Notices
Results 1 to 54 of 54
Like Tree20Likes
  • 2 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By Just
  • 1 Post By PhDemon
  • 2 Post By PhDemon
  • 1 Post By Ximlab
  • 3 Post By Flick Montana

Thread: Looking for a knowledgeable, and interested person to share my thought with!

  1. #1 Looking for a knowledgeable, and interested person to share my thought with! 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    I have an idea regarding the origin of matter. I am not claiming that it is anything special, just something i thought was interesting. I would be very grateful if someone could help me with this idea or disprove it. My physics is limited so my idea is probably due to ignorance. I would be more than happy for someone to explain where my flaw is.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    73
    It's unlikely you found the origin of matter by random thought, but you're in the right place to post it, so go ahead.


    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
    A.E
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,288
    Very well. What's your thought?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Cogito Ergo Sum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,516
    Feel free to present your thoughts, but I must ask you to post them as coherent as possible.
    Thay way, it is easier to follow your thoughts.
    "The only safe rule is to dispute only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong."

    ~ Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument (1831), Stratagem XXXVIII.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I have read many ideas on the origin of matter. Personally, I find the origin of thought even more interesting. Not sure that the origin of either is within our ability to comprehend or that the lack of such comprehension matters.

    By all means, trot out your pony...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    precious sir ir r aj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    668
    come on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    By all means, trot out your pony...
    This could be considered a bit rude. It's normal to wait for the idea to be presented before saying it's "pony".
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In rhyming slang pony = crap (see if you can work it out).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    By all means, trot out your pony...
    This could be considered a bit rude. It's normal to wait for the idea to be presented before saying it's "pony".
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    In rhyming slang pony = crap (see if you can work it out).
    Depends on your part of the world. In my use, it is a polite challenge.

    Bring your pony (idea) forward and lets see if it has any 'legs' and can stay the course. Let's see if the idea has any merit and can fend off all challengers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Idea 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    My idea is that all matter in the universe could be created by one single particle moving at a high/infinite velocity, so that it creates the illusion of matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    Ok, it is "pony" then...

    a) what is the one single particle made of? If it's matter what created it?
    b) "infinite velocity" smacks of bad sci-fi and is pretty stupid.
    c) how does a particle (of matter?) moving rapidly create an illusion of more matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    My idea is that all matter in the universe could be created by one single particle moving at a high/infinite velocity, so that it creates the illusion of matter.
    A single particle...

    Okay.

    I think I can absorb 'single'.

    Who/what is observing the single particle?

    (This is not my strongest topic, but one that I do find immensely intriguing for the simple reason that so many other people consider it the ultimate question, origin of the universe.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    I was thinking that the overlapping of the particle due to it's high velocity, or it's ability to return to it's original position in a short amount of time could cause some phenomena that creates the illusion of mass.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    How?, and what do you mean by "overlapping"? You have just made something up without even thinking of a possible mechanism. This is not even a hypothesis it's a fantasy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    I was thinking that the overlapping of the particle due to it's high velocity, or it's ability to return to it's original position in a short amount of time could cause some phenomena that creates the illusion of mass.
    By "overlapping", did you mean in terms of a single particle moving at such a high velocity that it catches up and slams into itself? Sorta like a dog chasing it's own tail?
    DogLady and sir ir r aj like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    Overlapping would be the particle starting at a position in space, and returning in a time interval shorter than a Planck unit
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    By what mechanism would "overlapping" cause the illusion of all matter? Making stuff up is not a substitute for science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    Take it how it is. I posted this in hopes to share an interesting (yet underdeveloped) idea of mine. Many great ideas start off as fantasy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    Name one.

    Great ideas (at least in science) are based in reality and have some corroborating evidence (either experimental or theoretical) in support of them. Your idea is as valid as me saying all mass is caused by unicorns dancing. It's never going to progress beyond fantasy until you have a mechanism that can be tested. Spouting nonsense without thinking it through is not "interesting", to a scientist it's incredibly annoying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    string theory, general relativity, etc...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    Also, my goal is not to make you angry, or annoyed. I am simply trying to share an idea. I am sure that a true scientist would be happy that there are regular people (not scientists) who are interested in their field of study
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    Both of your examples have theoretical or experimental underpinnings they were not simply made up nonsense (although some physicists do think string theory is made up nonsense)

    Interest is fine, asking questions is fine, making daft assertions is annoying. You asked for flaws to be pointed out they have been.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Both of your examples have theoretical or experimental underpinnings they were not simply made up nonsense (although some physicists do think string theory is made up nonsense)

    Interest is fine, asking questions is fine, making daft assertions is annoying. You asked for flaws to be pointed out; they have been.
    Of course you are correct in your assertions, PhDemon, but not all 'horses' need to be ridden with spurs. I thought the mission was to 'educate' new posters, not 'eradicate' them?

    Although in fairness, Just, the world quickly shreds all those who are not prepared, so perhaps PhDemon is just assisting you in subjecting your idea to the type of scrutiny you can expect to encounter with a discerning audience that adheres to the scientific method of examination.
    sir ir r aj likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Although in fairness, Just, the world quickly shreds all those who are not prepared, so perhaps PhDemon is just assisting you in subjecting your idea to the type of scrutiny you can expect to encounter with a discerning audience that adheres to the scientific method of examination.
    That's the aim. In science all ideas are subjected to harsh scrutiny. I sometimes come across as harsh (although in this thread I think I've been more reasonable) but if I present ideas to my peers at work I get the same treatment from them, that's how daft ideas and brain farts are weeded out. Ideas are only worth pursuing if they survive the early rounds by virtue of having evidence supporting them and fitting observed facts, this one is out for the count...

    When people ask questions that I can answer, I educate, when people make stuff up I get annoyed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    For anyone still interested. there is a theory similar to mine. One-electron universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    I'm familiar with the idea as presented by Feynman in one of his autobiographical books. The only similarity to yours is the single particle. What about your high velocity and "overlapping" nonsense? Also you will note that it never got beyond the hypothesis phase as it could not explain why electrons are more common than positrons, i.e. when it didn't fit the data it was discarded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    "postulates that there exists only a single electron in the universe, propagating through space and time in such a way as to appear in many places simultaneously." How do you know this does not mean high velocity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    It makes no implication of high velocity at all, it is a hypothesis that the world line of the electron through space-time is such that at any particular time it can have more than one location. It has nothing in common with your proposal except the "single particle" aspect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    As a lay person, 'propagating through space and time' is as much 'word salad' to me as many other things I have come across.

    To date, no one has a verifiable story line. They are all just interesting concepts in my opinion and I surely would not wager any sum on any of them at this point in time.
    I find it quite astounding how heated the rhetoric can become among presumably learned individuals debating that which cannot yet be proven.
    sir ir r aj and Just like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    To a scientist it isn't word salad though, it has a definite meaning. Fair enough nothing is proven but then nothing in science ever is. It's about evidence, making stuff up without evidence and clutching at straws by trying to latch onto a similar idea is not science. The ideas that science keeps fit with observation and make correct predictions regardless of your (or my) opinion of them.

    I have not become heated in this thread, simply pointed out flaws as requested and shown holes in the argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    I agree with you PhDemon. My idea is likely to be just that: an idea. I also agree with you scheherazade in that we are debating something that cannot be proven at this point in time. I am just a college student (expecting a degree in chemical engineering). My passion for science and philosophy forces me to think of these things, and in my mind there are interesting, which means (for me) it is worth sharing, since we are all curious beings. I diddn't mean to become defensive. In fact I am happy that you replied to my post instead of moving on, so thank you for that.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Does this single particle also create dark matter? Wouldn't it require different properties in order to do so?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,066
    I was speaking in the broader sense of many discussions observed over time, many forums and many other posters in my comment, PhDemon. My apologies if you took my comments to be a criticism of your responses in this thread. That was certainly not my intention. You have a somewhat 'edgy' style and a self confessed lack of patience with 'lack of substance' but on the whole I find your posts to be quite informative.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    73
    The word 'illusion' is what bugs me most about the idea. As far as i know it's not a clear scientific term, clarify this.

    Also infinity is not a common word in physics. I'm no expert, but it's kind of an auto-fail isn't it? Plank level being the limit in every way isn't it?

