landscape of theoretical physics : a global view : from point particles to the brane world and beyond in search of a unifying principle/ by Matej Pavsic.

Physics meets philosophy at the Planck scale : contemporary theories in quantum gravity / edited by....

Parallel worlds : a journey through creation, higher dimensions, and the future of the cosmos / Michio Kaku.

Also I'd suggest you browse back through some of the different topics on the Physics Forum. There is some great stuff!

I'd also love to get your fresh perspective on some of the Climate Change Forum topics.
For instance:

That is why the oceans seem so important to me. If we're going to "invest" in something to soak up CO2, why not put it where the byproduct would be food. Maybe I'm too optimistic about the oceans ability to soak up CO2, but isn't it orders of magnitude greater than anything we could produce?
-Converting CO2 to fuel #20702

It sounds as if someone could make a lot of money sequestering CO2 in this way.
Well, I'm trying to say that this process (in general) might be better at saving the planet than just cutting CO2 emissions (though that's important too).
-Peat Bogs to solve Warming? #21338

Overall, my thought is that it'd be easier to soak up CO2 rather than cut emissions; and we'd be increasing our food supply and net diversity at the same time.
p.s. ...cutting emissions is also good, but...it'll be too slow; look at the numbers.
-Peat Bogs to solve Warming? #21470

It's a complex problem, and there are lots of "positions" with their advocates; but that makes it more fun!

Keep on keepin' on....

~Samwik
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#21973 - 06/08/07 04:49 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: samwik]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
-------------------------------------------------------
The Big Bang started without any matter
-------------------------------------------------------

how would you accomplish that feat?

are you saying there was nothing except energy?
and if so then could I ask what was the catalist for the energy expansion?

in my world energy cannot exist without matter.

after all if a particle is charged (-) or (+) it is still a particle correct?

how can a nothing hold a charge?






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#21980 - 06/08/07 09:20 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Hi Paul

[The Big Bang started without any matter]
"How do you accomplish that feat?"
I don't. I don't have the slightest clue how it can be.

"are you saying there was nothing except energy?"
Yes. Well, at least, that's what the Big Bang theorists are saying...

"in my world energy cannot exist without matter."

We have to remember that, since Einstein's E=mc^2 (and notably, since the atomic bomb) it's been known that matter and energy are two sides of the same coin. Note also:

"Physicists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California have succeeded in producing particles of matter from very energetic collisions of light. The team, which included researchers from Stanford University, the University of Rochester in New York, the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, and Princeton University in New Jersey, published an account of their work in the September 1, 1997, issue of the journal Physical Review Letters." Microsoft Encarta 2006. 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The initial conditions in the Big Bang, prior to 10^-43s (the Planck Epoch), are unknown, because the known laws of physics could not have applied. After that time (for an instant) there was only energy in the form of photons. As space expanded, temperature dropped and some of the photons became quarks. As temperature dropped more, quarks formed protons and neutrons (baryogenesis). Eventually, the lightest elements - hydrogen, helium, and lithium - formed.

The theory says that there were almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter, and all the matter in this unbelievably immense universe is just the minute fraction (one billionth) that wasn't involved in the mutual annihilation with antimatter.

http://livefromcern.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/academy/AM-travel02.html

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_history.html#qc
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#21993 - 06/09/07 04:31 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
"Physicists at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) in California have succeeded in producing particles of matter from very energetic collisions of light."

I havent read this yet but I speculate that the particles that were produced were already there in another form of matter.

you cannot create matter all that is here has always been here in some form or another.

I think I will wait on this one and see what the final report says in instance.

it may be that , and this is just my opinion or conjecture , that the light used borrowed matter from the device itself.

you cannot create energy or matter or anything.
you may only change its various forms.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#21995 - 06/09/07 04:53 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
"you cannot create matter all that is here has always been here in some form or another."
"you cannot create energy or matter or anything.
you may only change its various forms."

What you mean, of course, is that the sum of energy+matter remains constant.

In the 19th century matter and energy were thought of as two entirely different concepts. For almost a century, now, it's been known that such a distinction was erroneous, and by the end of 20th century, not only had matter been converted to energy, but energy had been converted to matter. It wouldn't surprise me to find that a great many kids leave school without knowing this, such is the sad state of science education in some parts of the world.

Here's one of many reports on the conversion of energy to matter:

http://www.skybooksusa.com/time-travel/physics/matter.htm
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#21997 - 06/09/07 07:24 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
no what I mean is what I said.

