yes, there are million amps current flowing in the Alfven wings of Io, I think the latest paper about the currents was by Crary et al. (can't find it at the moment). The electric field is ~60 km/s x ~1600 nT. But the current flows in the Alfven wings and in the ionosphere of Io, which is much more conducting than the moon body itself.

Io is embedded in the plasma torus, which is generated by the SO₂ that is lost by the volcanism at the rate of 1 tonne per second. So, Io is embedded in a highly energetic plasma, but the plasma is not trapped as it is in the radiation belts. "Radiation belt" is a specific name for a magnetospheric phenomenon.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Heavens to Mergatroid, did you even bother to read the abstract of the paper before you linked to it?

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/do...tt.Dessler.pdf
Filamentaion of Volcanic Plumes on the Jovian Satellite Io
Peratt & Dessler, Astrophysics & Space Science 144(1-2): 451-461, May 1988
Abstract: Volcanic plumes on the Jovian satellite Io may be a visible manifestation of a plasma-arc discharge phenomenon. The amount of power in the plasma arc (~ 10¹¹ W) is not enough to account for all the energy dissipated by the volcanoes. However, once a volcano is initiated by tidal and geologic processes, the dynamics of the volcanic plumes can be influenced by the plasma arcs. As initially pointed out by Gold (1979), plasma arcs are expected because of 10⁶ A currents and 400 kV potentials generated by the flow past Io of a torus of relatively dense magnetospheric plasma. Experience with laboratory plasma arcs is utilized to investigate the plume dynamics. The filamentation in the plume of the volcano Prometheus and its cross-sectional shape is quantitatively consistent with theories developed from laboratory observation.

As the authors clearly state: "However, once a volcano is initiated by tidal and geologic processes, the dynamics of the volcanic plumes can be influenced by the plasma arcs." You put "volcanoes" in "" marks, implying that the authors don't think of them as real volcanoes, but that is surely a severe misrepresentation of the paper. The Authors certainly do not think, as you say, that the "volcanoes" are "plasma gun" phenomena. Rather, they are quite explicit in saying: " ... the dynamics of the volcanic plumes can be influenced by the plasma arcs." It is the plume, and not the volcano, that is associated with a plasma gun type phenomenon. Furthermore, in the explicitly stated opinion of the authors, the "volcanoes" are not "volcanoes" in "" marks, they are real volcanoes, without the "" marks, generated not by any plasma phenomena, but by "tidal and geological processes".

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

If the EU ideas had legs, I'd be among the first to agree.

However, as is quite clear, after 78 pages and over 2300 posts, the EU idea is somewhat lacking in the leg department.Actually, you said "Alfven and Langmuir".I am not aware of having done so.

However, if you wish to put some results from Birkeland on the table, that have relevance to "EDM theory", or Thornhill's 'predictions', or anything else that has not yet been covered in this very long thread, please do so.Yep, and we have discussed that, and Alfven's contributions generally, earlier in this thread.

Is there anything new that you wish to put on the table?

Unless there is some new material, from an avowed EU proponent, this thread will be closed in a week's time.

As is abundantly clear from the last three week's posts (over 300!), EU proponents have not presented anything new here in this thread*

New to this thread BAUT members, such as sol88 and P.Asmah, clearly have not taken the trouble to read through this thread, to check that their questions/contributions have been previously addressed or not.

That's OK, they're new.

However, if we allow such behaviour to persist, this thread will (continue to) go nowhere.

So, unless there are answers to open questions addressed to EU proponents, or something new (= has not already been discussed in this thread), I think we can bring this thread to a close.

However, in case I've missed anything, I'll leave it open for another week, to allow EU proponents to check the >2300 posts and determine if anything they wish to present is indeed new.

If it's closed, I will re-open this thread after the conference that iantresman referred to in an earlier post, to allow any EU proponent to present any new material they wish (as usual, of course, they must be prepared to answer all direct, pertinent questions about their claims).