    Of course it seems extremely light but you call it an "idea", not a theory, so I guess it's fine to go a bit wild.
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
    A.E
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    Dark Matter could be created by an absence of this particle. It could represent areas of space that the particle cannot traverse through.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    So, how does the absence of this particle explain the gravitational effects proposed for dark matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    Dark Matter could be created by an absence of this particle. It could represent areas of space that the particle cannot traverse through.
    Um,
    My idea is that all matter in the universe could be created by one single particle
    So the absence of this particle is also matter?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    But does this not make sense with the big bang theory? a theory that says the universe started as a singularity (the particle)? There were even calculations done that claimed that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light shortly after the big bang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    No it does not say that at all. The Big Bang theory is a theory of the evolution of the universe from a hot dense state, it says nothing about creation. I presume you are referring to inflation? What has that got to do with your idea?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    The Big Bang Theory says that the universe originated from a singularity, something that we don't yet understand. My idea is that my particle IS a singularity. Inflation relates to my idea because moments after the big bang the universe was expanding at a speed faster than light. My idea would work for this since the particle moves at a high velocity much faster than light.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    The Big Bang theory does NOT say anything about a singularity (popsci interpretations of it might but the theory itself does not). Your idea seems to change with every objection (without addressing any of them) and smacks of making it up as you go along. I also suggest you learn some basic physics, if your particle has mass (i.e. is matter) it cannot travel faster than light. Inflation is the expansion of space-time - no matter involved. Please do some basic revision before posting nonsense, you are not helping your case with things like this.
    Last edited by PhDemon; December 5th, 2013 at 03:31 PM.
    DogLady and Ximlab like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    My question was pretty simple; if the properties of your particle are those of ordinary matter, how can it also exist in a state which displays different properties? The absence of your particle does not explain the properties of dark matter (which are not the absence of matter).
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    73
    Big bang theory starts at Plank time, not t=0, as far as i know. It does not try to say what was before plank time. Also the size of the universe at that point, I'm not sure it's supposed to be a single mathetical point. Was universe at plank time, also of plank size? I don't remember.
    However I believe general relativity accept faster than light expansion of space (the early universe) as a thing. I suppose it's the same idea that authorize the concept of albuquierre drive.
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
    A.E
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    This idea is very new (i thought of it yesterday). My answers to your questions are shaky because of this. So, I'm going to change my answer to your question about dark matter and how the particle can exist in a state that displays different properties.

    Instead of dark matter being an absence of this particle, I am thinking that dark matter results when the particle is altered in a unique way for a period of time proportional to the space of the dark matter.

    The question of how this single particle can display different particles is a much harder question for me to think about.

    My idea for this is related to my answer to dark matter. The particle may alter (turn, invert, or something else) frequently enough to create patterns, and ultimately, matter.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Given that dark matter is the majority of the mass of our known universe, perhaps the matter we know so well is where your particle is fundamentally altered. That having been said, what could even alter a particle at such a fundamental level as to make it change between normal and dark matter? (I say this with the understanding that your particle already violates the laws of physics...)
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    If this particle does exist. Would there really be an unaltered form? Intellectuals say that we can never see the true nature of reality. However, the question should be asked: is there a truth to the reality we live in? If you rotate a perfect sphere, did you alter it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Is that your answer? Too philosophical for me.

    Given that your particle is the only one in existence, you couldn't even use the properties of another particle to alter the first. Your particle would have to do something that alters itself at specific times, which seems impossible to me if you don't have something else acting upon it.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    Intellectuals say that we can never see the true nature of reality.
    Careful your edging into woo territory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    73
    PhDemon, and other knowledgable posters, I just want to say thanks for bringing value to otherwise "thin" topics, don't let people's lack of response or approval stop you from posting quality. Even if there is in theory little value in many cranky topics at the start, I often end up learning from your debunking (if that's correct), as do many other people i'm sure.

    P.S : This is not specifically dedicated to your topic 'Just', it so happens your idea is indeed extremely light in substance so it's just a reasonable place for me to say this. Admittedly I've seen much worse ideas than yours on my short life in this forum, and would be more annoyed by them if they didn't have knowledgeable people raising the bar.
    PhDemon likes this.
    If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
    A.E
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    Flick, I was thinking similarly. That the particle must interact with itself in some way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    Flick, I was thinking similarly. That the particle must interact with itself in some way.
    Without ever coming into contact with itself?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    26
    I am not knowledgeable enough to answer these questions with any confidence. the more I give quick (probably ignorant) answers, the more i take away from this possibly interesting concept.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    precious sir ir r aj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    668
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    I am not knowledgeable enough to answer these questions with any confidence. the more I give quick (probably ignorant) answers, the more i take away from this possibly interesting concept.
    you may stop at anytime. 'just' say sorry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    For anyone still interested. there is a theory similar to mine. One-electron universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Just goes to show that even people as brilliant as Wheeler can have silly ideas. (Note that it is not a theory; there is no evidence supporting it and, as Feynman notes, it is contradicted by observation. I doubt it even qualifies as a hypothesis.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,437
    Quote Originally Posted by Just View Post
    I am not knowledgeable enough to answer these questions with any confidence. the more I give quick (probably ignorant) answers, the more i take away from this possibly interesting concept.
    The process of science often requires us to explore ultimately incorrect hypotheses. So long as we take the correct approach of skepticism to all of our ideas, rather than accepting something before we can produce evidence or at least a theoretical framework for it, then no harm is done.

    Had you posited your idea as fact and refused all evidence to the contrary, the comments of others would not have been so polite. Basically, you've done nothing wrong. You've explored an avenue of thought and you've realized it may have faults. We've all done that. It's called learning.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 30th, 2013, 11:01 AM
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: October 3rd, 2013, 06:25 AM
  3. Share your art
    By ravimi in forum Art and Culture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 15th, 2012, 07:57 AM
  4. Your videos to share
    By Quantime in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 14th, 2008, 03:56 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •