Cosmic Rays, Photons and the Magnetic Dipole of the Nuetron - Page 3

Fortis · #61 (**permalink**) 22-October-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

Sr is irrelevant in this theory, please read my ground rules stated in the previous post. I appreciate your input Fortis but your basing your argument on SR and I am suggesting there is no T=0 or Spacetime SR stuff...;-) The Twins are both old in my book..;-) I'm not 100% sure that I'm accurate on that statement anyway, but its irrelevant I think. If everyone for just a moment can just throw out some of what they have learned, (specifically the ground rules that I mentioned) then perhaps they will see what is really going on..

Let's take a charged particle. Let's have two observers. Observer A is at rest with respect to the particle. Observer B is moving with respect to the charged particle.

Does observer A see a magnetic field?
Does observer B see a magnetic field?

If one does but the other doesn't what does that mean about the reality of the magnetic field by itself?

Geo Kaplan · #62 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

Can you elaborate on that a little more? I get a little lost in the frame of reference stuff? What do you mean by frame dependence? Wouldnt that still assume that time and space are intertwined?

No, because it is an experimental observation, the only assumptions are that the instruments were properly calibrated, that the experiments were carried out competently, and that all subsequent confirmations by other scientists were not the result of a grand conspiracy.

Since you seem surprised by the frame-dependent nature of electromagnetic forces, you might want (once again) to get thee to a library and read up on such things first. A highly readable account is a classic one by Ed Purcell, found in the undergraduate textbook on E&M he wrote for the Berkeley Physics Series of textbooks decades ago. This series is still used in first-year undergraduate physics courses. You should read these books, or their more modern equivalents, so that you can get educated on what the mainstream knows about physics, and to learn to use terms in a way that is correct and clear. Is that a lot of work? Sure it is -- we're talking about the way the universe works. It would be a surprise if it were easy, and not a surprise that it isn't. Heck, just trigonometry is hard for a lot of high school kids to master. The devil's in the details, and the details involve math and logic. Want to convince the mainstream to reconsider something? Show us the details. Handwaving provides a refreshing breeze, but that's all.

coliver · #63 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Northernboy:
Here's a deal for you, you start acting in better faith, and I'll do my best to explain things in a way that I think can best help you.

ok, I'll do my best. I realize I'm making assertions without proper supportive evidence, so I agree. But I feel very strongly about the theory, perhaps not my current version of it but its entirety. I dont mean to sound as though I know more than those who have dedicated their life to this, so for that I apologize..

Geo Kaplan · #64 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

But I feel very strongly about the theory, perhaps not my current version of it but its entirety.

I'm sure you do. But sadly, the strength of one's feelings is not a very good indicator of correctness. The history of science is filled with theories that were elegant, ardently believed, but horribly, terribly wrong. The universe behaves as the universe does, regardless of our ideas about how it should.

coliver · #65 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Let's take a charged particle. Let's have two observers. Observer A is at rest with respect to the particle. Observer B is moving with respect to the charged particle.

Does observer A see a magnetic field?
Does observer B see a magnetic field?

If one does but the other doesn't what does that mean about the reality of the magnetic field by itself?

It would seem to me and I may be incorrect, that the observer that is moving with the particle would not see the field because hes not at rest?
And if thats the case, just because he doesnt see it, doesnt mean its not there?

Geo Kaplan · #66 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

It would seem to me and I may be incorrect, that the observer that is moving with the particle would not see the field because hes not at rest?
And if thats the case, just because he doesnt see it, doesnt mean its not there?

You're asking a question that is fully equivalent to the old "if a tree falls in a forest..." Philosophy 101 puzzler. If it's unobserved, what does it mean to be "there?"

Scientists use a more precise language, based on what's measurable. Here, you would say, "In frame such-and-such, an observer measures no magnetic field. An observer in a frame thus-and-so does measure one."

coliver · #67 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan

You're asking a question that is fully equivalent to the old "if a tree falls in a forest..." Philosophy 101 puzzler. If it's unobserved, what does it mean to be "there?"