I know that it is extreamly hard to do but matter and energy is not constant.

energy can be drained from matter by reducing the temperature of matter until all of the electrons slow to almost the point of zero energy.
--------------------------------------
In a hot gas atoms are moving around with the increased kinetic energy inherent in their temperature.
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~bank/index.html
--------------------------------------

as temperature approaches zero kelvin energy approaches constant.

for the most part the energy that is inherent in matter is due to its environment or surroundings.

a piece of ice is moving , it has energy.

but not moving as fast as it would were it boiling water.

the reason ice forms is because the slowing of electrons.

the surrounding temperatures drop the electrons move inwards to the center they give off heat (energy).

the bonding of atoms also decrease as temperatures drop.
steel becomes brittle in extreme temperatures.


the matter has not changed.

the matters energy has.

when the steel comes close to a object that is warmer than itself it will become warmer and stronger.

unless it is too hot and the steels electrons go into a much higher orbit and the bond becomes weaker and weaker and this results in the steel melting.
























Edited by paul (06/09/07 07:25 PM)
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#21998 - 06/09/07 07:45 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
----------------------------------------------------------
the reason ice forms is because the slowing of electrons.
----------------------------------------------------------

the reason electrons go into a closer orbit is because they slow down after they release (heat) to the matter in their surroundings and they are not capable of sustaning the higher orbit
their angular acceleration or (kinetic energy) has decreased resulting in the inability to sustain the higher orbit in the same exact way that a satelight must sustain a certain velocity to orbit at higher or lower altitudes.



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#21999 - 06/09/07 08:29 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Paul, as we know all too well, nuclear fission produces energy. How does your explanation differ from the conventional explanation? Example:

Total mass before the reaction ( mass of U-235 + n)
= 235.0439u + 1.0087u
= 236.0526u
Total mass after the reaction ( mass of Nd + Kr + 2n)
= 147.9169u + 85.9106u + 2 x 1.0087u
= 235.8449u
There is a decrease in mass by 0.2077u. This mass has been converted to energy.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22005 - 06/10/07 04:38 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
redewenur , I would like to give you an example of what Im talking about in the form of a lab experiment.

in this example it will be shown that matter and energy are two seperate entities.

what you will need:

1) a small boiler with steam engine.
( availiable on the internet)
2) a canister filled with compressed air.
3) a tank filled with water
4) a fuel source ( for heating the water )
5) a small generator
6) a large container to hold the small power plant you will be building.

connect the generator to the steam engine.
drill a hole to allow wires to escape the large container

you may want to use a remote control to ignite the fuel in the boiler.

completely seal your small power plant up inside the large container so that nothing can escape or enter the container.

connect a light bulb of proper wattage to the wires comming out of the container from the generator.
--------------------------------
measure the weight of the container and everything in it
--------------------------------

remotely trigger the release of the compressed air and the fuel and ignite the boiler.

watch as the boiler builds pressure and the steam engine begins to turn the generator.

the light bulb lights up and it will run until it runs out of air or fuel.

--------------------------------
measure the weight of the container again
--------------------------------

although most of the fuel and air is gone.

it will all weigh the same , because the matter did not decrease.
it was converted into another form of matter not into energy.

but how then did the bulb light up , if the energy came from the matter?

as for the fission equations you replied with it is my personal opinion that the energy did not come from the matter , it was converted into another form , perhaps one that you dont know about yet , or cannot see.

but if you have lost matter then I sudgest that you try to find it or where its going , because we exist in a
matter / antimatter
environment and upsetting that balance might result in something we cant fix on this end.






















Edited by paul (06/10/07 05:18 AM)
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22006 - 06/10/07 05:23 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado
"the reason ice forms is because the slowing of electrons." -paul

Paul, you're confusing the kinetic energy of atoms (and molecules) with the "energy of electrons" (whatever that may be).

Cooling does not slow electrons. Hmmm, well maybe it does have some effect on "energy level" (shells)...but I'm no physicist.
[cooling does slow the translational, rotational, and vibrational movements of atoms (and molecules)]

Still, I think you're making a fundemental mistake in thinking kinetic energy refers to the electrons.

*_*

But thanks for my heartiest laugh of the day with your:
"you may want to use a remote control to ignite the fuel in the boiler."

What you're talking about is a calorimeter. Try googling that and see if you get some examples. Many tests have been done as you describe (roughly), and conservation laws don't seem to be broken.

I also enjoyed the mud-plugger; you should be an engineer. Getting all those functions into a tube-shaped rov would be quite a challenge.

Enjoy the journey....
~SA
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#22007 - 06/10/07 05:38 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Paul, with regard to your experiment, certainly, we can be confident that the 'before' and 'after' mass is identical. We know that, in normal terrestial conditions, processes that convert mass to energy don't occur naturally except in radioactive decay. If they did, none of us would be here to witness it. Such experiments as you describe are not news, and are totally irrelevant to mass/energy conversion in nuclear reactions, such as in a fission power station, or the fusion processes of a star.

Paul: "as for the fission equations you replied with it is my personal opinion that the energy did not come from the matter, it was converted into another form , perhaps one that you dont know about yet , or cannot see."

So, Paul, it's your opinion. Fine. But if you intend to refute established science, and want to avoid dogmatism, you need to come up with a better argument than a personal 'feeling' that it must be wrong.

I'm listening. Go ahead.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22010 - 06/10/07 03:26 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
(((( refute established science ))))

Thank you ... thats me!!!!!
Thats what I do...BEST.

you speak of my opinions as if they were against some type of
main stream dogma.

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE RIGHT ?

have you filmed the matterlesss energy?
do you have a sample of this theoretical belief of yours?
does established science have a example?

NO its ALL conjecture isnt it?

you may want to use our galaxies black hole for your example of a local occurance as the hole spews out energy.

but I hold that even though the center of the galaxy is extremely dense (((( everything )))) that has ever entered it is still there except its energy.

now since you cant show me a feasible example then WHAT you speak of is THEORY or CONJECTURE be it yours or thousands of others combined personal thoughts.

I have a brain that processes thoughts and you do to.
should I ever lease part of that brain out to CONJECTURE and tell my brain that this is the way things happen then I might start beleving that a 757 aircraft could actually fit through a double door size hole.

or that (1) of those engines (6 ton )
delivering a impact force of 9.3 million pounds
could not punch a hole in the pentagon.

I might even start to believe that some strange mystical occurance just made them vanish into thin air.

WOOOOOOSH.....POOF ... woops ...

maybe this would be a good example of how matter is converted into energy for you to use.

although almost none of the aircraft survived the conversion, every single passenger survived enought to be identified.

so perhaps people cannot be totally converted into energy the way that 757 was.








_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22011 - 06/10/07 03:49 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
- No, it doesn't. The Big Bang was not like a conventional explosion. Matter was not ejected 'through' space. -

see heres more evidence.

the ejecta from the explosion should have blowback.
there should have been massive amounts of blowback matter on the lawn.

where is it?

maybe its lost in the numbing.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22012 - 06/10/07 05:40 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Scientific Method: - Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?
Pseudoscientific Method: - Here's the conclusion. Now, what facts can we find to fit it?
Paul's Method: - Here's the conclusion. Never mind the facts.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22013 - 06/10/07 08:04 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
suppose I was in a room and in an adjacent room I heard a noise.

I get up and look in the adjacent room and there is a picture on the floor.

imediately I ASSUME that it just fell off of the wall.

because I didnt see it fall.

after close examination of the nail in the wall and the wire that is used to hang the picture on the nail I find that my initial ASSUMPTION was in error.

the nail was not bent in a way as to allow the wire to slip off and cause the picture to fall.

the wire was still attached.

so it must have fallen off some other way.

but I dont have a clue as to why it fell off.

I DID NOT SEE IT FALL.

everything I have ever known tells me that the picture could not have just fell off the wall.

but I see it on the floor.
----------------------------------------------

Scientific Method: says the picture is still there on the wall.

Pseudoscientific method : says the picture could have fallen off when all the matter was converted into energy.

I awoke from my dream and sure enough the picture is still on the wall.

you can do many things with science but you cannot create anything nor can you destroy anything.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22016 - 06/10/07 09:06 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
to allow you a way out of your BIG BANG theory.

suppossing that this universe will collapse in on istelf at some point in the future.

everything will move toward one point in this universe.
as the matter in the center gathers , heat will result due to the pressures of gravity.

the heat will try to expand the matter closer to the center.

however because the other matter that is gathering is pushing inwards it cannot expand.

the heat causes the inner matters energy to transfer to the outer matter.

( heat moves from hot to cold )

the inner matter shrinks with every release of energy however it weighs the same ( retains its mass ).

more matter piles in on the center and this keeps occuring.

when all the matter has gathered at the center then
soon the matter at the verry center begins to expell energy that can pass through the outer matter.

the ball continues to shrink.
and continues to expell energy.

after all the releasible energy has been released.
and the matter is in its smallest configuration.

then a moment of stillness occurs.

the mass cools.

the energy is swirling in a caotic manner around the mass.

the energy begins its return.

the outer layers of the mass accept the energy , the electrons move out to a higher and higher orbit and explode with great force as the energy is passed to the electrons , the mass expands and pushes itself away.

layer after layer is ripped from the mass and ejected away from the center of the mass.

the new universe forms.






















_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#22017 - 06/10/07 10:23 PM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: paul]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
I stand corrected. Mass cannot be converted to energy. Energy cannot be converted to mass. Now, do I get a reprieve, or am I still to be burned at the stake? BTW - does the sun go around the Earth, or vice versa? No! Don't answer that! grin
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#22018 - 06/11/07 01:51 AM Re: The universes expansion accelleration solved. [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4122
Paul's Method: - Here's the conclusion. Never mind the facts.

where did you show me a fact?

point to an instance of matter converting to energy or vice versa if you believe me to be wrong.

you say you stand corrected , I did not correct you I injected my personal thoughts about the (matter).

I only dissagree with your shared opinion.











_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 1 of 20 1 2 3 ... 19 20 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.