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 Now
0 members (), 352 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
#2360 07/13/05 05:23 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
J
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
In The light of nearly 99% of all matter and Energy being undetectable isn't it time to look at the origin of Gravity?

http://www.livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/

This was published 30 years ago and could explain the discrepancy.

.
#2361 07/13/05 06:24 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Why even after 30 years no one is talking about you?

#2362 07/13/05 06:32 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
J
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
No Idea, there is no actual evidence to disprove the theory and it is quite simple considerably more plausable than 99% of matter and energy being undetectable. We're at a crossroads and things will have to change.

#2363 07/13/05 07:05 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
See there can be many theories and it is possible to construct theories which can not be proved or disproved.
But Scientists pick and choose the theroy based upon on its utlility value ...for e.g can it help put the satellite in orbit?
There is also another theory which says everything was created by God... Even this theory has its own utility but it can not be called Science...
Hope you have researched the utility aspect of your theory .
Best of Luck.

#2364 07/13/05 04:36 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
The theory predicts that the value of the gravitational constant G will vary within any galaxy, and predicts that G will be zero in any intergalactic region of space where no rotation of matter occurs.
What about self-gravitating diffuse gas and dust clouds? Doppler shift measurements show no rotation.

Google
"Great Attractor" 16,000 hits

Let us examine hyper-spinning (e.g., 23-ms pulsar PSR J0737-3039A), hyper-dense (2.3x10^14 g/cm^3) examples,

Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_J0737-3039
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries

They fly exactly by the book to the limits of experimental uncertainty. Your theory is empirically falsified. The equatorial surface speed of a millisecond pulsar is 0.01-0.1 of lightspeed. The pulsar binary has an orbital period of just 2.4 hrs. Is that fast enough for you? Nothing known is faster.

For a weak-field large-scale rotating system,

http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
<http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect

Your theory is empirical crap again. For a small scale rotating system, the two pairs of anti-parallel rotating gyroballs in Gravity Probe B. Your theory is empirical crap again.

Quote:
Up until now everyone has considered it ridiculous to suggest that the inertial motion of matter could generate gravitational forces.
For good reason - observation at scales from grams (Gravity Probe B gyroballs) to 1.4 solar masses (binary pulsars),

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-5/

All fly by the book - but not by your book. You cannot support large scale effects without concommittant small scale effects. Where do you draw the line?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation

Go head, use your "theory" to predict the perihelion precession of Mercury. We'll wait.

Quote:
When dealing with realistic observations one must always start with a Hertz dipole detector, and then integrate up for a larger receiving antenna.
Arecibo uses a spherical reflector with dipole antenna receiver elements. Arecibo is 305 meters in diameter, the largest curved focusing dish on Earth. Is that large enough? Has Arecibo detected any anomalies vs. expected physics since it was commissioned in 1963, 42 years ago? No.

(BTW, Arecibo located Soviet radar installations by detecting their leakage bouncing back off the Moon.)


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#2365 07/14/05 08:58 AM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
J
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
~~ A reply to Uncle Al ~~

Great to have a response, even if it is critical! I am just getting this
web site going and feed back is valuable. Your first point is invaluable
to me.

To take your points in order:

Self-gravitating gas and dust clouds are, as far as I am aware, always
found in galaxy clusters, which are themselves rotating. The value of G
appropriate to the intergalactic space within a galaxy cluster will be
based on the rotation of the cluster. Hence, the gas and dust cloud does
not itself need to rotate for a value of G to apply. I thought my
wording covered this point, but your comments will make my argument much
stronger. I am changing the web site to read:

The theory predicts that the value of the gravitational constant G will
vary within any galaxy, especially at the outer edge of the galaxy, and
predicts that G will be zero in any intergalactic region of space which
is not part of a rotating galaxy cluster.

The value of G appropriate to the intergalactic region within a galaxy
cluster will depend on the rotation and mean density of the cluster.
Hence, the theory will predict that non-rotating gas and dust clouds may
exist in intergalactic space within a galaxy cluster, but may not exist
in intergalactic space external to a galaxy cluster. This prediction
appears to conform with observations.

To take all of your other points, generally, to start with:

I am proposing that G will vary within a galaxy, but G will only change
if the angular velocity and mean density of the region changes. This is
not a small scale and local effect, except for incremental increases in
the basic galactic value of G that may apply within spinning bodies.
These incremental increases in the galactic value for G are mentioned
later.

