|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
The following is a copy of my response to a BBC programme, which made
some exciting (if true) claims about the recent successes of Big Bang theory. Since these claims went well beyond my own knowledge in this area, I would appreciate any relevant comments from anyone. I have just seen the last part of a BBC 2 Horizon programme (broadcast in Britain late in the morning on 10 Oct. 2006), which relates to a recent discussion at sci.astro.research. This made several surprising (to me) assertions, which included: 1) Big Bang theory did, in fact, predict the total mass of the universe. [In this context, it was explained, within the programme, (a) that the total mass of atoms and molecules (by which I presume they meant baryonic matter) only turns out to account for ~ 4% of that Big Bang predicted total, and (b) subsequent observations established that 'dark matter' only contributes a further 21% to that predicted total.] 2) Following the unexpected discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe (which I presume refers to the findings of the multinational high-z supernova search team), the resultant postulated 'dark energy' turned out, remarkably, to have a required equivalent mass that is precisely that extra 75% that had already been predicted by Big Bang theory. 3) The resultant now "Standard Model" of astronomy has since been run on computer simulation and found to model the dynamics, and observable results of the evolution of the universe remarkably closely. In the context of (1), since that assertion flatly contradicts prior comments at sci.astro.research[1], I would appreciate appropriate references and/or comments. In the context of (2), this implies that the observed rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is known quite accurately, which is, again, news to me. Consequently, I would appreciate the relevant figures (and refs), along with relevant references for how this is translated into the appropriate required (repulsive) equivalent mass. Perhaps of less fundamental importance, in the context of (3), I would also appreciate clarification of whether that simulation reproduced the unexpectedly high proportion of very large and old galaxies observed by the Gemini Deep Deep Survey[2], between 3 and 6 Gyr after the Big Bang, and the subsequently observed populations of galaxies over the range 0=2E7 to 0.9 Gyr.[3] Since I have found in the past that Horizon programmes are generally informative and, at worst, a little na=EFve in those areas where I am reasonably well read, I find it difficult to believe that the BBC made this whole thing up. Consequently I am sending copies of these questions to sci.physics.research and sci.astro.research as well as the BBC, to find out if such exuberant claims for the successes of standard theory can, in fact, be substantiated. References: [1] most recent parts of http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...hread/678c232= d463567db [2] http://www.gemini.edu/project/announ...ss/2004-1.html http://www.ociw.edu/lcirs/gdds.html http://www.gemini.edu/media/images_2004-1.html [3] http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/pres....asp?pid=3D939 John Bell (Change John to Liberty to bypass anti-spam email filter) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"
1) Big Bang theory did, in fact, predict the total mass of the universe. Not really. Firstly what is predicted is density, not total mass. Secondly, to make a prediction about mass density one requires supplemental assumptions or observations on curvature and Lambda. Big bang models have three cosmological parameters, Omega (mass density), Omega_k (curvature) and Omega_Lambda (cosmological constant) subject to the constraint that Omega + Omega_k + Omega_Lambda = 1. Omega = 1 is critical density for a flat, no Lambda cosmology. Possibly this identity sums up the "prediction" to which Horizon referred, but I would not describe this as a prediction of density, Omega. Observations appear consistent with Omega_k~0 (a flat universe), 0mega~28%, Omega_Lambda~72%, or thereabouts. [In this context, it was explained, within the programme, (a) that the total mass of atoms and molecules (by which I presume they meant baryonic matter) only turns out to account for ~ 4% of that Big Bang predicted total, and (b) subsequent observations established that 'dark matter' only contributes a further 21% to that predicted total.] These are roughly the observed figures compared to Omega=1. 2) Following the unexpected discovery of an accelerating expansion of the universe (which I presume refers to the findings of the multinational high-z supernova search team), This is the principle discovery, although there are a number of supporting observations. the resultant postulated 'dark energy' turned out, remarkably, to have a required equivalent mass that is precisely that extra 75% that had already been predicted by Big Bang theory. Yes, the above relation is satisfied for a flat cosmology. As you know, however, I think there is a misinterpretation of red shift in the standard model. The teleconnection gives a better fit to SN data with Omega=1.89, Omega_k=-0.89 (closed finite universe) and Omega_Lambda=0 (no cosmological constant or dark energy). 3) The resultant now "Standard Model" of astronomy has since been run on computer simulation and found to model the dynamics, and observable results of the evolution of the universe remarkably closely. Not entirely. In the context of (1), since that assertion flatly contradicts prior comments at sci.astro.research[1], I would appreciate appropriate references and/or comments. I would refer you to two review papers in Natu Glazebrook K. et. al., 2004, Nature, 430, 181-184. http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~kgb/MiscPub/...iii-nature.pdf Cimatti. et. al., 2004, Old Galaxies in the Young Universe, Nature, 430, 184-188. astro-ph/0407131 As described by Glazebrook (2004), there is poor agreement between current theoretical models of galaxy evolution and empirical data. To explain this it has been suggested (e.g. Cimatti et. al, 2004) that the theoretical models may be inaccurate. In the context of (2), this implies that the observed rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is known quite accurately, which is, again, news to me. Consequently, I would appreciate the relevant figures (and refs), along with relevant references for how this is translated into the appropriate required (repulsive) equivalent mass. Perhaps of less fundamental importance, in the context of (3), I would also appreciate clarification of whether that simulation reproduced the unexpectedly high proportion of very large and old galaxies observed by the Gemini Deep Deep Survey[2], between 3 and 6 Gyr after the Big Bang, and the subsequently observed populations of galaxies over the range 0=2E7 to 0.9 Gyr.[3] I think not. At least some of the authors of those papers were involved with Gemini. Since I have found in the past that Horizon programmes are generally informative and, at worst, a little na=EFve in those areas where I am reasonably well read, I find it difficult to believe that the BBC made this whole thing up. Not made up. Perhaps a little distorted. The general attitude to galaxy evolution is that data is preliminary and evolution models are questionable. No one is taking them too seriously just yet. Regards -- Charles Francis substitute charles for NotI to email |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
In article , "John
(Liberty) Bell" writes: The following is a copy of my response to a BBC programme, which made some exciting (if true) claims about the recent successes of Big Bang theory. Since these claims went well beyond my own knowledge in this area, I would appreciate any relevant comments from anyone. In general, be aware that television science is not always completely accurate. Maybe the presenter doesn't know better, maybe he does but dumbs it down. Also, be aware that "big bang theory" means different things to different people. Actually, it means "the universe is expanding from a previous state which was much smaller and much denser"; many folks add one or more additional things to this definition. Here are my guesses as to what was meant: 1) Big Bang theory did, in fact, predict the total mass of the universe. [In this context, it was explained, within the programme, (a) that the total mass of atoms and molecules (by which I presume they meant baryonic matter) only turns out to account for ~ 4% of that Big Bang predicted total, and (b) subsequent observations established that 'dark matter' only contributes a further 21% to that predicted total.] This is too vague to judge. The baryonic fraction can be predicted quite well, but at least as stated not the amount of dark matter. Not predicted. It can be observed, indirectly, but that is something different. 2) Following the unexpected discovery It wasn't unexpected by everyone. of an accelerating expansion of the universe (which I presume refers to the findings of the multinational high-z supernova search team), the resultant postulated 'dark energy' turned out, remarkably, to have a required equivalent mass that is precisely that extra 75% that had already been predicted by Big Bang theory. This probably means that "inflation" "predicted" a flat universe. Indeed, all the components (baryons, dark matter, "dark energy") do indeed add up quite nicely to make the universe at least approximately flat. 3) The resultant now "Standard Model" of astronomy has since been run on computer simulation and found to model the dynamics, and observable results of the evolution of the universe remarkably closely. Use these parameters as the "background" for numerical simulations and find that they agree with observations. Actually, not "remarkable", since that is what one expects if one has the model correct and the correct input parameters. In the context of (1), since that assertion flatly contradicts prior comments at sci.astro.research[1], The statement above is too vague to say that it contradicts prior comments here (and of course some prior comments here contradict others). In the context of (2), this implies that the observed rate of acceleration of the expansion of the universe is known quite accurately, It is know to 10% or so. However, what is usually "measured" is Omega_x, which is actually independent of the rate of expansion. The rate of expansion (the Hubble constant) is needed to translate an Omega value into a physical density, but is not needed when discussing relative amounts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
John (Liberty) Bell wrote:
The following is a copy of my response to a BBC programme, which made some exciting (if true) claims about the recent successes of Big Bang theory. Since these claims went well beyond my own knowledge in this area, I would appreciate any relevant comments from anyone. One of the most persistent and disturbing problems found in discussions of the standard Big Bang cosmological model concerns the blurring of distinctions between true predictions and mere retrodictions. The background radiation, global expansion, abundances of light elements, large-scale homogeneity, etc. are often cited as successful "predictions". However, when one does a more thorough search of the scientific literature, one finds that most of the claimed "predictions" were in fact retrodictions, i.e., after-the-fact explanations of already discovered facts or approximate results. The few genuine predictions were often considerably off the mark, and had to be adjusted, often more than once, as in the case of the temperature of the microwave background, the level of fluctuations in the background, and the scale at which "homogeneity" would be found. The Big Bang model is an exercise in model-building, wherein one tinkers with the physics and the adjustable parameters until it reproduces existing observations. To be fair, it does a pretty good job of modelling the general properties of the observable universe, but it is, and has always been, rather plastic. The Big Bang model did not predict or even anticipate the existence of the dark matter that dominates the observable universe. Its primary retrodiction for the dark matter, found in nearly all discussions of the standard Big Bang model and "precision cosmology", is that it is in the form of hypothetical CDM particles, like axions. After decades of searching, these hypothetical particles have still not been detected. Stellar-mass dark matter, which contradicts the Big Bang retrodiction, appears to have been observed by numerous groups in differing observational experiments, but this scientific evidence is downplayed by many in the cosmological community, perhaps because it is an unwanted result that does not fit in well with the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model has difficulties with respect to explanations for why galaxies exist at all, how galaxies form, the existence and nature of the dark matter, and the succession of ever-larger-scale deviations from homogenity as dependable observations have reached larger scales. One could go on at length, but you get the picture. Perhaps the most important thing in terms of the future of science is this unfortunate and apparently growing neglect of the crucial distinction between true predictions and mere retrodictions. If scientists, through ignorance or bias, fail to protect the very special status of true predictions in science, and carefully identify retrodictions as nothing more than consistency checks, then science is in very deep trouble. Robert Oldershaw |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
In article ,
" writes: One of the most persistent and disturbing problems found in discussions of the standard Big Bang cosmological model concerns the blurring of distinctions between true predictions and mere retrodictions. Also, what is included in the term "big bang" is variable. The background radiation, global expansion, abundances of light elements, large-scale homogeneity, etc. are often cited as successful "predictions". Prediction, prior observation, prediction, assumption later verified by observation. The Big Bang model has difficulties with respect to explanations for why galaxies exist at all, how galaxies form, the existence and nature of the dark matter, and the succession of ever-larger-scale deviations from homogenity as dependable observations have reached larger scales. One could go on at length, but you get the picture. Galaxy formation is not really a central tenant of the big bang. In other words, we need to distinguish between "the universe is expanding from a former state which was much hotter and much denser" and "we understand everything in the universe". In particular, not understanding galaxy formation doesn't imply that there is any reason at all to doubt the big bang in the narrower sense of the term. There is also nothing in principle wrong with the fact that we don't completely understand galaxy formation---it just means that there is more work to do. New species of animals are being discovered all the time. That doesn't mean that zoology is somehow fundamentally flawed or that the discovery of new animals requires a radical reformulation of zoology. Science is a way of thinking, not a collection of facts. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
"re" == rloldershaw@amherst edu writes:
re One of the most persistent and disturbing problems found in re discussions of the standard Big Bang cosmological model concerns re the blurring of distinctions between true predictions and mere re retrodictions. re The background radiation, global expansion, abundances of light re elements, large-scale homogeneity, etc. are often cited as re successful "predictions". However, when one does a more thorough re search of the scientific literature, one finds that most of the re claimed "predictions" were in fact retrodictions, i.e., re after-the-fact explanations of already discovered facts or re approximate results. The few genuine predictions were often re considerably off the mark, and had to be adjusted, often more than re once, as in the case of the temperature of the microwave re background, the level of fluctuations in the background, and the re scale at which "homogeneity" would be found. [...] re The Big Bang model did not predict or even anticipate the re existence of the dark matter that dominates the observable re universe. This is a oft-repeated claim, but one that doesn't make a lot of sense. Even fairly basic descriptions of the Big Bang model explain that there are three possibilities (assuming that the cosmological constant is 0): 1. The matter density in the Universe is high enough that the expansion eventually slows and reverses (leading to the "Big Crunch"). Such a universe is termed "closed." 2. The matter density in the Universe is not high enough to reverse the expansion. The Universe continues to expand forever. Such a universe is termed "open." 3. The matter density in the Universe is at the critical value so that the expansion ceases only after an infinite amount of time. The Big Bang model (and general relativity from which it is derived) do not predict the matter density of the Universe, regarding that as a parameter to be determined from observation. Moreover, there is no requirement for cases 1--3 that the matter be luminous (i.e., that it interacts via the electromagnetic force). All that is required is that it interact gravitationally, so dark matter, luminous matter, or both are allowed. A robust analogy is to trajectory of an object. Consider a planet of mass M and radius R (assumed spherical and without an atmosphere). We can predict, with considerable confidence from Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, that the acceleration due to gravity at the surface of such a planet is a_g = GM/R^2. Does an object of initial velocity v fall back to the surface of this planet? -- Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail: No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/ sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Thus spake "
The Big Bang model did not predict or even anticipate the existence of the dark matter that dominates the observable universe. Its primary retrodiction for the dark matter, found in nearly all discussions of the standard Big Bang model and "precision cosmology", is that it is in the form of hypothetical CDM particles, like axions. After decades of searching, these hypothetical particles have still not been detected. Not only that, but there is no theory for them in elementary particle physics, in which there are other consistency checks which allow only those particles which we actually do detect. These exotic particles are still theoretically impossible, as well as being undetected. Stellar-mass dark matter, which contradicts the Big Bang retrodiction, appears to have been observed by numerous groups in differing observational experiments, but this scientific evidence is downplayed by many in the cosmological community, perhaps because it is an unwanted result that does not fit in well with the Big Bang model. Yes. One should be honest, both CDM and the cosmological constant are fixes, brought about because observation seems to demand them. However, if one studies general relativity properly it is also apparent that the overall structure, including the big bang itself is pretty well forced upon us from simple, undeniable assumptions. There is, imv, only one place in which it can reasonably be altered, namely the affine connection is suspect. Moreover there is a pressing theoretical reason why it should be changed, namely that general relativity is not, in its present form, compatible with quantum theory. That explains the motivation for my research in the teleconnection. The teleconnection does not alter the overall cosmological structure, which includes a big bang. But it does alter the interpretation of observations, such that neither CDM nor Lambda are required and it restores the original preferred model of a closed finite universe with a big crunch. The Big Bang model has difficulties with respect to explanations for why galaxies exist at all, how galaxies form, Well, it has problems explaining how galaxies formed in the available timescale. Again that is resolved by the teleconnection in which redshift is greater at given distance, and the universe is expands more slowly. Perhaps the most important thing in terms of the future of science is this unfortunate and apparently growing neglect of the crucial distinction between true predictions and mere retrodictions. If scientists, through ignorance or bias, fail to protect the very special status of true predictions in science, and carefully identify retrodictions as nothing more than consistency checks, then science is in very deep trouble. I do not entirely disagree with this. However, there are some consistency checks which are of a very rigorous nature, and I do not think it reasonable to call them "mere". For example big bang nucleosynthesis gives a very precise figure for the proton-neutron balance, depending on the rate of expansion of the early universe. This is based on very well understood processes in particle physics, and it is essential that the observed balance is consistent with Hubble's constant. Regards -- Charles Francis substitute charles for NotI to email |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Oh No wrote:
Thus spake " Perhaps the most important thing in terms of the future of science is this unfortunate and apparently growing neglect of the crucial distinction between true predictions and mere retrodictions. If scientists, through ignorance or bias, fail to protect the very special status of true predictions in science, and carefully identify retrodictions as nothing more than consistency checks, then science is in very deep trouble. I do not entirely disagree with this. However, there are some consistency checks which are of a very rigorous nature, and I do not think it reasonable to call them "mere". For example big bang nucleosynthesis gives a very precise figure for the proton-neutron balance, depending on the rate of expansion of the early universe. This is based on very well understood processes in particle physics, and it is essential that the observed balance is consistent with Hubble's constant. Firstly, let me assure group members that I think the evidence for global expansion of the observable universe, indicating some form of explosive event in our little corner of the Universe, is quite strong. Therefore, I am in basic agreement with the standard Big Bang paradigm as a first approximation to what is occurring locally. However, I think we are very close to discovering a new and far more encompassing paradigm, which subsumes the Big Bang paradigm and offers a more coherent understanding of what we observe from the smallest of elementary particles to pulsars and stars to galaxies and to the limited portion of the metagalaxy that is observable. I think we are moving slowly and somewhat chaotically towards a discrete, unbounded (in space, time and scale), fractal paradigm for nature. But here is the main point: we have many competing ideas for new ways to understand nature. How are we to decide among infinite fractal paradigms, teleconnections, landscapes, cosmic strings, etc.? The good news is that there is a bona fide scientific way to do this, if we are willing to stick to the principles upon which science was founded. The correct path forward can be unambiguously determined by the answer to the dark matter enigma. Here is how. 1. The dark matter component is such an important component of the observable universe that any theory, model or paradigm that did not anticipate it is immediately suspect and identified as seriously incomplete. 2. Any theory, model or paradigm that expects to treated as more than abstract arm-waving must predict or retrodict a specific candidate for the dark matter. If any paradigm/theory cannot come up with its own unique and definitive candidate solution to the dark matter enigma, then I submit that the paradigm/theory is of little use to the science of nature. It may be a fun and challenging exercise in abstract thought, but it is nothing more. 3. Finally, we let observations decide which prediction/retrodiction is the most accurate, and the paradigm associated with that prediction/retrodiction will have been revealed as the correct path forward. Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the dark matter? The discrete fractal paradigm, decades ago, said that the dark matter must exist and this has been strongly supported. This paradigm definitively predicted that the dark matter is in the form of Kerr-Newman black holes with major peaks at 8x10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58 solar masses. Tentative microlensing results are consistent with these predictions. If people believe strongly in competing paradigms, let us see them come forward in a scientific manner, and put their competing predictions in writing before the community of scientists. And let us see them accept nature's verdict when that becomes known. If the discrete fractal paradigm fails the dark matter test, I will readily admit it. [Mod. note: can I remind posters again that it is not enough to assert that their favourite model explains all the mysteries of the universe: it's necessary to provide references, preferably to published peer-reviewed work in a mainstream physics journal, or at least some attempt at justification for your assertions that can be evaluated on its merits. If you can't do this, please take your postings to alt.sci.physics.new-theories. I am letting this through because most of it is discussion rather than unsupported assertion, but further posting along these lines is discouraged -- mjh] |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Thus spake "
The correct path forward can be unambiguously determined by the answer to the dark matter enigma. Here is how. 1. The dark matter component is such an important component of the observable universe that any theory, model or paradigm that did not anticipate it is immediately suspect and identified as seriously incomplete. One should distinguish different forms of dark matter. There is conventional dark matter, for example some (the exact proportion is not known) baryonic matter is dark. Neutrinoes are hot dark matter, and account for an unknown proportion, in accordance with there mass. Primordial black holes, if they exist, are not counted as baryonic, but may again account for an unknown fraction. But the standard model also requires Cold Dark Matter, which may include primordial black holes, but certainly does not consist entirely of primordial black holes or they would have been detected with microlensing. In addition, the standard model requires that cold dark matter haloes have a particular profile to account for galaxy rotation curves. What bugs me slightly is that I think this particular prediction actually falsifies the standard model. The profile is not found from either lensing or from evolution models, and so far independent tests of CDM in particular local tests, e.g. in globular clusters, always seems to come up with zilch. Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the dark matter? Yes. The background to the teleconnection model is described in detail in gr-qc/0508077, and the predictions are found in gr-qc/0604047. The model is essentially standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, but cosmological redshift is reinterpreted such that it has half the standard expansion rate, so requires 1/4 of the critical density for closure. This means that baryonic matter can form 10-20% of its mass, and the remaining can be neutrinos, so that no cold dark matter is required, although I have no particular objection to primordial black holes. The model explains galaxy rotation curves without requiring CDM haloes. The discrete fractal paradigm, decades ago, said that the dark matter must exist and this has been strongly supported. We know a lot of matter is dark in all models. Even within the last few years, hosts of new stars were found in the ultraviolet. There may be an undisclosed number of brown dwarves. The real issue is whether exotic dark matter is required, stuff which has no place in particle physics. This paradigm definitively predicted that the dark matter is in the form of Kerr-Newman black holes with major peaks at 8x10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58 solar masses. Tentative microlensing results are consistent with these predictions. As I say, I have no objection in principle, to the potential existence of primordial black holes, but we know from microlensing there are not enough of them to account for the cold dark matter in the standard model, and nor do galaxy profiles obey the laws which would be expected of conventional gravitating bodies. Some more exotic solution seems to be required. Regards -- Charles Francis substitute charles for NotI to email |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Good News for Big Bang theory
Oh No wrote:
Does your teleconnection model lead to definitive predictions about the dark matter? Yes. The background to the teleconnection model is described in detail in gr-qc/0508077, and the predictions are found in gr-qc/0604047. The model is essentially standard Friedmann-Robertson-Walker, but cosmological redshift is reinterpreted such that it has half the standard expansion rate, so requires 1/4 of the critical density for closure. This means that baryonic matter can form 10-20% of its mass, and the remaining can be neutrinos, so that no cold dark matter is required, although I have no particular objection to primordial black holes. The model explains galaxy rotation curves without requiring CDM haloes. Do I understand correctly that, regarding the dark matter issue, the teleconnection model says that the critical density is 1/4 of the usual value and thus much less dark matter is required? You seem to imply that the additional matter could be neutrinos (80-90%!), CDM, primordial black holes, etc. Do I misunderstand, or does the teleconnection model not make a specific prediction about the detailed nature of the dark matter? This paradigm (discrete fractal paradigm) definitively predicted that the dark matter is in the form of Kerr-Newman black holes with major peaks at 8x10^-5, 0.15 and 0.58 solar masses. Tentative microlensing results are consistent with these predictions. The original prediction was made in ApJ 322, 34-36, 1987. A discussion of observational results and how they do or do not agree with the predictions of various paradigms can be found at Fractals 10, 27-38, March 2002. An easy way to get a look at this paper is to go to my website at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw, then click on "selected papers", and then choose paper #5. The graph summarizing the observational data says it all! As I say, I have no objection in principle, to the potential existence of primordial black holes, but we know from microlensing there are not enough of them to account for the cold dark matter in the standard model, and nor do galaxy profiles obey the laws which would be expected of conventional gravitating bodies. Some more exotic solution seems to be required. I think we are probably in for a lot of surprises. The more we press our theories, models and paradigms for specific, definitive predictions, the more we will learn when the observational data becomes available. Eschew plasticity, embrace principles! Rob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ED CONRAD KNOCKS 'EM DEAD ON LARRY KING LIVE | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | June 13th 06 01:27 AM |
PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICS OF BILLY MEIER, EXTRATERRESTRIALS EATING CROW | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 11th 06 08:55 PM |
Even More on BILLY MEIER & EXTRATERRESTRIALS -- Major Media Conspiracy Against Truth ---- Just like 911 Gov't Hoax & Man as Old as Coal ---- | Ed Conrad | Misc | 0 | May 10th 06 11:04 PM |
ED CONRAD WILL WIN IN THE LONG RUN -- 1996 Prediction Coming True -- Evolution Going Belly Up -- Man as Old as Coal | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | May 10th 06 01:31 PM |
Off to Early Start in Worldwide Burning of EVOLUTION Textbooks | Ed Conrad | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 29th 06 09:08 PM |