Scientists use a more precise language, based on what's measurable. Here, you would say, "In frame such-and-such, an observer measures no magnetic field. An observer in a frame thus-and-so does measure one."

After researching a bit and according to SR it doesnt matter whether an observer is at rest or moving, the speed of light is the same for all observers, but what about the time. Are they both looking at it simultaneously? Another question that came to mind was that SR is based on the speed of light. If there was no light in the magnetic field, wouldnt it move at a different rate of speed or frequency?

At first I thoughtmy question in this post was irrelevant, but after study, its very relevant..

Continued below.

Geo Kaplan · #68 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

After researching a bit and according to SR it doesnt matter whether an observer is at rest or moving, the speed of light is the same for all observers, but what about the time. Are they both looking at it simultaneously?

Look up "relativity of simultaneity" in your references on SR. It is a key piece.

I note that this is in danger of devolving into a Q&A, rather than an ATM thread. Don't expect too much more in the way of our educating you on mainstream physics.

coliver · #69 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan:
Here, you would say, "In frame such-and-such, an observer measures no magnetic field. An observer in a frame thus-and-so does measure one."

ok, I get it. So its all in the details?..;-) I understand now that its going to have to be carefully worded and concise as well as making sure all the holes are plugged..

coliver · #70 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan

Look up "relativity of simultaneity" in your references on SR. It is a key piece.

I note that this is in danger of devolving into a Q&A, rather than an ATM thread. Don't expect too much more in the way of our educating you on mainstream physics.

I'll do so, thank you..

I'm not really prepared for an ATM proposal as I should be. But if I didnt propose it, I couldnt get feedback to refine it. Thats the point where I get confused about where one should post when its ATM now but also follows mainstream. Its kind of like being between two magnetic fields..

As I stated when I opened the thread, it may be old news by the time I learn what is needed to propose it correctly. My main intention was to point out the possibilities in hopes of stimulating some of you that can, to dig deeper into the ideas presented. Hopefully they will at least stimulate enough interest to examine further. I would love to be able to put it all into scientific prowess and cross all the t's but I'm working somewhat backwards, and without the foundation to do so. I'll keep learning what I can, as long as I can, but my journey into physics came at a later point in life rather than an early one...

Right now, I need to go clean my virtual domain, but I'll be back..

I would like to know where I may be right, and where I may be wrong, if anyone is willing to take the time to explain it to me.. Or perhaps where I should dig deeper as in the pointer that Geo Kaplan provided.

coliver · #71 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

Let's take a charged particle. Let's have two observers. Observer A is at rest with respect to the particle. Observer B is moving with respect to the charged particle.

Does observer A see a magnetic field?
Does observer B see a magnetic field?

If one does but the other doesn't what does that mean about the reality of the magnetic field by itself?

What is the distance between the two observers?

The observers would be separated by time, equal to the distance it would take for light to travel to their eyes unless they were in the same place at the same time. One observers time would be milliseconds or less different than the others. In comparison, If say our space was traveling at c but void of light, and mass was at rest, there would be a time difference between observers equal to how long it took the observer void of light to see it.

coliver · #72 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 10:17 AM

ok, I'm placing SR in my valid column for now, as suggested. Although I think it may have some inaccuracy. But as far as my hypothesis goes a particle can only be in one space at one TIME.

I'm pretty sure I may have figured out whats going on with the ocean of nuetrinos. It occured to me that our space really is quite similiar to an ocean although much less dense. My thinking is that not only Gamma Rays or Xrays etc.. are ionizing but that ALL radiation is ionizing. Longer wavelengths would just do so with less intensity. Now before everyone slaps me, let me tell you why I think so..

The polarization that occurs in Gamma Rays seems related to something I had suggested in a past thread. It was my "Photons create Elements" thread, although I have since understood that the elements part of the title was of course inaccurate...