In the standard Newtonian galaxy stability result I give in equation 4
of Paper 1, which assumes a universal, constant G, different regions
may have different angular velocities and different mean densities
provided the square of the former, divided by the latter, is constant.
Standard Newtonian theory allows for widely separated, particulate
bodies, and the variations in the mean density just mentioned.

Hence, with my proposed varying G, the value of G will still be sensibly
constant over any given (large) region of the galaxy. It is only at the
outer edges of the galaxy, where densities are low, that a larger value
of G will apply (and is needed to account for galactic stability). For
the whole of the solar system, which forms a minuscule part of the
galaxy, G will be constant. It is only internally to any spinning body
(such as the Earth) within the galaxy that the value of G might be
increased, over and above the galactic value, by an incremental amount.

Hence, for neutron stars, rotating binaries, and rotating gyro balls,
the value of G will be the galactic value appropriate to their local
region of the galaxy which, unless it is very near the edge of the
galaxy, will be substantially our terrestrial value of G.

General relativity, with a terrestrial value for G, will apply to the
whole of the solar system, and to the rest of the galaxy provided that,
for some extreme regions, the value of G for that region is used. No new
theory is needed for the perihelion precession of Mercury. This was all
covered in detail in my Foundations of Physics paper - volume 6, 143,
1976.

I made it clear that my Hertz antenna comments are only relevant to
pre-cursor transients. These transients are associated with the arrival
of the first few photons at the detector, and are not relevant to the
fastest transient signals used in digital communications or radar
systems.

I am grateful for the comments, especially those regarding intergalactic
gas clouds. I think I will get my Foundations of Physics paper scanned
and add it to the web site to save any confusion.

Lawrence Stephenson

#2366 07/16/05 05:06 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 42
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 42
There are two problems that neither Newtonian nor GRT gravitational theory properly explains:

(1) Newton's bucket experiment. Newton's 'Absolute Space' was an acknowledged kludge. Einstein's theory failed to relativize motion, replacing Absolute Space with a G-field 'aether'.

(2) Neither theory accounts for rotational speeds in galaxies, and 'dark matter' is the running joke of the cosmological world.



A real gravitational theory would have to solve both mysteries adequately for all critics.

Good luck on that...mwa ha ha ha.


Quantum Mechanics is a crashing Bohr.
#2367 07/17/05 12:55 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
C
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
C
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 375
Neither Newton's bucket experiment nor the rotational speeds in galaxies contradict GR.

What is hard to explain, however, is how intelligent observers could have evolved in this universe who dispute GR on these grounds.

#2368 07/18/05 07:01 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 42
R
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Neither Newton's bucket experiment nor the rotational speeds in galaxies contradict GR.

What is hard to explain, however, is how intelligent observers could have evolved in this universe who dispute GR on these grounds.
Galaxy Rotation Speed Latest \'Explanation\'
Quote:
"In fact, astronomers have traditionally resorted to 'dark matter' whenever laws of physics were unable to explain the observed dynamics."(pg 1)
Enjoy your fairytale.
It's as good as fairytales about gravity are going to get.


Quantum Mechanics is a crashing Bohr.
#2369 08/04/05 12:27 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Regarding Mr Stephenson?s article, see http://www.livit.co.uk/theoryofeverything/paper1.html
, I have two questions:

1. Quoting from Mr Stephenson?s article:
"The need for dark energy is removed because this dynamical theory for G predicts that G is zero outside the boundary of any individual galaxy or any rotating galaxy cluster. Without gravitational attractions between individual galaxies, or galaxy clusters, one would expect a faster expansion of the universe than current theory predicts"

It is however observed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, not just faster than theory predicts. This observed acceleration cannot be explained by intergalactic absence of gravity, instead, supposing the observations are right, only some repelling force, contrary to gravity could account for the observed accelerated expansion.
From what I understand, acceleration is always the direct result of a force and can never result from the absence of forces.

2. In the last section of the article, it is mentioned that the spinning of electrons could account for the selfstabilization of electrons.
Two things I do not understand here, firstly, the fact that particles have a spin does to my rudimentary quantummechanical knowledge not imply that those particles are actually spinning, instead the concept of spin has more to do with the amount of symmetry a particle has. Secondly, at the start of the article it s conjectured that local gravity could be caused by remotely rotating matter, while in the case of the electrons it seems that the local gravity is then caused by local spinning, so I am a bit lost here..


