The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Will a photon clock run at a different rate from an atomic clock under gravity?  (Read 45565 times)

Offline amrit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
  • Power of science is uncompromised search for truth
    • View Profile
Amrit, I find your repetition of your concept of time to be unhelpful in giving me (and maybe others) an understanding of your ideas. There is nothing in what you say that seems to relate to the physics. In stating the universe is "Timeless" you may be trying to get people to think in another way, but this still does not relate to the physics. And the experiment showing difference in behaviour between a "photon clock" and other clocks is (IMHO) not going to be successful. However I don't see how this confirms or denies your beliefs in any case. 

Graham there is no single evidence that time exist as a physical reality. Our concept of BLOCK UNIVERSE resolves this puzzle in details: http://vixra.org/abs/1005.0098

Tell me one single experiment in physics that proves existence of time!

FQXI gives 2 million dollars grant for basic research on time.
http://www.fqxi.org/grants/large/initial
If with time all will be clear you think they would give such big money for research?

 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Amrit, I am not denying that the concepts have some merit but just that you are not explaining them well, at least to me. I have read through the paper but have difficulty following your reasoning and I think to do so would involve following up many references.  Statements like "Tell me one single experiment in physics that proves existence of time!" are not convincing because, philosophically, nothing is provable absolutely but only if based on specific premises. You tell me one single experiment in physics that proves the existence of space, for example.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Farsight, Do you have any mathematics to back up your proposed theory?  It's impossible to place it in the context of observations and determine how it differs from the mainstream theory unless you give us something more than pictures and words...
The mathematics isn't any different to what you know, JP. It's a difference in interpretation, in what the mathematics means. And it's backed by the observational evidence in that we do see things moving, but we don't see time flowing. This isn't my theory by the way. This goes back to Aristotle. Also take a look at Presentism.   
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Farsight, this is I was referring to. It could be a bit ambiguous.

"You might have some difficulty accepting this, but there's absolutely no scientific evidence for time is running slower. None whatsoever."
Yes, it is ambiguous. It would have been clearer if I'd said:

"There's no actual scientific evidence to support the concept of time "running". That's just a figure of speech. It isn't what you see, what you see is things moving. When the motion is going slower, we say time is running slower, but again, it's just a figure of speech associated with the way we usually think about time."
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Graham: re experiment proving the existence of space, simply hold your hands up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. You can see that gap. That's space. You can't see anything there, but the gap is there, and you can see that it's there. Now waggle your hands and you can see motion. Hence you can demonstrate the existence of space and motion quite easily. However you can't similarly demonstrate time running or flowing, or motion through time.
 

Offline amrit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
  • Power of science is uncompromised search for truth
    • View Profile
Amrit, I am not denying that the concepts have some merit but just that you are not explaining them well, at least to me. I have read through the paper but have difficulty following your reasoning and I think to do so would involve following up many references.  Statements like "Tell me one single experiment in physics that proves existence of time!" are not convincing because, philosophically, nothing is provable absolutely but only if based on specific premises. You tell me one single experiment in physics that proves the existence of space, for example.

yes we can observe only distances between objects and not space itself, for "space" we understand medium in which objects exists and this medium is timeless
 

Offline amrit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
  • Power of science is uncompromised search for truth
    • View Profile
Farsight, Do you have any mathematics to back up your proposed theory?  It's impossible to place it in the context of observations and determine how it differs from the mainstream theory unless you give us something more than pictures and words...
The mathematics isn't any different to what you know, JP. It's a difference in interpretation, in what the mathematics means. And it's backed by the observational evidence in that we do see things moving, but we don't see time flowing. This isn't my theory by the way. This goes back to Aristotle. Also take a look at Presentism.  

Farsight im waiting you comment on hot stone that cool down in cold room.....you ca not just ignoring that.....be more cool

PS what you say:

Graham: re experiment proving the existence of space, simply hold your hands up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. You can see that gap. That's space.

is a pure disaster
« Last Edit: 31/05/2010 18:21:32 by amrit »
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Graham: re experiment proving the existence of space, simply hold your hands up a metre apart. There's a gap between them. You can see that gap. That's space. You can't see anything there, but the gap is there, and you can see that it's there. Now waggle your hands and you can see motion. Hence you can demonstrate the existence of space and motion quite easily. However you can't similarly demonstrate time running or flowing, or motion through time.

My point was not to have a simple visual demonstration of space. What you are showing is that I can define a distance between my outstretched hands and compare it with, say, a metre rule. Of course this is providing the rule is not moving relative to me when it gets more involved and takes the concept to a different level from observation. On the same basis I can compare the rate of my breathing with a clock ticking seconds. That is equally convincing isn't it? I was questioning the concept of "proof" and how this would differ between its application to time compared with space.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Farsight, this is I was referring to. It could be a bit ambiguous.

"You might have some difficulty accepting this, but there's absolutely no scientific evidence for time is running slower. None whatsoever."
Yes, it is ambiguous. It would have been clearer if I'd said:

"There's no actual scientific evidence to support the concept of time "running". That's just a figure of speech. It isn't what you see, what you see is things moving. When the motion is going slower, we say time is running slower, but again, it's just a figure of speech associated with the way we usually think about time."

Well, you can't really say "the motion is going slower" either. "Slower" suggests comparative speed, but speed itself is a function of time, so differences in local time have no effect on speed.

That's why I think it's necessary to create new terminology because so many concepts have an obvious or less obvious function of time built into them.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Amrit, I responded to your PM re your question. I'll see if I can find what I said and post it up.

Edit: I can't see my sent messages. I said "time exists like heat exists" because heat is an emergent property of motion. A gas molecule doesn't have any fundamental property of heat, it has a velocity and a kinetic energy. However a container full of fast-moving molecules is said to be "hot" because temperature is a measure of the average motion of the gas molecules. And heat burns, it exists all right, even if it doesn't exist at the fundamental level. Time is a similar emergent property, but it's a cumulative measure of motion rather than an average measure. Your hot stone cools down because its atoms/molecules move slower, and we measure the rate of the slowdown against a clock, which "clocks up" some other regular motion as a benchmark. When you stop the clock, you stop motion, not time. If you stop all the motion in the universe, including the motion of light and in the body and brain of the observer, you can't "measure time" any more. That's because you never were really measuring time, you were measuring motion.   

My point was not to have a simple visual demonstration of space. What you are showing is that I can define a distance between my outstretched hands and compare it with, say, a metre rule. Of course this is providing the rule is not moving relative to me when it gets more involved and takes the concept to a different level from observation. On the same basis I can compare the rate of my breathing with a clock ticking seconds. That is equally convincing isn't it?
No. It doesn't offer any convincing evidence of "time flowing". You're just comparing two moving things. Substitute your beathing for another clock to appreciate this, and remember that a clock is "clocking up" motion. It displays some sort of cumulative counter of how many times a cog has gone round or a crystal has vibrated.

Well, you can't really say "the motion is going slower" either. "Slower" suggests comparative speed, but speed itself is a function of time, so differences in local time have no effect on speed.
That's a circular argument, Geezer. If you compare two clocks, then if they don't "keep time" the cogs in one are moving slower than the cogs in another. It doesn't matter if one is on the surface of the earth whilst the other is up in space, that's what's actually happening. You can see this. You can't see "time running slower". You can't see time "running" at all. One doesn't need a new terminology for this, just an adherence to the observational evidence and an appreciation that some of the things we say are figures of speech, because time is a function of motion, not the other way around. 
« Last Edit: 01/06/2010 14:06:58 by Farsight »
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
My point was not to have a simple visual demonstration of space. What you are showing is that I can define a distance between my outstretched hands and compare it with, say, a metre rule. Of course this is providing the rule is not moving relative to me when it gets more involved and takes the concept to a different level from observation. On the same basis I can compare the rate of my breathing with a clock ticking seconds. That is equally convincing isn't it? I was questioning the concept of "proof" and how this would differ between its application to time compared with space.

Couldn't agree more Graham. I think Amrit and Farsight are not accepting that the received conception of time is axiomatic to current physics, as is our conception of space.  As axioms, these concepts are fundamental and beyond proof - the first sections of Einstein's easy guide to SR and GR explains this concept of axioms beautifully; I am sure I have seen a link to the text recently and will post when I find it. 

got it http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I

On a philosophical level this question becomes more interesting - but less useful.  As this is being advanced as a scientific theory could someone propose a real world experiment that would give a result that would vary from that expected under current dogma.  I think that experiments have already been performed that contradict the original idea - but the work required to demonstrate this is too much for me at present.  Matthew

« Last Edit: 01/06/2010 16:32:54 by imatfaal »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Well, you can't really say "the motion is going slower" either. "Slower" suggests comparative speed, but speed itself is a function of time, so differences in local time have no effect on speed.
That's a circular argument, Geezer. If you compare two clocks, then if they don't "keep time" the cogs in one are moving slower than the cogs in another. It doesn't matter if one is on the surface of the earth whilst the other is up in space, that's what's actually happening. You can see this. You can't see "time running slower". You can't see time "running" at all. One doesn't need a new terminology for this, just an adherence to the observational evidence and an appreciation that some of the things we say are figures of speech, because time is a function of motion, not the other way around. 

Farsight: We use motion, chemical reactions, sub-atomic activity, etc., etc. to observe time, but that is hardly evidence that time only exists because of motion. Motion can only be determined on the basis of time. Without time, motion boils down to "things can be in different places".

As I said, many concepts have a function of time built into them, and motion is one of them. If you want to establish an alternative definition for time, you'll have to define it in terms that do not include a function of time, otherwise your definition will be recursive.

EDIT:

Come to think of it, if, as you say, time is a function of motion, then motion, by definition, is a function of time. I suppose you could define everything in terms of motion, but I don't think there is much point unless you can find a way to eliminate time from the equations. However, as motion is a function of time (and vice versa) that may not be possible.
« Last Edit: 02/06/2010 06:34:07 by Geezer »
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Couldn't agree more Graham. I think Amrit and Farsight are not accepting that the received conception of time is axiomatic to current physics, as is our conception of space. As axioms, these concepts are fundamental and beyond proof - the first sections of Einstein's easy guide to SR and GR explains this concept of axioms beautifully; I am sure I have seen a link to the text recently and will post when I find it. Got it http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I
I have no issue with space, Matthew. But that received conception of time is to be blunt, wrong. It's unsupported by scientific evidence. There is no proof whatsoever that we "travel in time" or that "time flows". Have a look at "A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" re the view Einstein adopted in 1949. I like to think that I'm fully in line with this view, but do note that the front flap is a little misleading. Time as we ordinarily understand it does not exist. That's not to say that time doesn't exist. It just isn't what people think it is. 

On a philosophical level this question becomes more interesting - but less useful. As this is being advanced as a scientific theory could someone propose a real world experiment that would give a result that would vary from that expected under current dogma. I think that experiments have already been performed that contradict the original idea - but the work required to demonstrate this is too much for me at present.  Matthew
IMHO it's very useful indeed. But there are no different results to be had. One merely sees existing results in a new light, and then gains understanding that was previously lacking.


Farsight: We use motion, chemical reactions, sub-atomic activity, etc., etc. to observe time, but that is hardly evidence that time only exists because of motion.
You
missed the crucial point, Geezer. We observe motion, but we don't actually observe time.

Motion can only be determined on the basis of time. Without time, motion boils down to "things can be in different places".
You're still not recognising what we actually see. Time can only be determined on the basis of motion. Without motion, there isn't any time.

As I said, many concepts have a function of time built into them, and motion is one of them. If you want to establish an alternative definition for time, you'll have to define it in terms that do not include a function of time, otherwise your definition will be recursive.
One defines it using the motion we actually observe. Then one retains a function called time, but one now realises that we can't move through it and it doesn't actually flow.

Come to think of it, if, as you say, time is a function of motion, then motion, by definition, is a function of time.
There's no justification for that. 

I suppose you could define everything in terms of motion, but I don't think there is much point unless you can find a way to eliminate time from the equations. However, as motion is a function of time (and vice versa) that may not be possible.
No, you can't remove time from the equations. You wouldn't want to anyway. But when you appreciate that the thing we call time is measured and defined using motion through space, you get a better concept of say gravity and electromagnetism, and you don't get distracted by science fiction such as time travel.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Come to think of it, if, as you say, time is a function of motion, then motion, by definition, is a function of time.
There's no justification for that. 

If A is a function of B, B is automatically a function of A. The justification is inescapable.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Couldn't agree more Graham. I think Amrit and Farsight are not accepting that the received conception of time is axiomatic to current physics, as is our conception of space. As axioms, these concepts are fundamental and beyond proof - the first sections of Einstein's easy guide to SR and GR explains this concept of axioms beautifully; I am sure I have seen a link to the text recently and will post when I find it. Got it http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Relativity:_The_Special_and_General_Theory/Part_I
I have no issue with space, Matthew. But that received conception of time is to be blunt, wrong. It's unsupported by scientific evidence. There is no proof whatsoever that we "travel in time" or that "time flows". Have a look at "A World without Time: The Forgotten Legacy of Godel and Einstein" re the view Einstein adopted in 1949. I like to think that I'm fully in line with this view, but do note that the front flap is a little misleading. Time as we ordinarily understand it does not exist. That's not to say that time doesn't exist. It just isn't what people think it is.

Before someone goes out and spends money on a book that's been poorly reviewed, I would suggest they read up on it.  This seems like a pretty good review: http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf

Also, you certainly have very little evidence for telling people that the mainstream view of time is "wrong."  What you're claiming is philosophy with no mathematics to back it up.  Science is about making predictions and observations--the validity of a theory is based on how well it seems to model reality and how well it matches experiments.  Your philosophy doesn't offer any predictions, so it isn't science.  It's not even clear that it's consistent with the mainstream view of time as a dimension space-time.  Therefore, claiming that your philosophy is a scientific fact supported by evidence is misleading.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Before someone goes out and spends money on a book that's been poorly reviewed, I would suggest they read up on it. This seems like a pretty good review: http://www.ams.org/notices/200707/tx070700861p.pdf
I'm afraid it isn't. Stachel muddies the water and evades the essential point in order to defend an unsupported position via circular argument.

Also, you certainly have very little evidence for telling people that the mainstream view of time is "wrong."
I've given ample evidence in Time Explained. If you disagree, try to show where the evidence I offer is incorrect.   

What you're claiming is philosophy with no mathematics to back it up. Science is about making predictions and observations...
As I've said, the mathematics is unchanged. And it certainly isn't philosophy, it's phenomenology. Because science is about observations, and there are no observations whatsoever to support the idea that time flows or that we travel through it. If you beg to differ, I challenge you to offer some. 

The validity of a theory is based on how well it seems to model reality and how well it matches experiments. Your philosophy doesn't offer any predictions, so it isn't science.  It's not even clear that it's consistent with the mainstream view of time as a dimension of space-time. Therefore, claiming that your philosophy is a scientific fact supported by evidence is misleading.
No it isn't misleading, and again it is not philosophy. The observational evidence tells us what's scientific fact, and I adhere to it whilst adhering to special relativity. See page 31 of The Meaning of Relativity where Einstein says "The non-divisibility of the four-dimensional continuum of events does not at all, however, involve the equivalence of the space co-ordinates with the time co-ordinate". I'm giving you the science. The flow of time and travelling through time is the philosophy that leads to the reductio-ad-absurdum of the grandfather paradox.

Time travel isn't mainstream, JP. It's science fiction. The "stasis box" is science-fiction too, but it's useful to point out the obvious: get in the box, and the "stasis field" prevents all motion, even at the atomic level. So you can't move, your heart doesn't beat, and you can't even think. When I open the box five hundred years later, to you it's like I opened the box as soon as you got in. You "travelled" to the future by not moving at all. Instead everything else did. And all that motion, be it the motion of planets or people or atoms or light, was through space.
« Last Edit: 05/06/2010 16:14:15 by Farsight »
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
If A is a function of B, B is automatically a function of A. The justification is inescapable.
Not so. The temperature of a gas is a function of molecular motion involving an average. The opposite is not true, because a single molecule has a velocity, not a temperature. Your assertion puts cause on an equal footing with effect, and places emergent properties on a par with fundamental properties. It doesn't hold.
 

Offline PhysBang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 588
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
If you disagree, try to show where the evidence I offer is incorrect. 
Over the breadth of the internet there is a veritable book about how wrong your argument is.

The funniest is that the same "mathematics" that you use to show that time is circularly defined shows that space is circularly defined and shows that every physical quantity is circularly defined. But philosophers of science have known this for decades if not centuries.

The best argument against your argument is that you ignore your own circularity as pointed out by your favourite source for quotation  mining: Einstein. As Einstein points out in 1905, we cannot provide a measurement of space without providing some definition of what it means to be "the same time" as different points that are separated by a distance. Only once we do that can we have a real physical definition of measured distance and only then can we have a definition of motion and at rest. But Einstein also points out that we are perfectly free to chose from an infinite number of ways of setting up, physically, what is "the same time" at different distances. This means that there are an infinite number of measurements of space and thus an infinite number of ways of defining any given motion (or even whether or not there is motion). But we cannot have a physical idea of motion without some previous definition of space and time. This is just the conceptual facts.

Just because what we metaphorically call "movement through time" and "movement through spacetime" is different from what we call movement through space does not obviate us from actually understanding what these phrases mean and it does not make the science and philosophy behind the real meaning of the phrases incorrect.

One incorrect idea about relativity that has its origin in the popular press is that relativity tells us that the universe changes when we are in motion. This is incorrect. In different circumstances, certain descriptions of the universe might be easier to describe or be easier for us to describe using certain measurement devices, but these descriptions are correct regardless of the motion or not of any given observer. To claim that the universe changes because of an observer is incorrect. It is just as incorrect to say that anything changes for a given observer or particle because they are in motion. Time goes on for any given particle just as it always does, what changes is the relationship between events as timed out for one description and events as timed out for another description. Without accepting this, the mathematics of relativity theory simply does not work.

Finally, what Einstein believed or did not believe about relativity theory is irrelevant. What matters is the actual science as handed down to the scientific community and as tested over and over again by careful study. That theory is not a theory without time, it is a theory with a very special relationship between space and time. To trust one's knowledge of this theory to comeone unwilling to actually learn or discuss the mathematics is foolish.
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
If A is a function of B, B is automatically a function of A. The justification is inescapable.
Not so. The temperature of a gas is a function of molecular motion involving an average. The opposite is not true, because a single molecule has a velocity, not a temperature. Your assertion puts cause on an equal footing with effect, and places emergent properties on a par with fundamental properties. It doesn't hold.

Farsight:

Apparently my opinion on the subject of functions is a commonly held belief. As Wikipedia is not necessarily the most reliable source, feel free to identify any errors in the following, or did you mean to say something other than "function" when you said that time was a function of motion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_(mathematics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_function

Perhaps you can also reduce your statement regarding gas molecules to a mathematical relationship so that we can test its validity?
« Last Edit: 06/06/2010 04:13:41 by Geezer »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
Also, you certainly have very little evidence for telling people that the mainstream view of time is "wrong."
I've given ample evidence in Time Explained. If you disagree, try to show where the evidence I offer is incorrect.   

When you have to defend your theory with "show me where it's wrong," it's not a theory.  There's a reason that scientific theories are required to make mathematical predictions that are then verified by experiment.  You still have no mathematics and no physical theory.  You're giving us quotes from a variety of sources with no mathematics to back them up and asking us to overturn a successful theory that has plenty of mathematics and nearly a century of successful quantitative predictions. 

Finally, what Einstein believed or did not believe about relativity theory is irrelevant. What matters is the actual science as handed down to the scientific community and as tested over and over again by careful study. That theory is not a theory without time, it is a theory with a very special relationship between space and time. To trust one's knowledge of this theory to comeone unwilling to actually learn or discuss the mathematics is foolish.
I agree with PhysBang 100% on this.  Einstein also disagreed with quantum mechanics, and yet it would be absurd to claim quantum mechanics was wrong because Einstein once said so.  Quantitative predictions backed up by experiments are needed, not quotes.
 

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 396
    • View Profile
Geezer: you brought up "function", not me. I only used the word in response to your usage. I said time is an emergent property of motion like heat is an emergent property of motion, time being a cumulative measure whilst temperature is an average.

When you have to defend your theory with "show me where it's wrong," it's not a theory. There's a reason that scientific theories are required to make mathematical predictions that are then verified by experiment. You still have no mathematics and no physical theory. You're giving us quotes from a variety of sources with no mathematics to back them up and asking us to overturn a successful theory that has plenty of mathematics and nearly a century of successful quantitative predictions.
I'm certainly not asking you to overturn relativity. I've already said that the mathematics is unchanged. What I'm asking you to do is look at the scientific evidence and appreciate that there is no evidence for travelling through time. The mathematics doesn't support it either, because we plot lines in Minkowski spacetime rather than moving through it.     

Finally, what Einstein believed or did not believe about relativity theory is irrelevant. What matters is the actual science as handed down to the scientific community and as tested over and over again by careful study. That theory is not a theory without time, it is a theory with a very special relationship between space and time. To trust one's knowledge of this theory to comeone unwilling to actually learn or discuss the mathematics is foolish.
I agree with PhysBang 100% on this. Einstein also disagreed with quantum mechanics, and yet it would be absurd to claim quantum mechanics was wrong because Einstein once said so. Quantitative predictions backed up by experiments are needed, not quotes.
What Einstein believed about relativity is most certainly relevant! And I'm  not doing away with time, I'm saying it exists like heat exists, but isn't something you travel through. Observations and scientific experiments back ME up, not time machines. Note that Einstein didn't disagree with quantum mechanics, he was in on the ground floor in 1905. That's what he got his Nobel Prize for. What he disagreed with was the Copenhagen Interpretation, the "meaning" of the mathematics. 
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Geezer: you brought up "function", not me.

Farsight: Then why did you say "time is a function of motion, not the other way around" here? Was that just a "figure of speech" too?

One doesn't need a new terminology for this, just an adherence to the observational evidence and an appreciation that some of the things we say are figures of speech, because time is a function of motion, not the other way around. 
« Last Edit: 06/06/2010 16:42:16 by Geezer »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Looks like this is going nowhere. Thread locked.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums