A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 27th 09, 07:03 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global

Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are
going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far
are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because
only
those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will
argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that
exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a
large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means
that
such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every
solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow.

So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a
star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around
the
star.

So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit
around
our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter.

So the question before us is how does Solar System Dynamics have
such a programmed pattern? And the reasonable answer is that it is
all coming from a Dirac Multiplicative-Creation process.

In Multiplicative-Creation as can be read for details in Dirac's book
"Directions in Physics" 1978. In that process, matter is multiplying
up
where matter already exists. So that the Sun grows larger and so do
the planets, meaning that the planets become ever closer and tighter
in orbit around the Sun. This means that the orbits of satellites
around
planets becomes increasingly separated from their planet and becoming
closer to the Sun. So in Multiplicative Creation, the orbits of the
planets
grow closer to the Sun and the orbits of satellites become distant
from their
home planet.

So in that process we would have Global Warming increases even if we
solved humanmade global warming. Looks to me that in the future we
have to colonize Mars in order to extend the future of life in our
Solar System.

I need to examine the orbit of Mercury as per multiplicative-creation.
We know Mercury has an odd and strange orbit with a precession. And
we,
in the past have ascribed that precession to General Relativity as an
answer. But I doubt that it was an answer. I suspect the precession of
Mercury is the forboding of Mercury becoming swallowed up by the Sun.
I doubt that anyone can apply a General Relativity mathematics to the
already discovered exoplanets of exostars; meaning that GR was never
a scientific truth but merely a algorithm at best. I suspect that when
planets
end up as close to the star as Mercury, that they are "falling into
the star"
and all due to Multiplicative Creation of Dirac's new-
radioactivities.

In old solar systems, it is the multiplicative-creation that causes
close and
tight orbits of its last remaining planets. Those planets may turn
into a
twin star to the original star. So that Jupiter ends up becoming a
twin
star to our sun.

Now let us take the opposite view, that of say no-multiplicative-
creation.
Then can we answer why exoplanets are so huge and close orbiting their
star? Can we answer why all of our planets that have satellites, why
none
of them seem destined to be swallowed up by their parent planet? Why
every planet that has a satellite, that the satellite is moving away
from
the parent planet, whether as small as rings or as large as moons?

So the **obvious logic** is pointing to a scenario of multiplicative-
creation
as the main mechanism driving solar system evolution.


Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #2  
Old July 28th 09, 01:25 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are
going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far
are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because
only
those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will
argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that
exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a
large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means
that
such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every
solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow.

So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a
star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around
the
star.

So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit
around
our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter.


If there is any evolution of the size and orbits of the planets in a
solar system, then it is over and done with during the original
formation years. That's when there is a lot of material in the planetary
disks which would allow a large planet formed far out in the disk to
migrate toward the centre through momentum transfers to planetesimals.
Planetesimals are only around in abundance during those early years, and
once they are gone, there are no chances of migration inwards anymore.

In a mature system like our Solar system, all planetesimals are gone
already, therefore the existing planets are in a stable orbit until the
Sun itself evolves out of the main sequence. When the Sun evolves to its
next life phase, the planets will actually migrate outwards rather than
inwards, due to mass losses by the Sun.

Yousuf Khan
  #3  
Old July 28th 09, 06:00 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Marco[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global warming is inevitable with our Sun's future #98 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY

But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?

Marco
UCO Lick Observatory
Laboratory for Adaptive Optics

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Now some are going to take a false conception and viewpoint. They are
going to argue that the only reason the exoplanets discovered so far
are huge and in a close-tight orbit around their exostar is because
only
those "big fellows" are going to be seen by our instruments. They will
argue that if the planets were small then we would not observe that
exoplanet. But what I argue is that since we have discovered quite a
large number of these exoplanets with these characteristics, means
that
such is a pattern of Nature and such is the pattern that most every
solar system whether our own or whether a exo system will follow.

So that the pattern of solar system evolution is a pattern wherein a
star eventually has huge planets orbiting in close tight orbits around
the
star.

So that our Jupiter will one day be huge and orbit in a close orbit
around
our Sun. Earth will likely be swallowed up by this future Jupiter.


If there is any evolution of the size and orbits of the planets in a solar
system, then it is over and done with during the original formation years.
That's when there is a lot of material in the planetary disks which would
allow a large planet formed far out in the disk to migrate toward the
centre through momentum transfers to planetesimals. Planetesimals are only
around in abundance during those early years, and once they are gone,
there are no chances of migration inwards anymore.

In a mature system like our Solar system, all planetesimals are gone
already, therefore the existing planets are in a stable orbit until the
Sun itself evolves out of the main sequence. When the Sun evolves to its
next life phase, the planets will actually migrate outwards rather than
inwards, due to mass losses by the Sun.

Yousuf Khan



  #4  
Old July 28th 09, 07:12 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default precession of planets or satellites is due in large part to



Yousuf Khan wrote:


If there is any evolution of the size and orbits of the planets in a
solar system, then it is over and done with during the original
formation years. That's when there is a lot of material in the planetary
disks which would allow a large planet formed far out in the disk to
migrate toward the centre through momentum transfers to planetesimals.
Planetesimals are only around in abundance during those early years, and
once they are gone, there are no chances of migration inwards anymore.

In a mature system like our Solar system, all planetesimals are gone
already, therefore the existing planets are in a stable orbit until the
Sun itself evolves out of the main sequence. When the Sun evolves to its
next life phase, the planets will actually migrate outwards rather than
inwards, due to mass losses by the Sun.

Yousuf Khan


Yousuf, the Dirac new-radioactivities of how the Solar System was
formed
and how it will evolve out in the future is far different than the
Nebular
Dust Cloud theory that you abide by in your above. I recommend a first
read of Dirac's book Directions in Physics, 1978, starting at page 71.

As Marco indicated in the followup post, that the old way of doing
Solar
System astronomy fails in the account of precession and the tidal
forces
that have planets falling into the Sun and has satellites wandering
away
from their parent planet. Such falsehoods and errors of planet and
satellite
orbits as given by the Nebular Dust Cloud theory no longer accurately
describe
the true motions of our Solar System. Yousuf, think for a moment, that
if
your Nebular Dust Cloud theory were true, that by probability, half of
the
satellites that presently exist should be falling into a collision
course with
their parent planet and that the Rings of Saturn should not even
exist.
But according to Dirac's model of new-radioactivities, every satellite
in our Solar System should be falling towards the Sun and moving away
from its parent planet. Now, Yousuf, is that not what you see in the
Solar System? Do you not see that every satellite is moving away from
its parent planet? Hence, your Nebular Dust Cloud theory is bogus and
Dirac's model is correct.

The Precession of perihelion of Mercury is falsely described by the
Nebular
Dust Cloud theory as saying it is General-Relativity, when actually it
is
merely the falling into the Sun according to Dirac's model. We can
replace
the 43 arcseconds by Dirac's multiplicative-creation of about 2 cm/
year
falling into the Sun.

Yousuf, can you point to an accurate table of the precession of the
other
planets? It is a pitiful shame that one would think the most grave
concern
of the person studying and mastering astronomy would be to know
whether
their planet is falling into the Sun or not and what the future holds
as far
as being swallowed by the Sun. But it seems as though the history of
astronomy has never really tackled that prime essential question.
In the Nebular Dust Cloud theory that Yousuf believes in, in that
theory
the question is sugar coated away and ignored. The question of whether
Mercury is due to be swallowed by the Sun is ignored and a sort of
magic takes over astronomy and physics where it is believed that
Mercury will forever orbit around the Sun from tomorrow to infinity.

With Dirac's model, Yousuf, precession no longer is some mystery
plastered
with General Relativity. Precession to Dirac is the computing of when
Mercury disappears into the bowels of the Sun. Precession of Earth is
when Earth disappears into the bowels of the Sun or Jupiter as Jupiter
increases in size and comes closer and closer to the Sun forming
eventually
a twin star.

So, Yousuf, go ahead and believe evolution of our solar system is dead
and
over with in the Dust Cloud theory, but in the Dirac Model, our solar
system
has not even evolved to a twin star by Jupiter.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #5  
Old July 28th 09, 07:44 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default accurate table of the precession of all the astro bodies in our Solar



Marco wrote:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?

Marco
UCO Lick Observatory
Laboratory for Adaptive Optics


Yes, thanks Marco; I am looking for an accurate listing of all the
precessions
in our Solar System of planets and satellites. The escape-velocity of
Mercury
is 4.3km/sec, Venus 10.3km/sec, Earth 11.2km/sec, Moon 2.3km/sec,
Mars 5.0km/sec.

Dirac computed a multiplicative-creation of 2cm/year for Moon
recession and I suspect
that figure translates into about 43arcseconds/century for Mercury.

What I am getting at is that when we shuck the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory and replace
it with the Dirac's multiplicative-creation model that we replace
precession with
the falling into the Sun.

Precession is not some mystery fantasy that the Nebular Dust Cloud
paints a picture of, but
rather precession is merely the loss of energy of one astro body due
to the presence of
other astro bodies and this loss of energy is going to plot a future
course of a swallowing up
or collision.

If Dirac's multiplicative-creation is true and the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory is false, then, any
scientist should instantly agree that to prove one of those theories
is true and the other false
does not require decades of detail measure and observation. That if
one is true and the other
is false should be instantly recognized by the data given of our Solar
System. Can Saturn
have rings if the Nebular Dust Cloud is true? I say no. Can the
satellites of Jupiter and
Saturn be moving towards the Sun and not their parent planet? I say
no.

Just a simple glance of our Solar System suggests that the Nebular
Dust Cloud theory is
phony baloney. And the important measure of the precession of
planets-- that they are all
falling into the Sun is indicative of Dirac's multiplicative-creation.

Marco, can you refer to a source that has a accurate precession data
of all the planets
and satellites?

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #6  
Old July 28th 09, 10:23 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,172
Default evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global warming is inevitable with our Sun's future #98 ;3rd edition book: ATOM TOTALITY (Atom Universe) THEORY

In article 4a6f2ff0@darkstar,
"Marco" writes:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?


I'm sure it does, but I suspect Jupiter's perturbations (and even
Saturn's) are a much larger effect.

Every few years, someone does a new study of the long-term stability
of the Solar System. So far, the answer always comes out that it's
stable as far as the calculations go (phew!), but the fact that
people have to do numerical calculations says the conclusion is not
obvious. Recently there was even a claim that GR gives somewhat
greater stability than pure Newtonian gravity.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
  #7  
Old July 29th 09, 06:48 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default which of these two models is the true one-- Dirac's model or Nebular



Sam Wormley wrote:
Marco wrote:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?


Earth tidal bulge leads the Earth - moon line.


I cannot speak for Dirac, other than to say that he would agree that
planets
orbiting a star will eventually lose energy, unlike an atom where its
electrons never lose energy and that is the difference between Quantum
physics and Classical physics. So the question that Marco is posing
and which this discussion is focused is that we are assured the
planets
will lose energy and the system will change and evolve over time.

So the focus is on which of these two theories is true, for both
cannot
be true and one has to be a dud and fake theory:
(1) Dirac's multiplicative creation model
(2) Nebular Dust Cloud model

So which of those two are the true model? If Dirac's model is true,
would
mean that all the planets and their satellites are falling into the
Sun over
time.

If the Nebular Dust Cloud model is true then you would have half the
satellites
falling into their planets and the other half escaping their planets
as probability.

Neptune's tidal bulge lags the Neptune-Triton line and Triton
is getting closer to Neptune.


Well, Sam picked out an exception, however, I did not set a definition
boundary
of what are acceptable satellites. Triton is a captured satellite, so
it was never
an original creation of the Neptune planet, but that Triton was
already wandering.

So the conditions on satellites is that they have to have been borne
originally to
the planet that they orbit. And even if Triton falls into Neptune it
does not
support eliminate either model since the outcome of the Dirac Model is
that
all will fall into the Sun.

The evidence of exoplanets in exosolar-systems supports the Dirac
Model and
eliminates the Dust Cloud model. You cannot have huge planets circling
a star
so close and tight in orbits with Newtonian Mechanics coupled with
General Relativity.
For solar systems to routinely end up as gas giants circling a parent
star means
the main mechanism is a form of a gradual increase in mass where mass
already
exists. So the evidence of exoplanets, alone, supports Dirac Model and
disparages
the Nebular Dust Cloud Model. For the many exoplanets now on record,
all following
a similar dynamics of evolution of huge planets orbiting so close to
their star means
that solar systems have a mechanism of increasing in mass where mass
already exists--
multiplicative-creation as Dirac outlined, and thence becoming a twin
star and perhaps
finally falling into one another.

So although Titon and Neptune are exceptions, is because they are
exceptional circumstance
of being a wandering moon captured by Neptune.

What I am testing these two models is "natural moons" or moons that
were borne to the
parent planet, for in Dirac new-radioactivities with multiplicative-
creation, a natural-moon is
a moon borne from a "quantum-seed" that the parent planet was borne
from a different
quantum-seed at about the same time. So that the moons of Jupiter are
all natural moons
as well as the moons of Saturn.

I doubt the Moon of Earth is a natural moon, it may have been and that
Mercury at one time
was the natural moon of Venus. But the Moon of Earth since it has
orbited Earth for nearly
4.5 billion years would qualify as a natural moon since it was under
Earth's influence for that
4.5 billion years time span.

So the commonsense question is given those two models and looking upon
our Solar System
today, which is the most "believable" given the data and facts? As I
said before, from exoplanet data of huge planets orbiting close to
their star and because in our solar system,
everything is heading for a falling into the Sun, that the Dirac Model
is the most believable.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #8  
Old July 29th 09, 07:29 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default explaining Mercury's orbit of a rosette-figure #104 ;3rd edition



Steve Willner wrote:
In article 4a6f2ff0@darkstar,
"Marco" writes:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?


I'm sure it does, but I suspect Jupiter's perturbations (and even
Saturn's) are a much larger effect.


There are alot of factors to keep track of. All the more puzzling as
to why
the astronomy community delineates the components of the precession of
Mercury's perihelion yet when they receive a Moon recession of 3.8 cm/
year
they act as if it has no other component other than purely tidal
friction.

As I said earlier, we have two competing models of how the Solar
System
came to be. One is the old Nebular Dust Cloud Model and the other
model
started in 1978 when Dirac using Large Numbers Hypothesis arrived at a
new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation.

To be able to say which of these two models is the true one and the
other
the fake one, as I said earlier, should not be over a number such as 2
cm/year
for the Moon moving away from Earth but should be settled by the
obvious
data over all the Solar System. The two models are so vastly
different, that
a scientist should not be waiting for micro numbers to tell him/her
which
of those two models is true.

So vastly different are the two models that anyone with a keen sense
of intuition, of how things work mechanically could sense which is the
faker
and which is the truer. When you read about exoplanets, the case is
solved
in that Nebular Dust Cloud could never lead to that scenario. Only
multiplicative
creation can end up with a mechanism revealed in exoplanets.

Looking at the precession of Mercury perihelion in 3D it traces out
what is called
a "rosette type figure". Precessions are all loss of energy and a
falling in.
Spinning tops precess when their energy gets low. But there is a
component
of dynamics of the impelling of radiation from the Sun upon Mercury
giving it
an outward motion. So if Mercury were falling into the Sun by say 2 cm/
year
there is the counterbalancing of the Solar Radiation upon Mercury.

So these two components of the inward falling of Mercury due to
Multiplicative
Creation of whatever that number is? Let us say it is twice as large
as
Dirac's Moon figure of 2 cm/year and let us say it is 4 cm/year for
the Sun
pull of Mercury to fall into the Sun due to multiplicative-creation.

Now I have to compute what the approx solar radiation pressure is on
Mercury
as a yearly effect. So let guess it is around 3.5 cm/year on average.
So that
leaves us with a overall component of 0.5 cm/year inward falling into
the Sun
due to Multiplicative Creation. Would that number cause a rosette-
figure of
Mercury's orbit?

Every few years, someone does a new study of the long-term stability
of the Solar System. So far, the answer always comes out that it's
stable as far as the calculations go (phew!), but the fact that
people have to do numerical calculations says the conclusion is not
obvious. Recently there was even a claim that GR gives somewhat
greater stability than pure Newtonian gravity.

--



GR is demoted in this new model for GR is not a mechanism but a
description.
The description is that mass bends space and matter follows the
curvature of that
bent space. So GR was never a mechanism and the mechanism is
new-radioactivities with multiplicative-creation.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
  #9  
Old July 29th 09, 08:43 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Yousuf Khan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 594
Default evolution of our solar-system as exo-solar-system and why global

Marco wrote:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?

Marco
UCO Lick Observatory
Laboratory for Adaptive Optics



There might be some local-scale evolution of the system, such as the
Earth-Moon system, but the large scale migration of gas giants closer
toward the Sun can't happen anymore. The next evolutionary phase that
will happen to this system is when the Sun goes red giant, and all of
the planets will get further away due to the Sun's mass loss.

As for the Earth-Moon system, at some point in the future, the Earth
will become tidally locked to the Moon, just like the Moon is to the
Earth, and any further migration away will stop.

Yousuf Khan
  #10  
Old July 29th 09, 10:02 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 858
Default where is the term for solar radiation pressure in the calculation of



Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Steve Willner wrote:
In article 4a6f2ff0@darkstar,
"Marco" writes:
But the moon's orbit around the earth is widening due to energy transfers in
the tides. Why would not the same thing happen to the earth/sun?


I'm sure it does, but I suspect Jupiter's perturbations (and even
Saturn's) are a much larger effect.


There are alot of factors to keep track of. All the more puzzling as
to why
the astronomy community delineates the components of the precession of
Mercury's perihelion yet when they receive a Moon recession of 3.8 cm/
year
they act as if it has no other component other than purely tidal
friction.


Wikipedia delineates the components of the Mercury perihelion
precession:
--- quoting Wikipedia ---
Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury

Amount (arcsec/century)
Cause

5025.6
Coordinate (due to the precession of the equinoxes)

531.4
Gravitational tugs of the other planets

0.0254
Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)

42.98±0.04
General relativity

5600.0
Total

5599.7
Observed


Thus, the predictions of general relativity perfectly account for the
missing precession (the remaining discrepancy is within observational
error).

--- end quoting Wikipedia ---

At this very moment in time there is a Messenger Spacecraft orbiting
near Mercury
and using the Solar Radiation Pressure to guide the spacecraft.

If any one of us were near Mercury, the most obvious fact is the fact
of the Solar
Wind, the radiation pressure of energy coming from the Sun. So intense
is that
radiation pressure that it is guiding the Messenger Spacecraft.

So, the question is, in all the components listed above for the
explanation of the
precession of Mercury perihelion, where is the term for Solar
Radiation Pressure?

So when the authors of the above Wikipedia entry say
"predictions of general relativity perfectly account for the missing
precession"
would in my opinion, considering that they missed solar radiation
pressure
should say this, -- predictions of general relativity perfectly
brainwashes for the missing precession.

Much of modern day astronomy is a science that has a habitual nasty
habit
of omission of terms whenever a group wants to brainwash in their
favor. For instance, recently in the case of finding that the Moon
is receding from Earth by 3.8 cm/year is the omission of Dirac's
multiplicative
creation term of about 2 cm/year.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Researchers find Global Positioning System is significantly impacted by powerful solar radio burst (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 April 5th 07 04:10 PM
Evolution of Circumstellar Disks Around Normal Stars: Placing Our Solar System in Context Joseph Lazio SETI 0 June 19th 06 12:09 PM
BREAKING NEWS! Billy Meier Right AGAIN! New Planet - Extraterrestrials -- Aliens - Space - Solar System - Evolution - Creation - Hubble. Ed Conrad Misc 5 August 2nd 05 03:02 PM
BREAKING NEWS! Billy Meier Right AGAIN! New Planet - Extraterrestrials -- Aliens - Space - Solar System - Evolution - Creation - Hubble. Ed Conrad Amateur Astronomy 8 August 2nd 05 03:02 PM
BREAKING NEWS! Billy Meier Right AGAIN! New Planet - Extraterrestrials -- Aliens - Space - Solar System - Evolution - Creation - Hubble. Ed Conrad UK Astronomy 5 August 2nd 05 03:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.