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

What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 4th 11, 02:51 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Frisbieinstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

You guys are totally full of ****!

  #22  
Old September 4th 11, 04:09 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

"mpc755" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:


Cavy wrote:
The main issue with the 'Mainstream Scientific

Establishment' is not understanding aether
has mass. What is presently postulated as non-
baryonic dark matter is aether.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is
physically displaced by matter.


hanson wrote:
is it... A = m / L^3 ... or what?

Cavy wrote:
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.


hanson wrote:
is it... m*v = A * sin(t) .... or what?

Cavy wrote:
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.


hanson wrote:
is it... F / m = A / G ... or what?

So, put in the correct equations, Cavedon. Stop singing!
Maybe Heger can help you with four-vectors or Quaternions.
Stop with your aethereal songs and show the math!
Get the Aether show on the road, guys.

Cavedon wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2." ..... [ = E/c^2 in modern denotation]
snip Cavy's sub-intellectual lamentations

hanson wrote:
..... ahahahaha... Cavy, don't sneak away from the
issue. Stay with your fetish, the Aether, and make
it acceptable.
.... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,
the equation that Einstein stole from Pretto, for
witch Einstein publicly apologized in 1907.
Now, don't weasel, but put in the correct equations
for the Aether, above, right where I gave you the
suggestion templates for it.
Be a physicist, not a romantic minnesinger Mikey!






  #23  
Old September 4th 11, 04:18 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
mpc755
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 818
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 4, 11:09*am, "hanson" wrote:

the Aether, and make
it acceptable.
... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 *is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,


Matter is condensations of aether.

Matter evaporates into aether.

E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.

Aether and matter have mass.

A change in state of that which has mass is energy.

For example, when an atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into
aether. The matter expands as it transitions to aether. The physical
effects this transition has on the neighboring matter and aether is
defined as E=mc^2.
  #24  
Old September 4th 11, 04:25 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 4, 1:10 am, jacob navia wrote:
Problem is, that physics is an experimental science.

Relativity is confirmed by an incredible number of experiments.

As I pointed out earlier, "Often particular interpretations of
observations made during practical experiments are announced as
results of those experiments." Accordingly, all such experiments that
claim to confirm Relativity, only make erroneous interpretations of
the observations to do so.
Taking (at random) a relatively recent one:

NASA Announces Results of Epic Space-Time Experiment

May 4, 2011: Einstein was right again. There is a space-time vortex
around Earth, and its shape precisely matches the predictions of
Einstein's theory of gravity.

First of all, kindly confirm if you really believe that spacetime is a
physical entity which can get physically curved and can form vortex
around earth. If so how can you justify this belief other than mere
indoctrination? Kindly study the paper, "Demystification of the
spacetime model of relativity" given below and then confirm if you
still believe that spacetime is a physical entity which can get
physically curved and can form vortex around earth.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

Researchers confirmed these points at a press conference today at NASA
headquarters where they announced the long-awaited results of Gravity
Probe B (GP-B).

"The space-time around Earth appears to be distorted just as general
relativity predicts," says Stanford University physicist Francis
Everitt, principal investigator of the Gravity Probe B mission.

see

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...011/04may_epic

What do you have to say to that mister?


Kindly refer to GP-B STATUS UPDATE — May 4, 2011
http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

"After 31 years of research and development, 10 years of flight
preparation, a 1.5 year flight mission and 5 years of data analysis,
our GP-B team has arrived at the final experimental results for this
landmark test of Einstein’s 1916 general theory of relativity."
"The table and diagram below show the individual gyroscope
results, ..."

Gyroscope #2 : Frame-Dragging Measurement -16.1±29.7 mas/yr
That is the values varying between -45.8 to +13.6
And these are interpreted to confirm the theoretically predicted value
of -39.2 mas/yr

What an experimental confirmation of GR !!!

GSS
  #25  
Old September 4th 11, 05:10 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?


Mental Patient Cavedon "mpc755" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:
"mpc755" wrote:
"hanson" wrote:


Cavy wrote:
The main issue with the 'Mainstream Scientific

Establishment' is not understanding aether
has mass. What is presently postulated as non-
baryonic dark matter is aether.
Aether physically occupies three dimensional space and is
physically displaced by matter.


hanson wrote:
is it... A = m / L^3 ... or what?

Cavy wrote:
A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave.


hanson wrote:
is it... m*v = A * sin(t) .... or what?

Cavy wrote:
Force exerted toward matter by aether displaced by matter is gravity.


hanson wrote:
is it... F / m = A / G ... or what?

So, put in the correct equations, Cavedon. Stop singing!
Maybe Heger can help you with four-vectors or Quaternions.
Stop with your aethereal songs and show the math!
Get the Aether show on the road, guys.

Cavedon wrote:
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2." ..... [ = E/c^2 in modern denotation]
snip Cavy's sub-intellectual lamentations

hanson wrote:
..... ahahahaha... Cavy, don't sneak away from the
issue. Stay with your fetish, the Aether, and make
it acceptable.
.... and don't be such a dingbat, Mickey. That
L/c2 is nothing but the traditional E=mc^2,
the equation that Einstein stole from Pretto, for
witch Einstein publicly apologized in 1907.
Now, don't weasel, but put in the correct equations
for the Aether, above, right where I gave you the
suggestion templates for it.
Be a physicist, not a romantic minnesinger Mikey!

Mental PatientsCavedon #755 belched & wrote:
(Mikey's Psalm Choir #755: His ode to the Aether)
Matter is condensations of aether.
Matter evaporates into aether.
E=mc^2 is the issue under discussion.
Aether and matter have mass.

... and here come Cavedon's crescendo. Says Mikey:
An Atomic bomb explodes matter evaporates into aether.
===== Aether is defined as E=mc^2. ======

hanson wrote:
====== Now you blew it, Mickey! ======
You can go back to your cave now, Cavedon!
..... ahahahaha... HAHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA..
AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha.....


  #26  
Old September 4th 11, 06:16 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
rotchm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

Just passing by, reading a few posts here and there. Here are a few
comments to the quoted.

* * * * Example 1 (contrary example)

* * * * I observe a pendulum clock coming straight at me. SNIP.... Goodbye time dilation!


Pendulum clocks do not operate in inertial frames (devoid of grav.
field). Pendulum clocks work on earth because of the grav. field and
this the surface of the earth is non-inertial hence SR does not
apply, does not conclude.


* * * * Example 2 (proper analysis)

* * * * Let's say I have 2 identical synchronized clocks initially together in the same FofR.

* * * * I now apply a bit of a force to one for a little while so I have now introduced a bit of a relative v between them.
Let's say I let this go on for a million years or so and then apply the moderate forces necessary to get the clocks
back together in the same FofR. So overwhelmingly, both clocks have been in different inertial FofR for a long time
with a relative v and the force and resultant acceleration can be entirely regarded as insignificant


Insignificant? Do the math. There will be a non-zero "de-synch" as
predicted by SR(+clock hypothesis) and as observed by actual
experiments.


Most people think that time dilation
means that time is actually passing at different rates


Yes, some people *interpret* it like that.

Relativity itself
states that this is "apparent", not actual.


No, Relativity does not state that. Some people state/call/interpret
it like that. Relativity simply gives you its predicted
VALUE(s); it gives you the values on the clocks and is independent of
how you call this.


* * * * The stupid part about this is that the theory itself claims that time only "appears" to elapse more slowly,



Again, NO, the theory ( Relativity) does not make such claims. Some
authors simply *describe* it that way. 10 20 no matter if you call
this real, apparent, slow, fast, different rate etc.

  #27  
Old September 4th 11, 06:18 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 4, 12:30*am, "Androcles" .
2011 wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message

...
| Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
| developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
| an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
| of years even in the modern age of instant communications?

Politics, bigotry, ignorance, no mathematical ability, cash incentives.

Why the
| collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
| Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
| of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
| Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
| resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
| 'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
| fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.
|
That's what I mean. In your ignorance you are sustaining the mistaken
belief that Einstein is responsible for length contraction whereas his
equations indicate length EXPANSION. And there is nothing wrong
with a moving frame of reference, any fool riding in a car is at rest
relative to the windscreen and moving relative to the road, it isn't
magic. If it is fictitious then every length, symbol or TV image is
fictitious, from this text which has no ink on your screen to money
which only has value for trade. Discs of metal, gold bars and
diamonds have no survival value, they cannot be eaten. And all
diamonds do is refract light, making pretty colours, otherwise they
are just another rock folly.

| Recently Pentcho Valev had quoted some excerpts from an article,
| "Einstein's sceptics: Who were the relativity deniers?" in New
| Scientist, 18 November 2010 by Milena Wazeck.
|
As I said, cash incentives. New Scientist is profitable magazine.

| [Yet what flourishes today on the fringes of the internet was much
| more prominent in the 1920s, in the activities of a movement that
| included physics professors and even Nobel laureates. Who were
| Einstein's opponents?

ME!

(...) Gehrcke was an experimental physicist at
| the Imperial Technical Institute in Berlin. Like many experimentalists
| of that era, he felt uncomfortable with the rise of a theory that
| demanded a reformulation of the fundamental concepts of space and
| time. In 1921 he argued that giving up the idea of absolute time
| threatened to confuse the basis of cause and effect in natural
| phenomena. (...) Another motivation was more noble. Einstein's
| opponents were seriously concerned about the future of science. They
| did not simply disagree with the theory of general relativity; they
| opposed the new foundations of physics altogether. The increasing role
| played by advanced mathematics seemed to disconnect physics from
| reality. "Mathematics is the science of the imaginable, but natural
| science is the science of the real," Gehrcke stated in 1921. Engineer
| Eyvind Heidenreich, who found relativity incomprehensible, went
| further: "This is not science. On the contrary, it is a new brand of
| metaphysics." (...) By the mid-1920s Einstein's opponents were facing
| overwhelming resistance, and most refrained from taking a public
| stance against the theory of relativity. Many of them simply gave up,
| and the Academy of Nations ceased to serve as the central organisation
| campaigning against Einstein, though it lingered on until the early
| 1930s. But the anti-relativists did not revise their opinion. In 1951,
| Gehrcke was still writing letters about the fight against relativity.
| "The day will come where everything about this theory will be
| abandoned by the world at large, but when will this be?" he asked. The
| debate about relativity lingers on today. Though the new generation of
| Einstein's opponents have mostly moved their protests online, they
| share some fundamental characteristics with their predecessors.]
|
| It is not a normal phenomenon that mistaken beliefs, erroneous
| assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected, uncorrected for
| hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts of many
| intellectuals.

Why not? Ptolemy's epicycles lasted 1400 years. The Neolithic Egyptian
pyramid follies are much older.

| It points to a serious malady in the body of
| 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'. In my opinion, following
| factors have contributed to the growth of this malady.
|
| (a) Growing *complexity of mathematical models developed to represent
| physical reality, often obscure the physical reality to such an extent
| that the difference between the two is lost in wilderness.
|
| (b) It is generally believed that a physical theory can only be
| invalidated through the results of practical experiments, but the
| founding assumptions of the theory are rarely examined or tested in
| depth.
|
| (c) Often particular interpretations of observations made during
| practical experiments are announced as results of those experiments.
|
| (d) With the advent of specialization and super-specialization, the
| expertise in different fields of science has got compartmentalized to
| such an extent that no body expects an 'outsider' to check or correct
| any erroneous assumptions made in a specialized field of research.
|
| (e) All established systems of training new scientists, invariably
| contain an implicit component of 'indoctrination' that encourages
| maintenance of status quo and discourages questioning of the
| established beliefs and dogmas.
|
| However, it still remains an enigma as to how the mistaken beliefs,
| erroneous assumptions and wrong theories could go undetected,
| uncorrected for hundreds of years, in spite of the relentless efforts
| of many intellectuals?
|
| Learned readers are requested to share their views on this issue.
|

It's not about science, it's about faith. A moslem is a moslem because
all his family and friends are moslems and he was raised a moslem.
A jew is a jew because all his family and friends are jews and he was
raised a jew. A xtian is a xtian because all his family and friends are
xtians and he was raised a xtian. A hindu is a hindu because all his
family and friends are hindu and he was raised a hindu. A relativist is
a relativist because all his family and friends are relativist and he was
raised a relativist.

| Further, kindly refer to my following two papers published in a
| mainstream international journal of physics, which clearly establish
| that the theory of Relativity is founded on erroneous assumptions and
| sustained by mistaken beliefs.
|
| 1. *Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
| Abstract: According to special theory of relativity, all motion is
| relative and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of
| reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other
| inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or
| universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to
| the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of
| propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that
| frame. Any motion with respect to such a reference frame will be
| called "absolute motion." The proposed experiment establishes the
| feasibility of detection of such an absolute motion by measuring the
| up-link and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed
| points on the surface of earth. With current technological
| advancements in pulsed lasers, detectors, precision atomic clocks, and
| computers, feasibility of the proposed experiment has been confirmed.
| Successful conduct of the proposed experiment will initiate a paradigm
| shift in fundamental physics.
|
| This paper demonstrates that the second postulate of SR is wrong, and
| that the Newtonian notions of absolute space and time are correct. It
| describes a simple doable experiment to confirm the same.
|https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...
|
| 2. *Demystification of the spacetime model of relativity
| Abstract: The geometrical interpretation of gravitation in general
| theory of relativity imparts certain mystical properties to the
| spacetime continuum. The mystic connotations associated with this
| spacetime model may be attributed to the fallacious depiction of
| spacetime as a physical entity. This paper proves that the spacetime
| continuum in general relativity is a simple mathematical model and not
| a physical entity.
|
| This paper establishes the fact that GR is founded on the mistaken
| belief that the spacetime is a physical entity which can even get
| "curved". It has been clearly demonstrated that spacetime is not a
| physical entity but just a mathematical 4D 'graphical' template used
| to compute gravitational trajectories of particles as geodesic curves.
| The so called "curvature" of spacetime is an utterly misleading
| 'misnomer' which just represents a non-zero value of the Riemann
| tensor composed from the scaling factors of different axes of the
| 'graphical' template.
|https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...
|
| GSS
|http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

You've added nothing useful, made no new discovery.
You have some utterly religious bull**** about the "permittivity
of free space" based on your own faith. YOU are adding to the
mystique.
Why (is it) the collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the
'Mainstream Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or
correct the follies of a few individuals for hundreds of years?
Because gurcharn sandhu keeps on spreading the bull****, thick
and rich.
--Androcles


For hundreds of years???
  #28  
Old September 4th 11, 06:37 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 3, 6:09*pm, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 03.09.2011 18:38, schrieb GSS:

Agreed that grasping the intricacies of physical phenomena and
developing theories thereof, is a slow and tedious process which forms
an integral part of our evolution. But why mistaken beliefs, erroneous
assumptions and wrong theories go undetected, uncorrected for hundreds
of years even in the modern age of instant communications? Why the
collective wisdom of millions of scientists in the 'Mainstream
Scientific Establishment' cannot detect, check or correct the follies
of a few individuals for hundreds of years? The case in point is the
Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein. Precious human and material
resources are being wasted in sustaining the mistaken beliefs in
'length contraction', 'time dilation', 'spacetime curvature' and
fictitious 'Inertial Reference Frames in relative motion'.


I personally believe, that theoretical physics as we know it is
intentionally wrong. Better models are known, but not for the common
mortals. To train the students total nonsense was developed, that is
inconceivable complicated, but has no value whatsoever.

These 'theories' also disrupt occasional dissident movements and deviate
them into wrong tracks.

How to overcome this???? Well first trying to see, that this is
intentional. Nature cannot function like some of our most prominent
models suggest. And it is absolutely unwanted by the 'high-priests',
that laymen develop a valid description. This would make them
immediately unnecessary and people would start to ask, how these
billions were actually spent and what all these 'scientists' actually do.

On Arxiv.org there are half a million papers. This is an unbelievable
large number and nobody can ever read them. So it is completely useless
to have such a system, but it does exist. But why?? I assume: to create
a flood of nonsense.

It has to be this way, because nature should behave somehow with simple
mechanisms, hence we would need only a few papers with valid
descriptions - and the rest is wrong (nonsense). So 99,9% is wrong and
everybody knows this, except the common mortals.

Occasional dissidents come with own ideas, but get no audience. Why?
Well, who wanted to listen? The mainstream 'high-priests' do not want
and do not need and their staff is carefully selected for 'flexibility'
(smart, corrupt, brainwashed). Those do not dare to listen and endlessly
reject every dissident word.

TH


The mainstream status-quo specifically trains and hires FUD-masters,
and otherwise has an unlimited devout army of mostly public funded
brown-nosed clowns that always claim being Atheist that only happen to
act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, and otherwise they always claim
being politically independent when in fact they strictly follow the
money that has the fewest strings attached.

Therefore publishing whatever as offering any better interpretation or
that of a new or improved deductive formulated theory, simply doesn't
get noticed.

Outsiders are also systematically banished and/or excluded (aka
blackballed), as well as the mainstream goes out of its way in order
to discredit any possible threat to their mainstream status-quo.
Mafia, Hitler and Jesus/Semite freaks pretty much have to function as
a borg collective, because they each have little if anything else to
work with.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #29  
Old September 4th 11, 06:44 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 4, 12:01*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
The situation is schizophrenic. The "Mainstream Scientific
Establishment" easily criticizes the consequences of the theory - e.g.
the block universe is almost universally rejected. At the same time
the trivial deductive rule:

"unacceptable consequences, therefore false axioms"

is, to use Orwell's terminology, an "unrule" - it does not exist, it
has never existed. There will be a conference in a few months and the
announcement sounds quite heretical:

http://wwww.uaeu.ac.ae/conferences/t...objectives.asp
"Time is a fundamental concept that eludes rigorous definition and
description and proves elusive when studied by scientists. The more we
understand the realities of time, the more it becomes obscure and
unrealizable. Modern theories in physics and cosmology dramatically
alter our views of time, but instead of clarifying the classical views
of time, modern theories add complexity to the notion of time through
the questions and paradoxes arising from the introduction of concepts
such as time travel, negative time and curved time."

Do you think the possible falsehood of the postulates of "modern
theories in physics" will be discusssed at this conference? It will
not even be hinted at.

Pentcho Valev


I think it is quite possible.
There is a perceptible wind of change.

Recently, my paper titled "Relativity: a pillar of modern physics or a
stumbling block" has been presented at one of the international
conferences held at San Diego, California United States. The detailed
paper is under publication in the conference proceedings. The abstract
of that paper is reproduced below.

Abstract: Currently, the theory of Relativity is being regarded as one
of the main pillars of Modern Physics, essentially due to its
perceived role in high energy physics, particle accelerators,
relativistic quantum mechanics, and cosmology. Since the founding
assumptions or postulates of Relativity and some of the resulting
consequences confound the logic and common sense, a growing number of
scientists are now questioning the validity of Relativity. The advent
of Relativity has also ruled out the existence of the 19th century
notion of ether medium or physical space as the container of physical
reality. Thereby, the Newtonian notions of absolute motion, absolute
time, and absolute reference frame have been replaced with the
Einsteinian notions of relative motion, relative time, and inertial
reference frames in relative motion. This relativity dominated
viewpoint has effectively abandoned any critical study or advanced
research in the detailed properties and processes of physical space
for advancement of Fundamental Physics. In this paper both special
theory of relativity and general relativity have been critically
examined for their current relevance and future potential. We find
that even though Relativity appears to be a major stumbling block in
the progress of Modern Physics, the issue needs to be finally settled
by a viable experiment [Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010)] that can detect
absolute motion and establish a universal reference frame.

GSS
  #30  
Old September 4th 11, 07:05 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
mpc755
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 818
Default What is wrong with the 'Mainstream Scientific Establishment'?

On Sep 4, 12:10*pm, "hanson" wrote:

===== * Aether is *defined as E=mc^2. *======


The energy associated with matter evaporating into aether, which is
what occurs when an atomic bomb explodes, is represented by the
equation E=mc^2. Mass is conserved. The mass converted form matter to
aether. The physical effects this conversion has on the neighboring
aether and matter is energy.
 




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
What the Scientific Establishment DOESN'T want you to knowof theSCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 September 2nd 08 01:54 PM
Vested-Interest Secrets of the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT (The Truth ItDoesn't Want You to Know) [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 September 2nd 08 01:47 PM
Corrupt Scientific Establishment Still Blackballing Ed Conrad's Incredible Discoveries -- Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 July 21st 06 11:42 AM
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment - John Zinni Amateur Astronomy 0 April 27th 06 08:41 PM
ED CONRAD the PO8 -- Ode to the Scientific Establishment.. Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 1 March 30th 06 06:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:23 PM.


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.