The idea was basically that lights frequency or wavelength is converted at the atomic level creating the basis for living organisms in some kind of polarizing pattern involving ionization and the magnetic dipole moment of the nuetron via some form of QED. The photons are absorbed or reflected by matter according to its elemental composition or (density) and its position within the atmosphere, regarding Pressure/Temp etc. Basically a photoelectric effect. Living organisms differ by being able to store energy to promote cell division etc.. thus the energy remains. In contrast to elements reflecting most if not all of the wavelengths, since they were created at much higher energies (or shorter wavelengths). SO energy is absorbed and stored but bleeds off over time to the nuetrino ocean or Dark Matter I suspect it would be termed correctly?

I've also come to the conclusion that I may be conflating spacetime and the nuetrino ocean when they may be separate things but intertwined (as Einstein noted;-). The nuetrinos are gravity in effect, they are what holds the atoms in their orbit within the magnetic field and are also the mechanism by which mass loses or bleeds energy in the form of radiation. But perhaps also Spacetime. SO the best answer I came up with for this was the nuetrinos are the CMB and Dark Matter providing gravity and are intertwined with Spacetime. And spacetime is the other side of the mirror that the particles are pulled through in the process I descibed earlier, the anti-side?

I'll stop here for a moment again while I gather my thoughts.

NorthernBoy · #73 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

ok, I'm placing SR in my valid column for now, as suggested. Although I think it may have some inaccuracy. But as far as my hypothesis goes a particle can only be in one space at one TIME.

You are going to need to explain how your theory fits with the classical electron double slit experiment, then. According to this, the electron is represented by a probability function that effectively means that it passes through both slits.

The difference in phase between these slits gives the interference pattern that we all know, which matches what we'd get for a wave doing the same thing.

Quote:

ALL radiation is ionizing. Longer wavelengths would just do so with less intensity.

This is not true. Looking at the photoelectric effect, we see that there is a frequency of light below which no electrons are ejected. No matter how bright you make this light, you still don't get electrons emerging from the cathode.

Quote:

The idea was basically that lights frequency or wavelength is converted at the atomic level creating the basis for living organisms in some kind of polarizing pattern involving ionization and the magnetic dipole moment of the nuetron via some form of QED

This, I'm afraid, is just another rather meaningless sentence. Can you please rewrite it so that it can be better understood?

As a guide, phrases like "kind of" and "some form of" should probably suggest to you that you need to work out how to be more precise.

Quote:

I've also come to the conclusion that I may be conflating spacetime and the nuetrino ocean

You've also provided no evidence for this "neutrino ocean", nor any reason for us to think that it is real.

Quote:

The nuetrinos are gravity in effect, they are what holds the atoms in their orbit within the magnetic field

You are still spelling neutrinos wrong. In this piece, too, you seem to be confusing gravity and magnetism.

Quote:

And spacetime is the other side of the mirror that the particles are pulled through in the process I descibed earlier, the anti-side?

What mirror? You again seem to be using an everyday world to mean something different here. Are you literally proposing some sort of interaction with a real mirror or is there, in your mind, some kind of analogy that you are trying to make?

You write as though the mirror is literal, so its hard to know what to make of this piece.

Quote:

I'll stop here for a moment again while I gather my thoughts.

To be honest, that should have probably come before you posted this not after. You are again posting a mixture of stream of consciousness text, shot through with apparent analogies and plainly incorrect assertions (see the point about ionising radiation above).

Why don't you stick to one point, and discuss that, instead of posting about ten ATM new theories in every post that you make.

On this last point, you come across like Neal Adams on this, in that you don't just have one new idea, but you are basically asserting that everything that we know about every branch of physics is wrong. Atomic, nuclear, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, statistical dynamics, quantum mechanics, solid state physics, and even the very basics, such as what is energy, momentum, or distance, you are attempting to say that you know better, not just than some people, but than everyone else, in every last one of these subjects, because only you have seen the truth.

