Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
aristarchus
Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 01-11-2005


Message 31 of 301 (433667)
11-12-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:52 PM


The part that creationists never mention is that dark matter is needed for the galaxies to be spinning as fast as they are. So while proposing a 10,000 year old universe might explain why galaxies haven't drifted apart, it does nothing to explain the speed at which the outer arms are moving. Dark matter explains both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 32 of 301 (433668)
11-12-2007 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:01 PM


Still simply strawmen and falsehoods.
However, I am saying that it's foolish to say that life could only exist on earth.
Since no one here has said that, it is a non-issue. What can be said is that the only sample of life we have available to study is here on earth and guess what, it happens to be carbon based.
Carbon-based life can only exist on earth, but not all life has to be carbon-based.
Sorry, but say what? Why can carbon-based life exist only here on earth?
And you still need to supply support for Creationism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:01 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 33 of 301 (433669)
11-12-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by RAZD
11-12-2007 6:06 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
By my previous efforts to state possibly old (and now unreliable) data, I'm currently researching something. Hold on...
"[An] important lesson we learn from the way that pure numbers like define the world is what it really means for worlds to be different. The pure number we call the fine structure constant and denote by is a combination of the electron charge, e, the speed of light, c, and Planck's constant, h. At first we might be tempted to think that a world in which the speed of light was slower would be a different world. But this would be a mistake. If c, h, and e were all changed so that the values they have in metric (or any other) units were different when we looked them up in our tables of physical constants, but the value of remained the same, this new world would be observationally indistinguishable from our world. The only thing that counts in the definition of worlds are the values of the dimensionless constants of Nature. If all masses were doubled in value you cannot tell because all the pure numbers defined by the ratios of any pair of masses are unchanged."
--John Barrow
If the speed of light has been decelerating, like Joo Magueijo and John Moffat seem to think it has, then the stars and galaxies more than 10,000 light years (modern light years) may have started at the same time.
'14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day.'
--Genesis 1:14-19
The Bible says that on the fourth day, the stars were visible. However. If this was the fourth day after the creation of the universe, then the light must have traveled very fast for the four-day-old stars to reach earth. Therefore, the speed of light was much much greater than today, for the closest star's light takes over four years to reach earth, not four days.
So, the most distant stars and galaxies may only be 10,000 years old. Therefore, still giving them not enough time to decay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 6:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 6:44 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 6:47 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 11-12-2007 7:05 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 34 of 301 (433672)
11-12-2007 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:36 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Let me also step in with one thing you should know.
You appear to be a Christian. Please understand this is not an issue of Christianity vs atheistic ideas. Almost all Christian sects accept the old universe, the Theory of Evolution and reject Biblical Creationism as the joke it is.
As stated by the Clergy Project Letter, currently signed and endorsed by over 11,000 US Christian Clergy:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:36 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM jar has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 301 (433673)
11-12-2007 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:36 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Consider this

Distance to SN1987A

Reference 1: The Distance to Supernova 1987a by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 25 June 2006, accessed 24JUN07:
quote:
At an earlier stage in its life, the star which exploded gave off material which formed a ring. Light from the supernova eventually bounced off of this ring, and about a year after we saw the explosion, we suddenly saw the ring.

Now, imagine a triangle. We know one of the angles - the angle, from here, between the supernova and the ring. And we know the length of one side, in years. From that, high school trigonometry gives us the lengths of the other two sides. The distance is 168,000 light years, 3.5%.
A light-year is a measure of distance, specifically the distance light would travel in one earth year at the current speed of light. This is about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km) , so 168,000 light-years would be about 988,000 trillion (1012) miles or ~9.88 x 1017 miles. How do we know this distance is not affected by a change in the speed of light?
Reference 2: Dave Matson: Young Earth: Additional Topics: Supernova, A6. The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light, Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:12 CST, accessed 24JUN07
quote:
The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.
If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.
Reference 3: SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe, by Todd S. Greene, originally written 3/16/2000, last revised 9/14/2000, accessed 24JUN07.
quote:
1. radius = 6.23 x 1012 km (see note 1 below) = 0.658 light-years
2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds (see note 1 below) = 0.000224 degrees
3. distance = 0.658 ly tan(0.000224)
4. distance = 0.658 ly 0.00000392
5. distance = 168,000 light-years
Note that this is independent of the speed of light, thus it cannot - alone - confirm the speed of light at the time of the nova, but it does confirm the stellar distance involved.
The next question is whether we can confirm that the speed of light was relatively constant during the time it took the light to travel from SN1987A to earth.

The Speed of Light

Back to ref 2:
quote:
Our first argument is based on a straightforward observation of pulsars. Pulsars put out flashes at such precise intervals and clarity that only the rotation of a small body can account for it (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.498). Indeed, the more precise pulsars keep much better time than even the atomic clocks on Earth! In the mid1980s a new class of pulsars, called millisecond pulsars, were discovered which were rotating hundreds of times each second! When a pulsar, which is a neutron star smaller than Manhattan Island with a weight problem (about as heavy as our sun), spins that fast it is pretty close to flying apart. Thus, in observing these millisecond pulsars, we are not seeing a slow motion replay as that would imply an actual spin rate which would have destroyed those pulsars. We couldn't observe them spinning that fast if light was slowing down. Consequently, we can dispense with the claim that the light coming from SN1987A might have slowed down.
A more quantitative argument can also be advanced for those who need the details. Suppose that light is slowing down according to some exponential decay curve. An exponential decay curve is one of Mother Nature's favorites. It describes radioactive decay and a host of other observations. If the speed of light were really slowing down, then an exponential decay curve would be a reasonable curve to start our investigation with ...
We want the light in our model to start fast enough so that the most distant objects in the universe, say 10 billion light-years away, will be visible today. That is, the light must travel 10 billion light-years in the 6000 years which creationists allow for the Earth's age. (A lightyear is the distance a beam of light, traveling at 186,000 miles per second, covers in one year.) Furthermore, the speed of light must decay at a rate which will reduce it to its present value after 6000 years. Upon applying these constraints to all possible exponential decay curves, and after doing a little calculus, we wind up with two nonlinear equations in two variables. After solving those equations by computer, we get the following functions for velocity and distance. The first function gives the velocity of light (light-years per year) t years after creation (t=0). The second function gives the distance (light-years) that the first beams of light have traveled since creation (since t=0).
V(t) = V0 e^(-Kt)
S(t) = 1010(1 e^(-Kt))

V0 = 28,615,783 (The initial velocity for light)
K = 0.00286158 (the decay rate parameter)
With these equations in hand, it can be shown that if light is slowing down then equal intervals of time in distant space will be seen on Earth as unequal intervals of time. That's our test for determining if light has slowed down. But, where can we find a natural, reliable clock in distant space with which to do the test?
As it turns out, Mother Nature has supplied some of the best clocks around. They are the pulsars. Pulsars keep time like the Earth does, by rotating smoothly, only they do it much better because they are much smaller and vastly heavier. The heavier a spinning top is the less any outside forces can affect it. Many pulsars rotate hundreds of times per second! And they keep incredibly precise time. Thus, we can observe how long it takes a pulsar to make 100 rotations and compare that figure to another observation five years later. Thus, we can put the above creationist model to the test. Of course, in order to interpret the results properly, we need to have some idea of how much change to expect according to the above creationist model. That calculation is our next step.
Let's start by considering a pulsar which is 170,000 light-years away, which would be as far away as SN1987A. Certainly, we can see pulsars at that distance easily enough. In our creationist model, due to the initial high velocity of light, the light now arriving from our pulsar (light beam A) took about 2149.7 years to reach Earth. At the time light beam A left the pulsar it was going 487.4686 times the speed of light. The next day (24 hours after light beam A left the pulsar) light beam B leaves; it leaves at 487.4648 times the speed of light. As you can see, the velocity of light has already decayed a small amount. (I shall reserve the expression "speed of light" for the true speed of light which is about 186,000 miles per second.) Allowing for the continuing decay in velocity, we can calculate that light beam A is 1.336957 light-years ahead of light beam B. That lead distance is not going to change since both light beams will slow down together as the velocity of light decays.
When light beam A reaches the Earth, and light is now going its normal speed, that lead distance translates into 1.336957 years. Thus, the one-day interval on our pulsar, the actual time between the departures of light beams A and B, wrongly appears to us as more than a year! Upon looking at our pulsar, which is 170,000 light-years away, we are not only seeing 2149.7 years into the past but are seeing things occur 488.3 times more slowly than they really are!
Exactly 5 years after light beam A left the pulsar, light beam Y departs. It is traveling at 480.5436 times the speed of light. Twenty-four hours after its departure light beam Z leaves the pulsar. It is traveling at 480.5398 times the speed of light. Making due allowances for the continual slowing down of the light, we can calculate that light beam Y has a lead in distance over light beam Z of 1.318767 light-years. Once again, when light beam Y reached Earth, when the velocity of light had become frozen at its present value, that distance translates into years. Thus, a day on the pulsar, the one defined by light beams Y and Z, appears in slow motion to us. We see things happening 481.7 times slower than the rate at which they actually occurred.
Therefore, if the above creationist model is correct, we should see a difference in time for the above two identical intervals, a difference which amounts to about 1.3%. Of course, the above calculations could be redone with much shorter intervals without affecting the 1.3% figure, being that the perceived slowdown is essentially the same for the smaller intervals within one day. As a result, an astronomer need only measure the spin of a number of pulsars over a few years to get definitive results. Pulsars keep such accurate time that a 1.3% difference--even after hundreds of years--would stand out like a giant redwood in a Kansas wheat field!
Such time discrepancy has not been observed in any pulsar. Thus by two different methods we confirm the speed of light is constant within our ability to measure it for the time period covered by the travel of light from SN1987A to earth. This of course ALSO means that the minimum age of the universe was 168,000 years (+/- 3%) in 1987 (when the nova was observed) ... AND it confirms the age of the light coming from the nova is ~168,000 years, so that any observed phenomena that occurred during that nova would have occurred 168,000 years ago.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:36 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:12 PM RAZD has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 36 of 301 (433675)
11-12-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by jar
11-12-2007 6:44 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I never denied the 'old universe' theory. I actually strongly believe that God made all things mature. In doing that, he could have created a 'mature' universe. The rocks could appear to be billions of years old, but really be much younger. Adam could've appeared to have been 30, when he was not a day old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 6:44 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 6:53 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 40 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 6:54 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 47 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:23 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 48 by Dr Jack, posted 11-12-2007 7:24 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 301 (433676)
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Gish Gallop alert
Is it time to set up a mentor session for Aquilegia753 wher (s)he can move slowly through all of these PRATTs with just one person?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 38 of 301 (433677)
11-12-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 5:52 PM


Aquilegia753 writes:
Well, the force of the galaxies spinning (at insanely fast speeds) along with the lack of neccesary mass to counter the effect with an equally strong gravitational pull towards the center means that the galaxies should be torn apart within 10,000 years. Because they are still intact and still spinning, either the galaxies must have more mass, and therefore more gravity (the theoretical 'Dark Matter'), or the universe and galaxies are less than 10,000 years old, and the galaxies haven't had time to decay.
As I suspected. This is a gross misunderstanding of astrophysics.
It's not just how fast the galaxies are spinning, it's the way they are spinning.
Let's assume for a moment that the galaxies are less than 10,000 years old and that most of them are just empty space (meaning all the visible matter that we can observe are all the matter there is). We would be observing galaxies to behave more or less like a planetary star system with the inner planets having much less angular speeds than the outer planets. If this was the case with how the galaxies are behaving, you would have a point.
But the galaxies are behaving more like solid objects than a planetary star system. The stars toward the outer edge have almost the same angular speeds than the stars toward the center. The only possible explanation for this behavior is if most of the matter that exist in the galaxies are nonvisible. We can certainly see their influence on the visible objects that we see, but we can't see what they are. Hence, we call them dark matter.
And where did you get the 10,000 years from? I still haven't figured that out yet.

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 5:52 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 39 of 301 (433678)
11-12-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Aquilegia753 writes:
I never denied the 'old universe' theory. I actually strongly believe that God made all things mature. In doing that, he could have created a 'mature' universe. The rocks could appear to be billions of years old, but really be much younger. Adam could've appeared to have been 30, when he was not a day old.
In other words, god could have created the universe, the world, and all of us with all our memories of our childhoods last thursday?

Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:15 PM Taz has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 301 (433679)
11-12-2007 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:50 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I never denied the 'old universe' theory. I actually strongly believe that God made all things mature. In doing that, he could have created a 'mature' universe. The rocks could appear to be billions of years old, but really be much younger. Adam could've appeared to have been 30, when he was not a day old.
Only if God is a liar and a cheat, a trickster, Loki.
If God created everything with the appearance of age, She could well have done it two seconds ago.
What you propose is God the Liar, certainly a possibility, but something which can never be tested.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:50 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:17 PM jar has replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 41 of 301 (433684)
11-12-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Aquilegia753
11-12-2007 6:36 PM


brief nearly off-topic rant
Aquilegia writes:
The Bible says that on the fourth day, the stars were visible.
Moses allegedly wrote:
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights”the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning”the fourth day.
Those don't sound the same to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 6:36 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Aquilegia753, posted 11-12-2007 7:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 42 of 301 (433687)
11-12-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
11-12-2007 6:47 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
Yes, that would create a time distortion, but we already experiance a time distortion here on earth with something much slower: sound.
If a car is going at, say, a quarter of the speed of sound, away from you and it honks its horn twice, ten seconds apart. Then, the first honk, honk A, will be traveling backward, away from the rapidly receding car. Ten seconds later, the car emits honk B. However, in between, the car has traveled 2820 feet. Both honks are now traveling at the same speed toward you, but 14100 feet apart. therefore, even though Honk B was sent only ten seconds after Honk A, they would arrive 12.5 seconds apart.
This simulation represents a time distortion. The sounds were made 10 seconds apart, but the stationary observer hears them 12.5 seconds apart.
If the car were to, in between the honks, accelerate to half the speed of sound, then the honks would be farther apart. Were it to continue accelerating, but decrease the speed increase exponentially, eventually, you'd need a period of greater than ten seconds between honks to tell their time differances apart (i.e. 15.000000058949201 seconds and 15.000000058949210 seconds [totally random numbers].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 6:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2007 10:44 AM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 43 of 301 (433689)
11-12-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taz
11-12-2007 6:53 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
No. I'm sure that God didn't give Adam false childhood memories. But, I'm saying that God made everything mature. He didn't make the egg, for there was no chicken to tend to it. If He made a middle-aged man instantly, He could make a middle-aged earth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 6:53 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Phat, posted 11-12-2007 7:49 PM Aquilegia753 has replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 44 of 301 (433690)
11-12-2007 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
11-12-2007 6:54 PM


Re: why this still isn't evidence for young creation
I WILL NOT STAND FOR YOU TO CALL MY CREATOR A LIER!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 6:54 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by DrJones*, posted 11-12-2007 7:21 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 49 by jar, posted 11-12-2007 7:26 PM Aquilegia753 has replied
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 11-12-2007 7:36 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-12-2007 7:41 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Aquilegia753
Member (Idle past 5900 days)
Posts: 113
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 45 of 301 (433692)
11-12-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Coragyps
11-12-2007 7:05 PM


Re: brief nearly off-topic rant
Even so if God created the stars on that day, then the speed of light would have to be even greater!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Coragyps, posted 11-12-2007 7:05 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taz, posted 11-12-2007 7:34 PM Aquilegia753 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024