Finally let me say that the ideas brought forth in the mentioned article as a whole are in my view a bold kick-off in the long lasting attempt to unify quantum theory with relativity.


Regards, Hugo
#2370 08/04/05 04:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
Secondly, at the start of the article it s conjectured that local gravity could be caused by remotely rotating matter
When you read bullshit you should entertain no delusions of it being a model of physical reality. How much longer will you remain willfully stupid? All the spins in the universe at all scales algebraically sum to zero. It's a boundary condition. If this were not true the excess could be trivially measured with three orthogonal gyroscopes,

http://www.spie.org/web/oer/september/sep96/gyro.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0206033
Rep. Prog. Phys. 60(6) 615 (1997)

Permanent magnets have polarized electron angular momenta. They display no gravitational anomalies to at least one part in ten trillion difference/average. 94% of the Alnico 5 magnetic field originates in electron spin versus 63% in Sm2Co17 where the balance is from electron orbital angular momentum.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/spin1.html

That test mass has 10^22 net polarized spins. One side does not have a different gravitation than the other. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic.

Superconducting magnets are a favorite charlatan's fetish. Two pairs of anti-parallel fused silica balls spinning at 4300 rpm are contained within a fused silica housing spinning at 0.7742 rpm in Gravity Probe B. The balls are coated with a thin layer of niobium cooled below its superconducting transition temperature. They all gravitate identically, F=GmM/r^2 in orbit.

Nothing can spin faster than a millisecond pulsar and stay together. As exquisitely explained in my prior references, NONE of which you read, you persevarative jackass, pulsars gravitate by the book.

Quote:
Finally let me say that the ideas brought forth in the mentioned article as a whole are in my view a bold kick-off in the long lasting attempt to unify quantum theory with relativity.
A unifying theory must have c=c, G=G, and h=h simultaneously; not approximate c=infinity (Newton) or G=zero (quantum field theory), or h=0 (General Relativity). Your hairball exercise in crackpottery ain't it, git.

Screw your butt into a chair and learn something about spinning bodies:

The limiting equatorial velocity, for a rotating sphere (and this velocity is independent of the size of the object) is given by

v_lim = sqrt(2*S/rho)

where S is the yield strength and rho the density. The strongest non-degenerate material, diamond, is 10 tonnes/mm^2 which translates to about 10^11 Pa (100 gigapascals). Diamond density is about 3500 kg/m^3. Put this into the formula,

v_lim = 7600 m/s (approximately)

i.e. 4.7 miles/sec. Check the math. Now look up the strength of nuclear matter for a neutron star's neutronium, density = 2x10^17 kg/m^3, and plug in the numbers.

This is based on evaluating the forces acting on a surface element with area "dA" of the rotating body. Given an infinitesimally thin surface element the only stresses acting are tangential since radial stresses go to zero on the surface. Said tangential stresses still yield a radial force component for a curved surface. It is a general result from the theory of elasticity (first by Laplace, but easy to rederive on the back of a small envelope) that given a surface element with area "dA" and thickness "dt", with tangential stresses present in the surface, the normal (to the surface) force acting on this element is

dF_s = (S1/R1 + S2/R2)*dAdt

where "R1", "R2" are the main radii of curvature of the surface (at the point of evaluation) and S1, S2 are the stresses along the directions of the corresponding axes of curvature).

Take our ball rotating with an angular velocity "w" and evaluate the forces acting on an equatorial surface of element. For convenience the evaluation is done in the rotating reference frame. In this frame, the surface element is acted upon by two forces. First, there is the elastic force, described above, which simplifies to

dF_s = (S1 + S2)*dAdt/R

since R1 = R2 = R, the radius of the sphere. This force is pulling the surface element inwards, towards the rotation axis. The second force is the centrifugal one

dF_c = R*w^2*dm

where dm is the mass of the suface element, given by

dm = dAdt*rho

where rho is the density. So, we get

dF_c = R*w^2*rho*dAdt

And this force acts ouwards, away from the rotation axis. Since the surface element remains stationary in the rotating frame (until the sphere is driven to disintegrate) the two forces dF_s and dF_c must be equal. So, we've

R*w^2*rho*dAdt = (S1 + S2)*dAdt/R

Cancelling the common factors and reorganizing we get

(R*w)^2 = (S1 + S2)/rho

Now, R*w is simply v, the velocity of the equatorial point. As for S1 and S2, neither of them can be larger than the tensile strength S. So, you get

v^2 less than or equal to 2*S/rho

with the = sign obtaining at the limit, before the material gives. This is the relationship used above to find the limiting velocity. Note that the radius cancels.

The ratio S/rho, which has the dimensions of energy/mass can be simply interpreted as the binding energy per unit mass of the material. The result is interpreted as the ball holds together as long as the kinetic energy per unit mass (in any locality) is no larger than the binding energy per unit mass.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#2371 08/04/05 05:39 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
J
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
Hi Hugo,

Thanks for your interest in my web site and the two/three comments. My answers are as follows:

1. Until very recently accepted theory was happy to predict the observed Hubble rate of expansion of the universe with v being proportional to r. This theory incorporated the expected gravitational attraction between galaxies and groups of galaxies. If one removes this gravitational attraction it is clear that "one would expect a faster rate of expansion of the universe than current theory predicts". Although I predict an acceleration, compared with standard theory, I do agree that one needs to calculate in detail whether it is sufficient to fully account for the observed acceleration (which is still being assessed),

2. I treat the spin of the electron, for my purpose of gravitational stability, on a classical basis. If the electron has angular momentum then it has spin in the classical sense! This may seem naive, but I am in good company. In analysing the uranium 236 nucleus Freeman J Dyson says: " By studying this process in detail, they (Bohr and Wheeler) show how the complementary views provided by classical and quantum pictures are both essential to the understanding of nature. Without the combined power of classical and quantum concepts, the intricacies of the fission process could never have been understood."

The next point you raise is interesting and shows that perhaps I should have emphasised it more. It is our (galactic) spin relative to the very distant galaxy clusters that generates a local value of G in our region of our galaxy. For a uniform galaxy the value of G would be constant everywhere within the boundary surface of the galaxy. What I am discussing is the motion of our part of the Milky Way relative to the distant background provided by the very distant galaxy groups. For an electron, the electron's internal value of G (applying only within the boundary surface of the electron) will be again be given by the angular rotation of the electron relative to the the very distant galaxy groups.

I should add that one cannot have significant variations of G in the free space regions within the majority of the galaxy, as they would be at variance with stellar observations. I originally thought (ref 6 of paper 1) that G might have settled to a constant, steady-state, value in our galaxy, but it appears that this has not happened at the outer edges of the galaxy
.
Many thanks for your comments. I will include further clarifications, based on your comments, in the next upgrade of the web site.

Lawrence Stephenson

#2372 08/04/05 10:09 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
J
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
Another reply to Uncle Al

A reply to Uncle Al's third comments:

It is little wonder that Uncle Al hides behind a pseudonym. He fails to read what I write, and then produces reams of irrelevant comments and analysis. Some of these comments have a grain of truth in them, but are still irrelevant.

Let's take his leading point, that all spins in the universe sum algebraically to zero.

I agree. But so what? It does not mean that studying particular spins may not be a valuable exercise in physics. If we ignored the individual spin of the Earth on its axis, we would fail to account for variations in g between the equator and the poles. We would also fail to account for changes in weather patterns around the globe, and many other major things of interest. If we ignored the spin of the Earth round the sun we might find difficulty in accounting for the seasons!

Please read what I write a little more carefully before descending into abuse. I am discussing specific spins and am carefully stipulating both the spin and the range of action of a predicted effect arising from that spin.

For example, I am proposing that the rotation of our galaxy, relative to the very distant galaxies in the universe, creates a value for G that will apply only within the boundary surface of the galaxy. For a uniform galaxy G would be constant throughout the galaxy. For our galaxy it appears that G may have a value greater than the terrestrial value at the outer edges of the galaxy.

For an electron, the rotation of the electron, again relative to the very distant galaxies in the universe, produces an internal value for G (applying only within the boundary surface of the electron) which is about 10 to the power 45 times greater than the terrestrial value for G. I have never suggested that the the spins of electrons in magnets, or any other materials, will have any gravitational effect outside the boundary surface of the individual electrons. But the internal gravitational force is more than sufficient to oppose the internal electrostatic repulsion force and give stability to the electron without the need for arbitrary short range forces.

Lawrence Stephenson

#2373 08/04/05 11:26 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Quote:
It is little wonder that Uncle Al hides behind a pseudonym. He fails to read what I write, and then produces reams of irrelevant comments and analysis. Some of these comments have a grain of truth in them, but are still irrelevant.
No more velvet gloves.

Quote:
For an electron, the rotation of the electron, again relative to the very distant galaxies in the universe, produces an internal value for G (applying only within the boundary surface of the electron) which is about 10 to the power 45 times greater than the terrestrial value for G.
10^45 times one gee is 10^46 m/sec^2 gravitational acceleration. Calculate the Schwarzschild radius, idiot. An acceleration of 10^27 gees is comparable to gravitational acceleration at the event horizon of a black hole. 10^45 gees is 10^18 times bigger than that, idiot.

An acceleration of 10^45 m/sec^2 gives an Unruh radiation bath temp of 4x10^25 degrees kelvin. It would radiate, idiot.

Vacuum breakdown occurs starting around 10^29 m/sec^2 (Schwinger effect). 10^46 m/sec^2 is a factor of 10^17 bigger than that. It would radiate, idiot.

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog17/node8.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/slac/media-info/20000605/chen.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

Off by a factor of 10 is wrong. Off by a factor of 10^17 is not even wrong. Idiot.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
#2374 08/05/05 10:54 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
J
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
J
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6
How Can we work with Irrelevant information Uncle Al?


Thank you Uncle Al for considing that individual spins may be of interest to physics!

To answer his latest points. Why should I consider the Schwarzchild radius when I am not considering a black hole? Why should I consider Unruh radiation, or the Schwinger effect, when I am not considering the rapid linear acceleration of an electron? Yet again, Uncle Al is raising irrelevant facts.

I am discussing the internal structure of an isolated electron that has no significant linear acceleration. I, and nobody else, knows anything substantial about this structure. The main known fact is that the electron is charged, and that this charge would be expected to produce a bursting force. It is arbitrarily assumed that a short-range force exists that offsets this bursting force.

Based on Mach's Principle, which Einstein liked (but some people are wary of), I have suggested that the terrestrial value of G may arise from the rotation of the galaxy relative to the very distant galaxies in the universe. This approach not only indicates a logical reason for the particular value of G observed on the Earth, but it also indicates that the gravitational forces produced by the rotation of the galaxy may have a specific range, and be limited to the boundary of the galaxy.

Einstein was convinced that atomic particles were stabilized by gravitational forces. I have therefore naievly extrapolated my classical theory for galactic G to the internal region of the electron. Not only does this extrapolation give a classical gravitational force, internal to the electron, that is sufficient to stabilize the electron against the electrostatic repulsion force, but it also predicts the required limited range of this force. The force will not extend beyond the boundary of the electron.

I agree that this is a first shot classical interpretation, but I am in good company in using such an approach, as I indicated to another (constructive) critic of my web site. Many classical extrapolations give good approximate results, even at the atomic level, and some are essential. Thus Freeman J Dyson gave, as an example, the analysis of the uranium 236 nucleus: "By studying this process in detail, they (Bohr and Wheeler) show how the complementary views provided by classical and quantum pictures are both essential to the understanding of nature. Without the combined power of classical and quantum concepts, the intricacies of the fission process could never have been understood".

As a Passing thought Uncle Al 'Think before you jump in'

#2375 09/08/05 07:47 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
J
jjw Offline
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
J
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 636
Jaycrooks
When I first observed your continuing debate I went to the bookstore here and Amazon.com had a very detailes summary of parts of your book. I did not save or print the data. I want to buy the book but could not now find it on Amazon.com.Please e-mail me the ISBN number or proper name at n666_up@yahoo.com.

In the meantime please clarify, if you will, your comments on the red shift effect. You appeared to suggest that there were errors involved with current uses of red **** determinations saying many things could cause this. I thought your view seemed to be vauge without any solid or clear cut explanation for why you challenge the observed red shift as a means of predicting doppler effects related to velocities. Possibly the book has a detailed explanation and the offered summary was too short.

Good luck with the debate. Jim Wood


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

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

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5