I hope that you can see that this is not suggestive of genius, but rather, is suggestive of a need to accept some honest input from people who've studied the subject.

coliver · #74 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

You are going to need to explain how your theory fits with the classical electron double slit experiment, then. According to this, the electron is represented by a probability function that effectively means that it passes through both slits.

The difference in phase between these slits gives the interference pattern that we all know, which matches what we'd get for a wave doing the same thing.

This is not true. Looking at the photoelectric effect, we see that there is a frequency of light below which no electrons are ejected. No matter how bright you make this light, you still don't get electrons emerging from the cathode.

This, I'm afraid, is just another rather meaningless sentence. Can you please rewrite it so that it can be better understood?

As a guide, phrases like "kind of" and "some form of" should probably suggest to you that you need to work out how to be more precise.

You've also provided no evidence for this "neutrino ocean", nor any reason for us to think that it is real.

You are still spelling neutrinos wrong. In this piece, too, you seem to be confusing gravity and magnetism.

What mirror? You again seem to be using an everyday world to mean something different here. Are you literally proposing some sort of interaction with a real mirror or is there, in your mind, some kind of analogy that you are trying to make?

You write as though the mirror is literal, so its hard to know what to make of this piece.

To be honest, that should have probably come before you posted this not after. You are again posting a mixture of stream of consciousness text, shot through with apparent analogies and plainly incorrect assertions (see the point about ionising radiation above).

Why don't you stick to one point, and discuss that, instead of posting about ten ATM new theories in every post that you make.

On this last point, you come across like Neal Adams on this, in that you don't just have one new idea, but you are basically asserting that everything that we know about every branch of physics is wrong. Atomic, nuclear, particle physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, statistical dynamics, quantum mechanics, solid state physics, and even the very basics, such as what is energy, momentum, or distance, you are attempting to say that you know better, not just than some people, but than everyone else, in every last one of these subjects, because only you have seen the truth.

I hope that you can see that this is not suggestive of genius, but rather, is suggestive of a need to accept some honest input from people who've studied the subject.

Your right Northernboy, I'm confusing things again. I think as you say I'm trying to take on too many subjects at one time and making a mess of all of them..

I need to sit down with my physics books and the suggestions received and put this whole thing together in a clear and concise format.

I also need to tie down the mechanisms involved and relate their functions accurately. Your advice is much appreciated and I am going to retire to my recliner and have dreams about reality for now..

Thanks to everyone for their help. Contrary to my perceived know it all attitude, I really do value your advice and accept it with gratitude...

Geo Kaplan · #75 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 04:40 PM

I thought that you acknowledged the need to hit the books before posting again, but you're back doing the same rambling without having done the most basic checking. As NorthernBoy points out, your assertion about the photoelectric effect, among others, is provably, terribly wrong. You could've found this out in minutes of online checking. In fact, a guy named Einstein won a Nobel Prize for explaining just this thing. It's hardly an obscure bit of physics!

With each successive posting of yours, I become less able to believe that you are being sincere. Before you post again, do homework first. "Get thee to a library" apparently needs to be followed by "and then study."

NorthernBoy · #76 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

Your right Northernboy, I'm confusing things again. I think as you say I'm trying to take on too many subjects at one time and making a mess of all of them..

I need to sit down with my physics books and the suggestions received and put this whole thing together in a clear and concise format. .

I agree, and as pointed out above, you need to make sure if you post something that disagrees with the mainstream that you deal with the apparent contradictions with experiment. If you claim that the photoelectric effect does not really act as we observe it to, then it makes sense to pre-empt the inevitable objections by pointing out in your post why we have misinterpreted the standard data.

Claiming that all radiation is ionising is at odds with one of the most famous effects, papers, and scientists that we have in the subject. It's actually about as far off base as saying that the brain is responsible for pumping blood around the body.

If you want to start on one claim, your ATM claim on this is a biggie, and probably worth concentrating on.

Fortis · #77 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

It would seem to me and I may be incorrect, that the observer that is moving with the particle would not see the field because hes not at rest?
And if thats the case, just because he doesnt see it, doesnt mean its not there?

The answer is that in the rest frame of the observer that is stationary relative to the charge, there is no magnetic field.

In the frame of the observer moving relative to the charge there is a magnetic field. If the observer was moving in the opposite direction relative to the charge, then the magnetic field would be reversed.

Is the magnetic field there or not? Or does it depend on the frame for which you ask the question?

By the way, this does not depend on the distance of the observer from the charge, only on the relative motion.

forrest noble · #78 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 09:04 PM

Coliver,

Quote:

If it's proven that Baryogenesis does begin in ongoing High Energy Gamma Radiation Events.................

What mechanisms specifically do you propose causes baryogenesis? Is the Gamma Radiation the cause of baryogenesis or the result of it. If it is the cause, what specifically do you think is the cause of the Gamma Radiation? Where does this Gamma Radiation / baryogenesis process occur? Do you believe it is an ongoing process that has not changed over time?

Quote:

It's not Photons or Cosmic Rays that provide the energy to change atomic structure, ITS BOTH!. Or perhaps, the combination of the two.

What particular changes in atomic structure are you considering have their origin via photons and cosmic rays?

coliver · #79 (**permalink**) 23-October-2009, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

I agree, and as pointed out above, you need to make sure if you post something that disagrees with the mainstream that you deal with the apparent contradictions with experiment. If you claim that the photoelectric effect does not really act as we observe it to, then it makes sense to pre-empt the inevitable objections by pointing out in your post why we have misinterpreted the standard data.

Claiming that all radiation is ionising is at odds with one of the most famous effects, papers, and scientists that we have in the subject. It's actually about as far off base as saying that the brain is responsible for pumping blood around the body.

If you want to start on one claim, your ATM claim on this is a biggie, and probably worth concentrating on.

I agree, thanks Northernboy. Everyone should be pleased that it has finally become apparent that the only way I am going to be able to prove anything, is by learning the math involved, at minimum the processes involved, or experimentation so thats what I will have to do. I'm about three quarters into a Bachelors in my education but have neglected the math and physics required. It would only take me a year or two.

Without proper scientific documentation and method Im just spinning my wheels so to speak. I have noted all of your suggestions and understand what I need to do. Your feedback will be most helpful, thank you.

Geo Kaplan · #80 (**permalink**) 24-October-2009, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

I agree, thanks Northernboy. Everyone should be pleased that it has finally become apparent that the only way I am going to be able to prove anything, is by learning the math involved, at minimum the processes involved, or experimentation so thats what I will have to do. I'm about three quarters into a Bachelors in my education but have neglected the math and physics required. It would only take me a year or two.

Without proper scientific documentation and method Im just spinning my wheels so to speak. I have noted all of your suggestions and understand what I need to do. Your feedback will be most helpful, thank you.

Best wishes on your studies, coliver.

coliver · #81 (**permalink**) 24-October-2009, 12:21 AM

Quote:

=forrest noble;1605995]Coliver,

What mechanisms specifically do you propose causes baryogenesis? Is the Gamma Radiation the cause of baryogenesis or the result of it. If it is the cause, what specifically do you think is the cause of the Gamma Radiation? Where does this Gamma Radiation / baryogenesis process occur? Do you believe it is an ongoing process that has not changed over time?

I believe that Gamma Radiation is the result of Baryogenesis, specifically between Baryonic and Non Baryonic Matter as discussed in the previous thread with RussT. The collisions or compression of one into the other creates a magnetic field and Gamma. Something to that effect. Yes, it is a steady state. Energy is coming in and going out the SMBH. Light converted to energy,that then bleeds back or is recycled into the dark or anti-side.

Quote:

What particular changes in atomic structure are you considering have their origin via photons and cosmic rays?

I believe that now since everything has cooled in our universe that the photons and cosmic rays primarily interact with living organisms, and are mainly reflected by elements that were created in much hotter Star Nucleosynthesis. The wavelengths are much longer. Gamma would burn us to a cinder. Its this ability to store the energy instead of it being recycled as seems to be the norm, that allows life to exist.

You can PM me Forrest if you'd like to discuss it further. I've pretty much decided I'm going to have to do this right...

coliver · #82 (**permalink**) 24-October-2009, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan

Best wishes on your studies, coliver.

Thank you, and thanks for your help..

coliver · #83 (**permalink**) 24-October-2009, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

The answer is that in the rest frame of the observer that is stationary relative to the charge, there is no magnetic field.

In the frame of the observer moving relative to the charge there is a magnetic field. If the observer was moving in the opposite direction relative to the charge, then the magnetic field would be reversed.

Is the magnetic field there or not? Or does it depend on the frame for which you ask the question?

By the way, this does not depend on the distance of the observer from the charge, only on the relative motion.

Thanks for this Fortis, this is very helpful. I know whats happening now..

With the field anyway...

ok, this is my last post, thanks to all...

NorthernBoy · #84 (**permalink**) 24-October-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

I agree, thanks Northernboy. Everyone should be pleased that it has finally become apparent that the only way I am going to be able to prove anything, is by learning the math involved, at minimum the processes involved, or experimentation so thats what I will have to do. I'm about three quarters into a Bachelors in my education but have neglected the math and physics required. It would only take me a year or two.

Without proper scientific documentation and method Im just spinning my wheels so to speak. I have noted all of your suggestions and understand what I need to do. Your feedback will be most helpful, thank you.

I agree, and wish you luck in your studies.

One extra, and excellent point in this course's favour is that learning physics is fascinating. I think that you'll find it much more fun learning the mainstream than trying to overthrow it.

coliver · #85 (**permalink**) 27-October-2009, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

I agree, and wish you luck in your studies.

One extra, and excellent point in this course's favour is that learning physics is fascinating. I think that you'll find it much more fun learning the mainstream than trying to overthrow it.

I agree the topic of physics is fascinating..

And learning the foundations that have been laid down by so many that have dedicated their lives to it is essential. But I look at it like this, if a new theory doesnt break a current law then its probably not right..

I've learned a few things I had mixed up already, Nuetrinos (spelled correctly?) aren't the gravity as I had proposed, the magnetic field is, and their not the only thing that makes up our space...

It was a simple observation that we lived in an ocean of something that led me on this journey. Particularly that the densities moving outward from the ocean to space decreased by layers. And that gaseous planets were just as real as rocky ones only less dense. Along the way I just keep getting more and more supporting evidence that my general ideas are correct, but lack the knowledge of mainstream physics to be able to explain it. So it only makes sense that I should learn what IS known first so that I can distinguish what variables are valid in my ideas and those that aren't..

macaw · #86 (**permalink**) 27-October-2009, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

, Nuetrinos (spelled correctly?)

Nope.

Quote:

aren't the gravity as I had proposed, the magnetic field is,

Nope as well.

Quote:

and their not what makes up our space...

It would be good if you started your studies with a spelling class.

coliver · #87 (**permalink**) 27-October-2009, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macaw

Nope.

Nope as well.

It would be good if you started your studies with a spelling class.

ok NUETRINOS.. better?..

Its one of those words that I tend to invert the E and U on. ok got it now..

macaw · #88 (**permalink**) 27-October-2009, 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

ok NUETRINOS.. better?..

Its one of those words that I tend to invert the E and U on. ok got it now..

Still wrong, next try to get the gravitation bit right.

Geo Kaplan · #89 (**permalink**) 27-October-2009, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coliver

ok NUETRINOS.. better?..

Its one of those words that I tend to invert the E and U on. ok got it now..

You've been consistent, at least. Just have to make a small change so that you get it consistently right.

Think neutral...neutron...neutrino...neuter...

coliver · #90 (**permalink**) 27-October-2009, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan

You've been consistent, at least. Just have to make a small change so that you get it consistently right.

Think neutral...neutron...neutrino...neuter...

See, Darn if I didnt do it again..

Its EU EU EU EU ...

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode