Discussion:
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True: Gravity is NOT an attractive force between bodies
(too old to reply)
Aardvark
2010-06-16 15:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.

EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
- SPACE AND TIME BEND

Ninety years after he
expounded his famous theory,
a $700m NASA probe has
proved that the universe
behaves as he said. [read
the entire article below]

Actually, although what this experiment
PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive
force between bodies" [merely], the results
are still misinterpreted here in the usual
nonsensical gibberish of conventional
"physics-talk" of the past century: In effect,
these interpreters speak of "space-time"
bending* because they are not yet aware
of the true evolution of the universe: They
have discovered that the universe behaves
as I describe it does [and which you can
read at: http://physics.sdrodrian.com ]
but they interpret it in their antediluvian
understanding (it's as if the scientists who
once believed that the entire universe
revolved around the planet earth were
interpreting this discovery in terms of that
once so universally-held ancient superstition).

ONLY my description of a universe which
has evolved across immense amounts of
time from unimaginably vast volumes of
space could have produced/accumulated
the "energy" that today powers it. No other
explanation accounts for the prodigious
amounts of energy infused into every
last/smallest bit of the universe's matter.
And not even the pretty fable of a magic
[Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole
of "Creation" ... for no reason at all.

But, of course, this remains for yet another
more impressive understanding still.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
* Space is strictly/only the absence of
anything between instances of something.
And Time is merely the human mind's
attempt to synchronize one or more of
the universe's unrelated motions with/to
one of more of the universe's other
unrelated motion(s). --SDR

START QUOTE

Now the race is on to show
that the other half of
relativity also works--
for decades physicists have
been asking the question:
did Albert Einstein get it
wrong? After half a century,
seven cancellations and
$700m, a mission to test
his theory about the
universe has finally confirmed
that the man was a
mastermind -- or at
least half proved it.

The early results from Gravity
Probe B, one of Nasa's
most complicated satellites,
confirmed yesterday 'to
a precision of better than
1 per cent' the assertion
Einstein made 90 years ago
-- that an object such as
the Earth does indeed
distort the fabric of space and
time.

But this -- what is referred
to as the 'geodetic'
effect -- is only half of
the theory. The other,
'frame-dragging', stated
that as the world spins it
drags the fabric of the
universe behind it.

Francis Everitt, the Stanford
University professor
who has devoted his life to
investigating Einstein's
theory of relativity, told
scientists at the American
Physical Society it would
be another eight months
before he could measure
the 'frame-dragging' effect
precisely.

'Understanding the details
is a bit like an
archeological dig,' said
William Bencze, programme
manager for the mission.
'A scientist starts with a
bulldozer, follows with
a shovel, then finally uses
dental picks and toothbrushes
to clear the dust away.
We're passing out the
toothbrushes now.'

The Gravity Probe B
project was conceived in the
late 1950s but suffered
decades of delays while other
scientists ran tests
corroborating Einstein's theory.
It was Everitt's determination
that stopped it being
cancelled. The joint
mission between Nasa and
Stanford University uses
four of the most perfect
spheres -- ultra precise
gyroscopes -- to detect
minute distortions in th
e fabric of the universe.
Everitt's aim was to prove
to the highest precision
yet if Einstein was correct
in the way he described
gravity.

According to Einstein, in
the same way that a large
ball placed on a elasticated
cloth stretches the
fabric and causes it to
sag, so planets and stars
warp space-time. A marble
moving along the sagging
cloth will be drawn
towards the ball, as the Earth is
to the Sun, but not fall
into it as long as it keeps
moving at speed. Gravity,
argued Einstein, was not an
attractive force between
bodies as had been
previously thought.

Few scientists need the
final results, which will be
revealed in December, to
convince them of Einstein's
genius. 'From the most
esoteric aspects of time
dilation through to the
beautiful and simple
equation, e=mc2, the vast
bulk of Einstein's ideas
about the universe are
standing up to the test of
time,' said Robert Massey,
from the Royal
Astronomical Society.

He said the mission was
'legitimate science' to test
a theory and confirm its
brilliance, but others have
criticised the costs and
length of the study,
claiming that what was
announced had already been
shown. Sir Martin Rees,
the Astronomer Royal, said
the announcement would
'fork no lightning'.

The theory explained

When Einstein wrote his
general theory of relativity
in 1915, he found a new
way to describe gravity. It
was not a force, as
Sir Isaac Newton had supposed,
but a consequence of the
distortion of space and
time, conceived together
in his theory as
'space-time'. Any object
distorts the fabric of
space-time and the bigger
it is, the greater the
effect.

Just as a bowling ball
placed on a trampoline
stretches the fabric and
causes it to sag, so planets
and stars warp space-time
-- a phenomenon known as
the 'geodetic effect'. A
marble moving along the
trampoline will be drawn
inexorably towards the ball.

Thus the planets orbiting
the Sun are not being
pulled by the Sun; they
are following the curved
space-time deformation
caused by the Sun. The reason
the planets never fall into
the Sun is because of the
speed at which they are travelling.

According to the theory,
matter and energy distort
space-time, curving it
around themselves. 'Frame
dragging' theoretically occurs
when the rotation of a
large body 'twists' nearby
space and time. It is this
second part of Einstein's
theory that the Nasa
mission has yet to corroborate.
More at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe


*******************************
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.
EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
- SPACE AND TIME BEND
Here is the actual prediction, where
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math/msg/1bd728a9d08e959c
David A. Smith
Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays
when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is
robbing me of all I once was. So I went to
that ancient post to see where I had said
Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an
attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not
find such a statement by me. I can't even
find any discussion of this matter in that
post at all. It would be as unexpected that
I should say such a thing as that I should
say that whales wear shoes! Perhaps you
didn't read the post yourself. So here's a
pertinent quote from THAT post by SDR:

START QUOTE

Thank you, Einstein, for getting rid once
& for all of that goofy 19th Century delusion
... the Ether! Too bad Einstein simply
replaced one myth with another myth
(namely, the delusion that Time AND space
have pertinent/critical existence... while
the truth is that Time only exists in our
minds, and Space is only the absence of
anything existing there--But one can't
have everything, so I give thanks for all
Einstein gave us and ignore the usual
human prejudices inherent to the age one
inhabits).

END QUOTE

It seems to me I am still as consistent as
always. Therefore, trust me: Go thou to
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
and learn the true nature of the universe,
how it all came about and why it works
the way it does. Once you do, all your
questions will be answered at last, all your
quests finally brought to sweet fruition.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

***********************************

Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?

Because Homer Simpson lives there, and then
they would have to imagine themselves talking
with Bart and listening to his mother's shrill
voice ... and that's a bit more than even the
nuts and idiots who become mathematicians
can stomach. But that's THE ONLY reason:
Were it not for Homer Simpson the world of
physics would be polluted with every sort of
nutty/nonsensical theory about two-dimensional
mathematics-only "realities" (because that is
the nature of morons/monkeys who otherwise
become mathematicians)... exactly as the
world of physics is now polluted with nutty/
nonsensical theories about more-than-three
dimensional mathematics-only "realities" which,
like the notion of Time) can only exist in the
human mind.

Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson! Now
let me go shower to wash away all the contempt
that monkey mathematicians make me exude.

S D Rodrian hath spoken.
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.



.
Aardvark
2010-06-17 19:48:31 UTC
Permalink
On Jun 16, 10:07 am, Uncle Al
Post by Aardvark
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.
Convince the moon.
If the universe is a black hole, and everything
in it is forever imploding away from where
the universe no longer is: How would YOU
convince the moon to take a bus OUT of the
universe and stop trying to endlessly "fall
into the earth?" Betcha never thought of that.
As usual...
1928-1931 Einstein, M ntz, Weitzenb ck,
Grommer, Lanczos, Cartan, and
Mayer formulated teleparallel gravitation,
"Fernparallelismus," that
collapsed to General Relativity for
Equivalence Principle = true. It
predicted EP violation coupled to
angular momentum (physical spin,
particle spin, particle orbit, relativistic
spin-orbit coupling),
arxiv:0812.0034 and such.
Spacetime torsion not curvature.
Spacetime torsion is trivially testible,
Loading Image...
idiot
Dear idiot: Next time try reading
what you "comment" on--it probably
would help (although I doubt it);
and then you wouldn't have to think
of yourself as such an idiot): I did
not say GR was "wrong." I said it was
misinterpreted into nonsense. You
live in a world where everything is
interpreted (by your idols) in terms
of the earth being flat. Move on!
The longer you live... the less time
you have remaining in which to hit
upon the truth. (Were you intelligent
instead of merely nervously clever.)

Dear Uncle Brainiac: I will try to
make it as simple as possible (even
though I acknowledge that, no
matter how simple I make it, I can
ever make it simple enough for
you to grasp--not that you're stupid,
but that you are religiously
atttached to the "once" universally
held --and mathematically proven--
theory of Ptolemy that the universe
revolves around a stationary earth
... or something):

Imagine that an earth-bound man
has a rope around the moon (the
moon that wants to fly away from
the earth in a straight line):
Calculate the amount of energy
such a man will have to expend
pulling on that rope in order to
keep the moon from flying away
into outer space: that is the
impossible task you are placing
upon a graviton-based "gravity."
WHERE is the energy the earth
HAS TO BE expending in order
to keep hold of the moon coming
from? Answer THAT, and you
have answered EVERYTHING. Or
go to http://physics.sdrodrian.com

Because there is no traceable
expenditure of energy on the
part of the earth involved in its
holding on to the moon, the
ONLY possible answer is that
the earth is NOT pulling on
the moon AT ALL. [Hint: Why
are we measuring the speed of
spiral galaxy arms as going faster
than their escape velocity?] And
then it must be as clear as such
a fact can ever possibly become
(even to someone as matter-
of-fact dense as you) that the
reason why the moon is "forever
trying to fall into the earth"
HAS to be because EVERYTHING
in the universe is forever "falling"
towards everything else [including
the moon towards the earth, and
the earth/moon system towards
the Sun, and the solar system
towards the Milky Way Galaxy,
and the MWG towards the rest
of the local group, et al], and
it has ALL been doing so from
even before there was "any
thing at all." And THAT is where
the entirety of the universe's
energy comes from--And no
place else. [And now you've
solved the problem with galaxies'
over-energetic spiral arms, and
thereby eliminated most if not
all of the need for black matter.]

The reason why so few of today's
"great minds" understand this
astonishingly simple observation
is the same reason why yesterday's
"great minds" once imagined &
mathematically proved a geocentric
universe, and before that imagined
a flat earth, and before that
imagined Apollo riding his fiery
chariot across the heavens... and
intellectualy flattened with their
marvelously intricate arguments
anyone who dared to suggest
anything different): Trust me, I
have been sadly resigned to "the
human condition" since early in
childhood... therefore I can live
with it: Humanity has grown up
all this time without anyone to
teach it any better. Therefore it
has always been & remains to
this day like a baby convinced of
the most unimaginable nonsense,
and committing the most
unimaginable crimes... without
giving any of it a second thought.

But compare the truth that is the
"evolution" of an imploding universe
to the lovely [Big Bang] fable that
everything burst forth suddenly/
inexplicably out of a magic bean:
The fact is that the universe originates
from an unimaginably vast area of
space which in a thermodynamic
collapse is (even now) imploding
into the "singularity" we know as
"the visible universe." And that is
a truth which is as impossible to
dispute as the fact that the Sun
is at the center of the Solar System
--and no matter how many pretty
fables now, in past, or in future...
superstition may affront reason/
logic with.
Post by Aardvark
Ninety years after he
expounded his famous theory,
a $700m NASA probe has
proved that the universe
behaves as he said. [read
the entire article below]
1) Galactic rotation curves vs. radius.
2) The Bullet Nebula and gravitational
lensing absent baryonic mass.
3) idiot
But "dear" idiot: I am not denying ANY
observational results, merely explaining
them in light of the way the universe
really works: You keep citing observational
results which are in fact supportive of my
description of the universe as imploding!
I don't think your brains are on right:
Check the mirror. You are suffering from
never-ending terminal knee-jerkiness, you
jerk!
Post by Aardvark
ONLY my description of a universe which
has evolved across immense amounts of
time from unimaginably vast volumes of
space could have produced/accumulated
the "energy" that today powers it.
[snip more crap]
OMG: You have to cut down on your roughage,
idiot. [... Couldn't explain where the Big Bang
got its energy either, eh. Sure, I understand.]
1) Account for the universe's natural
abundances of hydrogen,
helium, lithium, and boron.
Certainly: They are the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
2) Account for current summed WMAP
observations.

Sure: They are the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
3) Account for large scale filamentous
distribution of galaxies.
Of course: It is all the natural result of
the imploding evolution of the universe.
And a much, much better explanation than
imagining they flowed out of an exploding
magic bean! SEE: http://physics.sdrodrian.com
4) idiot
Don't abuse yourself too much, idiot:
It'll leave you blinder than you already are!
How're you gonna find your ass then?
And you in there with a pair of shears!
Ouch!
Post by Aardvark
* Space is strictly/only the absence of
anything between instances of something.
And Time is merely the human mind's
attempt to synchronize one or more of
the universe's unrelated motions with/to
one of more of the universe's other
unrelated motion(s).
[snip rest of crap]
There's that over-abundance of roughage
again (and painful deficiency of factual
1) The momentum four-vector.
2) The metric.
3) The quantitiative empirical validation
of all GR predictions.
4)idiot.
Not to mention "dropletological constancy"
--the fact that all droplets of rain everywhere
in the world display an eerie predisposition to
fall (down)... AND at the same rate of velocity,
AND with an uncanny equivalency of moisture
that is just NOT to be believed!!! You forgot to
mention THAT (you're getting old, idiot... and
ingesting way, way too much Metamucil).

You're a waste of time, Uncle Al.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.


************************************

On Jun 16, 10:07 am, Uncle Al
[snip crap]
We'll have to wait until Unk Al
finishes his work in the crapper.
[How he takes a pair of shears
in there with him is a definite
sign of bravery/mental illness.]
Post by Aardvark
Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?
1) Volume.
2) idiot
Well then: STOP eating so much roughage,
dude. For Heaven's sake: Your production
of crap is unsustainable (by your toilet in
the long run... and really, really choking/
stinky in the short term)~!
Post by Aardvark
Because Homer Simpson lives there,
[snip more crap]
idiot
This might take awhile....
Post by Aardvark
Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson!
[snip more crap]
Doh!
Post by Aardvark
Francis Everitt, the Stanford
University professor
who has devoted his life to
investigating Einstein's
theory of relativity, told
scientists at the American
Physical Society it would
be another eight months
before he could measure
the 'frame-dragging' effect
precisely.
[snip rest of crap]
Ah! I think we might be getting
to the end of this at last!... But,
idiot: Your argument is with other
scientists on this one, not with me.
I merely quote them. If those
scientists are wrong, then I'll just
have to quote some other scientists
who are right. What's that to me!
Gravity Probe B was a disaster of
patch potentials. William
Fairbanks, also at Stanford, knew
how to handle patch potentials.
Then he shoulda told somebody--and
saved the taxpayers 700 million wazullas!

Thankfully I have more time to waste on
you nowadays, Uncle Al.

SDR

********************************
RE:

Yet Another SD Rodrian Prediction True:
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.

EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
- SPACE AND TIME BEND

Ninety years after he
expounded his famous theory,
a $700m NASA probe has
proved that the universe
behaves as he said. [read
the entire article below]

Actually, although what this experiment
PROVES is that "gravity is not an attractive
force between bodies" [merely], the results
are still misinterpreted here in the usual
nonsensical gibberish of conventional
"physics-talk" of the past century: In effect,
these interpreters speak of "space-time"
bending* because they are not yet aware
of the true evolution of the universe: They
have discovered that the universe behaves
as I describe it does [and which you can
read at: http://physics.sdrodrian.com ]
but they interpret it in their antediluvian
understanding (it's as if the scientists who
once believed that the entire universe
revolved around the planet earth were
interpreting this discovery in terms of that
once so universally-held ancient superstition).

ONLY my description of a universe which
has evolved across immense amounts of
time from unimaginably vast volumes of
space could have produced/accumulated
the "energy" that today powers it. No other
explanation accounts for the prodigious
amounts of energy infused into every
last/smallest bit of the universe's matter.
And not even the pretty fable of a magic
[Big Bang] bean bursting forth the whole
of "Creation" ... for no reason at all.

But, of course, this remains for yet another
more impressive understanding still.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.
.
* Space is strictly/only the absence of
anything between instances of something.
And Time is merely the human mind's
attempt to synchronize one or more of
the universe's unrelated motions with/to
one of more of the universe's other
unrelated motion(s). --SDR

START QUOTE

Now the race is on to show
that the other half of
relativity also works--
for decades physicists have
been asking the question:
did Albert Einstein get it
wrong? After half a century,
seven cancellations and
$700m, a mission to test
his theory about the
universe has finally confirmed
that the man was a
mastermind -- or at
least half proved it.

The early results from Gravity
Probe B, one of Nasa's
most complicated satellites,
confirmed yesterday 'to
a precision of better than
1 per cent' the assertion
Einstein made 90 years ago
-- that an object such as
the Earth does indeed
distort the fabric of space and
time.

But this -- what is referred
to as the 'geodetic'
effect -- is only half of
the theory. The other,
'frame-dragging', stated
that as the world spins it
drags the fabric of the
universe behind it.

Francis Everitt, the Stanford
University professor
who has devoted his life to
investigating Einstein's
theory of relativity, told
scientists at the American
Physical Society it would
be another eight months
before he could measure
the 'frame-dragging' effect
precisely.

'Understanding the details
is a bit like an
archeological dig,' said
William Bencze, programme
manager for the mission.
'A scientist starts with a
bulldozer, follows with
a shovel, then finally uses
dental picks and toothbrushes
to clear the dust away.
We're passing out the
toothbrushes now.'

The Gravity Probe B
project was conceived in the
late 1950s but suffered
decades of delays while other
scientists ran tests
corroborating Einstein's theory.
It was Everitt's determination
that stopped it being
cancelled. The joint
mission between Nasa and
Stanford University uses
four of the most perfect
spheres -- ultra precise
gyroscopes -- to detect
minute distortions in th
e fabric of the universe.
Everitt's aim was to prove
to the highest precision
yet if Einstein was correct
in the way he described
gravity.

According to Einstein, in
the same way that a large
ball placed on a elasticated
cloth stretches the
fabric and causes it to
sag, so planets and stars
warp space-time. A marble
moving along the sagging
cloth will be drawn
towards the ball, as the Earth is
to the Sun, but not fall
into it as long as it keeps
moving at speed. Gravity,
argued Einstein, was not an
attractive force between
bodies as had been
previously thought.

Few scientists need the
final results, which will be
revealed in December, to
convince them of Einstein's
genius. 'From the most
esoteric aspects of time
dilation through to the
beautiful and simple
equation, e=mc2, the vast
bulk of Einstein's ideas
about the universe are
standing up to the test of
time,' said Robert Massey,
from the Royal
Astronomical Society.

He said the mission was
'legitimate science' to test
a theory and confirm its
brilliance, but others have
criticised the costs and
length of the study,
claiming that what was
announced had already been
shown. Sir Martin Rees,
the Astronomer Royal, said
the announcement would
'fork no lightning'.

The theory explained

When Einstein wrote his
general theory of relativity
in 1915, he found a new
way to describe gravity. It
was not a force, as
Sir Isaac Newton had supposed,
but a consequence of the
distortion of space and
time, conceived together
in his theory as
'space-time'. Any object
distorts the fabric of
space-time and the bigger
it is, the greater the
effect.

Just as a bowling ball
placed on a trampoline
stretches the fabric and
causes it to sag, so planets
and stars warp space-time
-- a phenomenon known as
the 'geodetic effect'. A
marble moving along the
trampoline will be drawn
inexorably towards the ball.

Thus the planets orbiting
the Sun are not being
pulled by the Sun; they
are following the curved
space-time deformation
caused by the Sun. The reason
the planets never fall into
the Sun is because of the
speed at which they are travelling.

According to the theory,
matter and energy distort
space-time, curving it
around themselves. 'Frame
dragging' theoretically occurs
when the rotation of a
large body 'twists' nearby
space and time. It is this
second part of Einstein's
theory that the Nasa
mission has yet to corroborate.
More at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe


*******************************
Post by Aardvark
Gravity, as argued even by Einstein, is NOT
an attractive force between bodies.
EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT
- SPACE AND TIME BEND
Here is the actual prediction, where
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.math/msg/1bd728a9d08e959c
David A. Smith
Dear David, my memory fails me nowadays
when old age and incipient Alzheimer's is
robbing me of all I once was. So I went to
that ancient post to see where I had said
Einstein's contention that Gravity is NOT an
attractive force was. I'm afraid I did not
find such a statement by me. I can't even
find any discussion of this matter in that
post at all. It would be as unexpected that
I should say such a thing as that I should
say that whales wear shoes! Perhaps you
didn't read the post yourself. So here's a
pertinent quote from THAT post by SDR:

START QUOTE

Thank you, Einstein, for getting rid once
& for all of that goofy 19th Century delusion
... the Ether! Too bad Einstein simply
replaced one myth with another myth
(namely, the delusion that Time AND space
have pertinent/critical existence... while
the truth is that Time only exists in our
minds, and Space is only the absence of
anything existing there--But one can't
have everything, so I give thanks for all
Einstein gave us and ignore the usual
human prejudices inherent to the age one
inhabits).

END QUOTE

It seems to me I am still as consistent as
always. Therefore, trust me: Go thou to
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
and learn the true nature of the universe,
how it all came about and why it works
the way it does. Once you do, all your
questions will be answered at last, all your
quests finally brought to sweet fruition.

S D Rodrian
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.

***********************************

Why don't physicists and other mathematicians
posit the existence of a two-dimension reality?

Because Homer Simpson lives there, and then
they would have to imagine themselves talking
with Bart and listening to his mother's shrill
voice ... and that's a bit more than even the
nuts and idiots who become mathematicians
can stomach. But that's THE ONLY reason:
Were it not for Homer Simpson the world of
physics would be polluted with every sort of
nutty/nonsensical theory about two-dimensional
mathematics-only "realities" (because that is
the nature of morons/monkeys who otherwise
become mathematicians)... exactly as the
world of physics is now polluted with nutty/
nonsensical theories about more-than-three
dimensional mathematics-only "realities" which,
like the notion of Time) can only exist in the
human mind.

Science owes a lot to Homer Simpson! Now
let me go shower to wash away all the contempt
that monkey mathematicians make me exude.

S D Rodrian hath spoken.
http://sdrodrian.com
http://physics.sdrodrian.com
http://mp3.sdrodrian.com
http://caruso.sdrodrian.com

All religions are local.
Only science is universal.



.

Loading...