*Of course, several answers to direct, pertinent questions have been given, and VanderL may be on the trail of something new.

I don't have the paper with me at the moment for direct reference, and I'm sorry if I can't get around to answering your questions quite as fast as you would like.

To start with, it is clearly impossible for the outgassing to be an "electrical phenomenon", and I think it is important that this is not obvious to you, or anyone else. Electric currents don't create elements out of nothing; at best, all they can do is move the stuff that's already there from one place to another.

The assumption that there are additional source regions below the surface is based on the observed rate of outgassing of oxygen & hydrogen, which are the sole constituents of water. Electric currents can't create either one from nothing. In the environment of a comet, the obvious source for simultaneous fluxes of oxygen & hydrogen is water. This is reinforced by the ability to observe the relative abundance of oxygen, carbon & etc. That way you can nail down the abundance of CO or CO₂, which are alternate oxygen reservoir sources. Once you do that, H₂O is all that's left.

So, as far as I am concerned, the answer to "how likely" is "virtually certain". Where else would the oxygen come from if not water?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

I dont know if this qualifies as a charge separation mechanism. High speed protons and electrons in addition to "knot and filaments" were detected from the "area" of the galactic center.


"However, we notice that the emission that seems to bridge
the sources labelled SgrA∗ and 1E 1743.1–2843 at low-energy
persists at higher energies such that in the 56 to 85 keV range,
the emission from the region seems to be centered between the
two sources. This is a surprising result that we cannot readily
interpert."

"The detection of a persistant source up to about 120keV compatible
with the position of the central bh raises the very interesting
possibility that it may be related to the TeV source detected
from the same region by Hess (Aharonian et al. 2004).
These observations lend crucial support to the idea that acceleration
of particles to very high energies is taking place at the
gc (Crocker et al. 2005)."

http://clusterlaunch.esa.int/science...objectid=37891

And even if you endorse the BB theory there was still plasma before there were stars. Matter is combined cooled charges.


This paper has a very good disscussion of double layers. I'm curious what people think of it.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...306..451B

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Tim wrote :
An alternate could be SiO2 or many of the other compounds containing O found in rock (comets, asteroids and moons), being electrically separated into Si and 02 then recombine to form H2O from an interaction with the solar wind? I believe this to be a more believable option than "trapped Ice" sublimating

Link to a power point slideshow

Tusenfem wrote:Yes, I had read that particular page the day I posted the thread, but the page only explained why it happened when your finger was actually touching the glass sphere, but the plasma ball "knew" my hand was near, but not touching the sphere.

So my thoughts with plasma's in space is they can "sense" other plasmas, magnetic fields and areas of different charge without actually making a physical connection. If that small fact doesn’t complicate things a bit, in regards to working out the math’s, then I don’t know what will.

On the math’s thing, if plasma is "life like" then we will never be able to pump out an equation because the variables will be too great.

Sol

After doing a little more reading up on this theory of X-Ray production from an interaction between H2O and the solar wind, i'm still a little (a lot) stunned that "mainstreamers" believe this.

Quote from post #2085 also related to this thread

Question: Do you think a molecule could absorb UV waves and then give off gamma rays or x-rays?

Answer: A molecule is described as a quantum mechanical system. The vibrational and rotational energies of the molecule are therefore discrete, and the transitions between the energy levels are much smaller then the energy of an ultraviolet photon (3.1eV-124eV). So the interaction will be with the orbitals surrounding the nuclei of the atoms, which is also described with quantum mechanics. Since the transition levels in the molecule are quantized (a fix set of discrete values), the electron can absorbs 1 photon at time. Once an molecule has been excited the excited electron will decay down to a ground state configuration. By conservation of energy, the photon(s) emitted will have equal(less) energy then that of the initial photon which excited the atom.

Since both photons in the gamma ray regime and x-ray regime have more energy, the molecule can not emit them, when it has been excited by one UV photon. Note, the previous statements assumes that the molecule is in a stable configuration and that the energy from the uv photon does not allow the molecule to change into a new configuration that has a lower ground state energy [for example wavelength shifters]. X-ray are normally produced by Bremsstrahlung radiation (radiation caused by high energy electrons being stopped in a material, "Breaking radiation" ) and by k-shell emissions from heavy metals like tungsten. The k-shell (The lowest energy shell of an atom) emissions are created when a high energy electron knocks an electron out of the k-shell in a heavy metal and the other electrons cascade down to fill up the ground state. Gamma-rays are normally produced in nuclear interactions.

So the mainstreamers would like us to think otherwise

And then when I ask a question regarding EU theory and the apparent contradictions within the mainstream ideas, the mods get very defensive with threats to be kicked of the board and banned, for apparently having the audacity to show or ask about the blatantly obvious contradictions and failings of the mainstream idea.

Or indeed how the "mainstreamers" can change the story virtually at will while the EU crowd must show quantative and OOM estimates for observed evidence. strange to say the least.

Seems some phenomena can be explained with gravity, some with electricity (plasma) and nearly all with a combination of both

But that would be hearsay

Sol

P.S You must have a very hard job Nereid, keeping all us EU psudo-scientist in line with threat of expulsion, kudos to you and this board, you do do a fantastic job (no sarcasm) but I can see a time in the not too distant future were you and the other "mainstreamers" are going to have an increasingly hard time keeping the BB/standard model going.

I believe it to be a far less believable option. For one thing, the PowerPoint presentation you linked to does not support your conclusion. In fact, it explicitly says that CO₂, CH₄ & H₂O will be enhanced. But the main reasons are that there is nowhere near enough Si to do the job, and SiO₂ will not remain chemically stable, since it has 2 valence electrons laying around. Given the chance, Si & O will join to form SiO₄, which is a hard crystal. We do see crystalline silicates in comet dust, mostly olivine (Fe₂SiO₄, Mg₂SiO₄). But they don't "electrically separate" anyway, they remain crystalline. But H₂O is easily separated by solar UV photons.

So, in fact, based on what we know about the materials, SiO₂ is a poor choice, because (a) the observed abundance of Si is too low, and (b) SiO₄ & Mg₂SiO₄ do not "electrically separate". On the other hand, H₂O is a good choice because the observed abundances of both O & H are high, and H₂O is easily separated by the UV photons.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Upriver wrote:Upriver, I agree matter is combined cooled charge, this is were the BB model will fail I believe. The universe has always been here and will continue change thru this mechanism of destruction (matter turned to a plasma) then accelerated electrically vast distances to be reformed into matter at the other end. None of those annoying loose ends and fanciful objects that the BB model seems to be full of.

Sol

This is an extremely insulting post. We already had this discussion, see my explanation, and your response to it. You know very well that the explanation you gave here has nothing to do with the mainstream explanation for how X-rays are produced by comets, so why did you say that? And when did anyone say that comets generate gamma rays?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

tim wrote: And it's been shown there is an abundance of "ice"???

So to break all the rules, what besides water could account for this observation? Using just electricity and "rock".

Sol

Sorry Tim my bad use of english Should have read "The EU'ers think otherwise" and you are right nowhere does it say comets produce gamma rays, but my interpretation of this Q&A was that X-Rays can not be produced via UV, X & Gamma ray excitation of "ice".

Sol

Although Borovsky is a good scientist, he tends to take things too easily, taking the easy way out now and then. I think that also happens in this paper, he just wrote a quick paper on double layers because they were in fashion at that time, not because he is interested in the field. If you want to have a really good introduction into double layers I would advise you to read Michael Raadu "The physics of double layers and their role in astrophysics" in Physics Reports, volume 178(2), June 1989.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

The answer to qyour question in of course no. But then again, that is not the process that was generating the X-rays now was it? You are not fair here, Sol88. It was clearly said in the thread, details given by Tim Thompson, that the water interacted in a charge exchange process with 7 times ionized oxygen, which leaves the water shaken up so that it can release an X-ray photon.
So, if you try to bring something to the discussion table, check that you have your data right.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I added the " " marks to express the EU view that these are not real volcanoes, not based on what was in the paper, I'm sorry if it looked that way. Actually I am trying to argue the case that every cometary aspect of the moons around planets (and of course comets themselves and "cometary" asteroids), whether it is Io /Jupiter, Enceladus/Saturn or Mab/Uranus can be explained as (at least partly) electrical phenomena. The fact that Dessler and Peratt only see evidence of the plume showing arc-like behaviour doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that the volcanoes themselves are arcs (couldn't there be more energy in a circuit than assumed from their calculation?), but the point is that plasma arcs are a reasonable assumption for Io, even if the volcanoe source is tidal heating.

What I'm more interested in is the way Enceladus and Mab can both be part of an identical (to all appearances) dust-laden ring where one of these moons must be small enough to exclude tidal heating as heating mechanism.

With the known mechanism of plasma arcs at Io, why couldn't the same energy source also be responsible for the plumes at Enceladus and the inferred dust ejection from Mab? Saturn's and Uranus' fields might be weaker, but the effects are also much weaker, maybe even the icy surface of Encladus and (again inferred) icy surface of Mab are the reason the effects are different in appearance from Io's plumes.

Cheers.

Could you explain why "SiO₄ & Mg₂SiO₄ do not "electrically separate"? If the oxygen were released from those molecules, wouldn't the abundant hydrogen cloud around a comet (or even from the solar wind) recombine with the Oxygen ions to form OH/H[sub]20?

Cheers.

A more reasonable question would be to ask why anyone would think that they should? How do you "electrically separate" the atoms in a crystal? At best I can see a crystal perhaps being disrupted along a cleavage plane, or some structural defect, but that just breaks a big crystal into little crystals. But to get atoms to come off of molecules, you need to hit them with enough energy to break the chemical bonds, and you need to hit in just the right spot, and the energy has to go into breaking bonds instead of structural weaknesses. And you can't do it with any kind of current that you would expect a conductor or semiconductor to conduct. It looks to me like an extremely unlikely thing physically, if not nigh onto impossible.

But that still does not address the other issue, namey that the Si abundance is just too low. Even if every Si atom seen came from some Si+O compound, there is still way too much O to be acommodated by so little Si. And it also leaves the source of the H unidentified.

The oxygen would do that no matter where it came from, although H₂O should break up into O, H, OH & etc., because of the solar UV flux. To some extent, water abundances are inferred from O & H abundances, where H₂O is the most common molecule around which will supply both the O and the H

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Yes, it has.

It depends on which "rules" you want to break. The infamous White Queen from Alice in Wonderland was able to believe "at least 6 impossible things before breakfast". If you don't care about the "rules" then stick to Si+O compounds, and just "assume" that it will all work out in the end. But I don't know of any physical way to make "rock" & "electricity" produce copious amounts of free oxygen.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

I read somewhere that a possible mechanism for water production on the Moon was solar wind bombardment of Fe-oxides in moondust. If I can find it I'll post it here. There are a great many papers that describe experiments involving exposing all kinds of molecules and materials to "space radiation", maybe I can find some relevant papers and I'll post them too.

Cheers.

This abstract is the one I wanted to show.

From the abstract:
Doesn't this indicate that it is, at least in principle, possible to produce water from non-ice material?

Cheers.

Just for fun, I've made some OOM estimates of the time/effort it would take to get to maths, equations, numbers and stuff, for at least one kind of 'electric comet' idea.

First, some ground rules (a.k.a. assumptions):

• the 'electric comet' idea is built upon standard plasma physics, and requires no 'new physics' (i.e. I'm following iantresman, not biknewb)
• the EU/electric comet researcher has 'instantaneous' access to all the relevant scientific literature, and publicly available data from all relevant experiments and observations (mostly work on comets, in this case)
• this researcher has a decent PC, equipped with decent math and data analysis tools
• and that's pretty much it!

The unit in these OOM estimates is 1 hour, so 0 OOM ~= 1 hour, 1 OOM ~= 1 day, 2 OOM ~= 1 week, 3 OOM ~= 3 months, 4 OOM ~= 3 years.

First case: Assume a good physics education.

Time/effort to grasp the essentials of the EU idea, and the relevant plasma physics: 2 to 3

Time/effort to do OOM estimates of observables, internal consistencies, etc: 1 to 2

Time/effort to get inputs, check sources, crunch numbers, etc (assuming that the idea didn't fail, grossly, at the previous stage): 1 to 3 (this is conservative; before we start, we really don't know how much work would need to be done here).

Time/effort to write up results: 1 to 2.

Total: between 3 and 4 (i.e. more than ~3 months, less than ~3 years).

Second case: Assume only a good high school (math) education.

Time/effort to get good physics education: ~4+

The rest of the work follows from above.

- - - - - - - -

So, starting from scratch, it should take no more than ~3 years' work to be able to develop a good paper or three on the 'electric comet' idea (and it might take as little as ~6 months).

Can we get a sanity check on these numbers? Yes. Earlier in this thread, I reported an OOM estimate, of the observables corresponding to Thornhill's 'predictions', that took 0 to 1 OOM. Admittedly, that involved considerable simplification of the EU case, but nonetheless very likely placed firm bounds on the parameter space of (EU) inputs*

This thread has been going since Jan 2004. While much of it has been on matters other than 'electric comet', and many participants have devoted as little as 1% (or less) of their time to it, at first blush it would seem quite reasonable to expect that a pretty solid case for any 'electric comet' idea could have been mounted by now ... especially if the main EU proponent (Thornhill) has, in fact, devoted ~30 years (5 OOM) of his life to this study.

I'm interested to hear from EU proponents: where do you think my OOM analysis is too optimistic?

*Simplistically, if the Sun is powered by an essentially uniform radial electric field, and the rest of the 'electric comet' idea is per the sources quoted by EU proponents, in this thread, then Thornhill's discharge 'predictions' cannot possibly have been derived from this 'electric comet' idea. Alternatively, if the Thornhill 'prediction' concerning 'discharge' is within an OOM of being right, then the Sun would be so bright, today, that we'd all be fried to a crisp within an hour of sunrise. Oh, and neither of these EU ideas is consistent with good observational results - there is no evidence of the kind of radial electrical field, or ISM-Sun current, needed for either version.

And what do you think the chances are, of getting past peer review?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

An 'electric comet' paper produced in the manner I have described? If done competently, very high.

However, should any EU proponent actually do the work, I expect they'd abandon it at the second stage ("do OOM estimates of observables, internal consistencies, etc"). As I already pointed out, it takes but an hour or ten to show that there are huge inconsistencies in the idea (it might take a day or 100 to run each and every inconsistency to ground, to convince yourself that you hadn't overlooked something obvious, or subtle).

Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that at least some EUers have 'done the math', but not proceeded into print (peer-reviewed publications or otherwise) because the internal inconsistencies are so gross.

But we're digressing - this is an ATM thread, devoted to allowing EU proponents to present their EU ATM case in the best possible way ...

You are being very generous, although that still does not make up for an incomplete observational model.
As of this point I have read about multiple streams of neutral gas that enter our heliosphere, velocity differentials between all of the species of solar wind particles(would lead to a charge build up), a change in composition in several places due to ionization of neutrals, flux tubes galore, solar inflows and outflows.
Plus we are traveling through a variable plasma which creates a changing termination etc. shock which leads to varying potentials within the heliosphere, as in an object in plasma(Langmuir probe model).
Could be an Alfven wave particle pump(solar wind).
http://www.cetp.ipsl.fr/~mottez/simu...t_PhPl2003.pdf
I just dont know quite enough to evaulate this correctly along with all the afore mentioned stuff.


Also, I'm trying to understand the galactic circuit in this fashion.
The central power source/primary coil = Sgr A, long coil conductor = Birkeland Current, electrode at end = sun.
http://amasci.com/tesla/tmistk.html
Also about half way down, G-line transmission.

Which leads me to the comets. They have three tails which means alot(I conjecture) is going on. I had also put forth the idea that at least one of the tails extends either to the sun, sunward spike(like earth, venus, etc) or the termination shock, ion tail(like Jupiter, Saturn). If this the case, then they would be experiencing a much higher potential than with just the radial electric field or the charge accumulated from being immersed in a plasma, due to the transmission line action of the connecting flux tube. Which would provide a high enough potential to jet(localized EDM discharge), even break up......


It seems to be a very dynamic system that more study is needed on, although I still think there is a net external energy flow that provides the ionization potential for the sun.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Thanks upriver, you've highlighted one big challenge.

The 'electric comet' idea, as 'published' on EU websites (at least, those which EU proponents here have provided us links to) is vague and very ambiguous.

As I said earlier, in response to iantresman's comment "it takes but an hour or ten to show that there are huge inconsistencies in the idea", where 'idea' means simple and straight-forward interpretation of the word salad versions found on EU websites.

What you seem to be seeking to do is "run each and every inconsistency to ground, to convince yourself that you hadn't overlooked something obvious, or subtle", by generating hypotheses to be tested, by the dozen (or hundred).

That may not be a very effective way to do the project; your efforts seem to lack focus. Think of this as 'experimental design'.

Instead, why not make stage 2 something like "develop hypotheses schemes/hierarchies/structures, distill and derive a small number that will probe the best possible EU/electric comet envelope"? This would take ~1 to 2 OOM, and leave the conclusion essentially unchanged.

Finally, your objection concerned (it seems) only stages 2 and 3 (of Case One; of Case Two, they'd be stages 3 and 4) - do you have any comments on all the other stages?

Do I understand you correctly that you consider it impossible that a weak radial electric field centered on the Sun can exist?

That is incorrect.

A 'weak radial electric field centred on the Sun' can most certainly exist!

What seems inconsistent with good observational results (including not being fried within 10 minutes of sunrise, every day) are the following:

* a 'weak radial electric field centred on the Sun' sufficient to generate the Sun's observed (steady) EM and neutrino emissions, over 1 billion years (i.e. since photosynthetic plants first arose on Earth). Such a field is inconsistent with a great deal of space probe data (among other things).

* a 'weak radial electric field centred on the Sun' sufficient to charge Tempel-1 and the Deep Impact impactor in the manner described on EU websites so that the observed flash, and X-ray emission, results from an EDM discharge (of the kind described on EU websites). Such a field is inconsistent with the observed EM emission from the Sun, today (among other things).

Of course, the entire thread lacks focus & always has. The "shotgun" approach, to overwhelm the opposition with quantity over quality seems a common ATM tactic, and is especially so for this thread.

A good idea would be to get EU proponents to prioritize their own arguments. Pick one or two ideas, preferably one idea to keep it focussed, and run it to completion. What is the one piece of evidence which, more than any other, "screams" EU? What is the one biggest argument in favor of the validity of the EU hypothesis? Have a single thread devoted to that single topic, and ruthlessly move or delete off topic comments. That will produce some kind of result fairly quickly I think.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

I think Tim's idea is an excellent one. So, for anyone willing, can you outline a specific item which, in your opinion, "screams" EU? Please put the idea here to start, in that it may be refined to then be moved into a thread where it can be discussed in detail.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~