Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5654 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
» Home
» Features
» News
» Forums
» Classifieds
» Links
» Downloads
Extras
» OS4 Zone
» IRC Network
» AmigaWorld Radio
» Newsfeed
» Top Members
» Amiga Dealers
Information
» About Us
» FAQs
» Advertise
» Polls
» Terms of Service
» Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
71 crawler(s) on-line.
 11 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 smith

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 smith:  1 min ago
 jap:  7 mins ago
 outlawal2:  10 mins ago
 Trixie:  12 mins ago
 Samurai:  16 mins ago
 alanwall:  22 mins ago
 BSzili:  46 mins ago
 Overflow:  49 mins ago
 Livebyfaith:  1 hr 15 mins ago
 jacknife:  1 hr 17 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Free For All
      /  Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )
PosterThread
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 20-Jun-2014 22:30:38
#61 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
A more complete theory means I'm more correct than what you accept.

The4 only way that your "theory" can be called more complete, is if you accept that it is complete and unadulterated C. R. A. P.
Your inane hypotheses have yet to make an accurate prediction that can be verified, and are therefore not acceptable as a theory.
Your inane hypotheses would make it impossible for two white dwarf stars to make a close approach to each other, let alone merge, which is what is happening in the example that I keep referring to and you keep pretending you can't read.

There you go running you mouth again not saying anything useful and putting more words in my mouth.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 20-Jun-2014 22:32:55
#62 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Ok look, ASSumptions made from relativity fail again:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140602115837.htm

Nothing in the article indicates the problem was due to relativity being incorrect. Instead if you actually READ the article it says Quote:
Planet formation theories have a difficult time explaining ...
What it had not mentioned is where the error within the formulation of planets is. (It's you guessing this error is due to incorrect understanding of gravity.) My guess is that error is due to the small amount of data we had available to work from. The first extrasolar planet wasn't discovered until 1992. And until about 2013 we had a small handful of discovered planets. Now we have a couple of thousand. Problem analysis is always more error prone the less data one has. Which is why we keep reaching out for more data.

Now if only those EMers would do some actual science and bring data and experiments. They might be able to scientifically show their leaps of faith have value. I'm not sure who is worse EMers that fail to bring science or anti-vaccers who fail to bring science. Probably anti-vaccers as they cost lives and millions of wasted dollars.

Oh give me a break - you know as well as I do that astronomical models are based on assuming GR is correct.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 20-Jun-2014 22:40:04
#63 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Dandy

Quote:
Also look for the EHT (Enhanced Heim Theory) by Burkhard Heim and Walter Dröscher.

There's something else I think Heim could communicate to Lou, as well. Heim knew that his work were mathematical postulates. As such Heim knew of the scientific importance to our understanding and definition of validity that results from experimentation and confirmation. Therefore, Heim resisted publishing much of his work because he lacked evidence, aka experimentative proof.

Now, of course, none of that speaks to Heim's validity. What it does say is unlike Lou, Heim understood that to our understanding a mathematical postulate is but the beginning. In order to build knowledge of reality we all must take those additional steps of conducting real world experiments. Afterall, those are the only things which identify if those mathematical postulates are applicable to the real world.

Nice cheap shot!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 20-Jun-2014 22:42:38
#64 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140619125529.htm

LOL @ 'primordial gravitational waves'

Looks like gravity continues to bite the dust - and literally according to this article!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 20-Jun-2014 22:59:12
#65 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

http://www.nature.com/news/superfluid-spacetime-points-to-unification-of-physics-1.15437

Wait - did that say 'space-time' is possibly a superfluid? Is that like ether?

"If it is true that spacetime is a superfluid and that photons of different energies travel at different speeds or dissipate over time, that means relativity does not hold in all situations."

Who would have thunk it?
Another not-so-constant CONSTANT! Madness...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 21-Jun-2014 14:55:15
#66 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1208
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
There you go running you mouth again not saying anything useful and putting more words in my mouth.

So exactly what words have I put in your mouth that didn't emanate from that orifice in the first place?
Your hypothesis that the moon orbits the Earth due to Electromagnetic forces was shot down when I pointed out that the equation that you posted to support your theory required figures that you were unable to supply.
Your Hypothesis that Mars orbits the Sun due to the same Electromagnetic forces failed because Mars has no magnetic field at all, and your further assertion that all other planets orbit the sun and rotate on their axes was shown to be C.R.A.P. because none of the magnetic fields align as they would if they were acting as motors.
Your C.R.A.P. about bright objects repelling as a source of gravity is shown by the two merging white dwarf stars to be pure and unadulterated bunkum.
Not one of your assertions is backed by any evidence and most of them are actively shown to be false by simple and repeatable experiment and observation.

You asserted that the Mayan pyramids were in Gaza, this was wrong.
You asserted that "double sun" images were proof of the impending arrival of a non existent planet. This was wrong.
You asserted that an Azerbaijani accountant had produced better translations of ancient Mesopotamian documents. That was wrong.
You asserted that the great pyramids were made of million ton blocks. That was wrong.
i could keep going for hours listing the often contradictory assertions that you have made in your foolish attempts to discredit the use of the scientific method that demolishes your one article of religious faith. That there is a planet and a brown dwarf star in a 3600 year orbit of the sun, that is going to come by soon and its inhabitants being technologically superior to us will enslave us all. And because this star and planet are disproved by the lack of sources of gravitational influences you assume that all mathematics and science is wrong rather than accepting that the assertion made by Sitchin is a lie.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 21-Jun-2014 15:12:37
#67 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1208
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
Wait - did that say 'space-time' is possibly a superfluid? Is that like ether?

No, it is absolutely nothing like the luminiferous Ether for many reasons.
First let me point out that the hypotheses concerning the Luminiferous Ether made certain definite predictions. This article, like all the articles you cite wandered off into the realms of wooly speculation. This is given away by such phrases as "If we think of x as being a ...."
So let us take a look at how the idea touted in this article matches up to the real universe.
Excerpt from the article :Quote:
ne real-world example is the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant about 6,500 light-years from Earth that emits high-energy x-ray and gamma-ray light. By the time this light reaches our telescopes, its energy should have dissipated somewhat if spacetime has liquid properties. Observations of the Crab Nebula, however, show no sign of such an effect.

Your idea then is that since spacetime is not fluid, it has to be superfluid. That is as irrational as saying that since an unlabelled can does not contain peaches, it absolutely has to contain beans.

And do not forget that the absolute predictions made by the Ether hypothesis have been shown to not only fail to match the observable universe, but also not be able to predict where to look for further corroboration.
GR on the other hand is sufficiently accurate to be able to show where there should be mass and energy that have yet to be discovered. And when scientists look where GR points to they find examples of the "missing" mass and energy. Hardly evidence of failure old boy.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 25-Jun-2014 23:31:32
#68 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Nimrod

Stichin is the Dr. Oz of historians.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 27-Jun-2014 22:37:27
#69 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Wait - did that say 'space-time' is possibly a superfluid? Is that like ether?

No, it is absolutely nothing like the luminiferous Ether for many reasons.
First let me point out that the hypotheses concerning the Luminiferous Ether made certain definite predictions. This article, like all the articles you cite wandered off into the realms of wooly speculation. This is given away by such phrases as "If we think of x as being a ...."
So let us take a look at how the idea touted in this article matches up to the real universe.
Excerpt from the article :Quote:
ne real-world example is the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant about 6,500 light-years from Earth that emits high-energy x-ray and gamma-ray light. By the time this light reaches our telescopes, its energy should have dissipated somewhat if spacetime has liquid properties. Observations of the Crab Nebula, however, show no sign of such an effect.

Your idea then is that since spacetime is not fluid, it has to be superfluid. That is as irrational as saying that since an unlabelled can does not contain peaches, it absolutely has to contain beans.

And do not forget that the absolute predictions made by the Ether hypothesis have been shown to not only fail to match the observable universe, but also not be able to predict where to look for further corroboration.
GR on the other hand is sufficiently accurate to be able to show where there should be mass and energy that have yet to be discovered. And when scientists look where GR points to they find examples of the "missing" mass and energy. Hardly evidence of failure old boy.

As usual, you are wrong. See my post below.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 27-Jun-2014 22:39:29
#70 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:
@Nimrod

Stichin is the Dr. Oz of historians.

Funny, recently it was discovered that one of Saturn's moons formed before the rest of the solar system...isn't that something else Sitchin said? Basically if got captured during one of Nibiru's fly-by's...

Funny how science keeps corroborating Sitchin and not the opposite...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 27-Jun-2014 22:52:21
#71 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint-at-concrete-quantum-reality/

As I keep telling you all: quantum mechanics is closer to reality than GR.
It's flawed, but now it has been identified where and when the flaw happened.
Just blame Bohr.

Many a nimrod will deny that there is ether and it's a super fluid, but hey, they're not called nimrods for nothing - ya know!

Some choice quotes for the lazy readers:

But now a set of surprising experiments with fluids has revived old skepticism about that worldview. The bizarre results are fueling interest in an almost forgotten version of quantum mechanics, one that never gave up the idea of a single, concrete reality.

The droplet’s interaction with its own ripples, which form what’s known as a pilot wave, causes it to exhibit behaviors previously thought to be peculiar to elementary particles — including behaviors seen as evidence that these particles are spread through space like waves, without any specific location, until they are measured.

the experiments suggest that quantum objects are as definite as droplets, and that they too are guided by pilot waves — in this case, fluid-like undulations in space and time. These arguments have injected new life into a deterministic (as opposed to probabilistic) theory of the microscopic world first proposed, and rejected, at the birth of quantum mechanics.

De Broglie could not predict the exact place where an individual particle would end up — just like Bohr’s version of events, pilot-wave theory predicts only the statistical distribution of outcomes, or the bright and dark stripes — but the two men interpreted this shortcoming differently. Bohr claimed that particles don’t have definite trajectories; de Broglie argued that they do, but that we can’t measure each particle’s initial position well enough to deduce its exact path.

Here again you see how 'science' just keeps continuing down the wrong path because it is so well established:
More than 30 years would pass before von Neumann’s proof was shown to be false, but by then the damage was done. The physicist David Bohm resurrected pilot-wave theory in a modified form in 1952, with Einstein’s encouragement, and made clear that it did work, but it never caught on. (The theory is also known as de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics.)
...and you also see Einstein finally giving in to "quantum" theory because he knew GR was wrong as he stated years earlier.

And remember this is now based on EXPERIMENT.
Be sure to read the full article unless of course you want to continue arguing because you have nothing better to do...

More:
The neglect continues. A century down the line, the standard, probabilistic formulation of quantum mechanics has been combined with Einstein’s theory of special relativity and developed into the Standard Model, an elaborate and precise description of most of the particles and forces in the universe. Acclimating to the weirdness of quantum mechanics has become a physicists’ rite of passage. The old, deterministic alternative is not mentioned in most textbooks; most people in the field haven’t heard of it. Sheldon Goldstein, a professor of mathematics, physics and philosophy at Rutgers University and a supporter of pilot-wave theory, blames the “preposterous” neglect of the theory on “decades of indoctrination.” At this stage, Goldstein and several others noted, researchers risk their careers by questioning quantum orthodoxy.

Some things I've mentioned before that you all deny to your deaths:

When confined to circular areas called corrals, they form concentric rings analogous to the standing waves generated by electrons in quantum corrals. They even annihilate with subsurface bubbles, an effect reminiscent of the mutual destruction of matter and antimatter particles.

Last edited by Lou on 27-Jun-2014 at 11:02 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 27-Jun-2014 22:54:40
#72 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
Wait - did that say 'space-time' is possibly a superfluid? Is that like ether?

No, it is absolutely nothing like the luminiferous Ether for many reasons.
First let me point out that the hypotheses concerning the Luminiferous Ether made certain definite predictions. This article, like all the articles you cite wandered off into the realms of wooly speculation. This is given away by such phrases as "If we think of x as being a ...."
So let us take a look at how the idea touted in this article matches up to the real universe.
Excerpt from the article :Quote:
ne real-world example is the Crab Nebula, a supernova remnant about 6,500 light-years from Earth that emits high-energy x-ray and gamma-ray light. By the time this light reaches our telescopes, its energy should have dissipated somewhat if spacetime has liquid properties. Observations of the Crab Nebula, however, show no sign of such an effect.

Your idea then is that since spacetime is not fluid, it has to be superfluid. That is as irrational as saying that since an unlabelled can does not contain peaches, it absolutely has to contain beans.

And do not forget that the absolute predictions made by the Ether hypothesis have been shown to not only fail to match the observable universe, but also not be able to predict where to look for further corroboration.
GR on the other hand is sufficiently accurate to be able to show where there should be mass and energy that have yet to be discovered. And when scientists look where GR points to they find examples of the "missing" mass and energy. Hardly evidence of failure old boy.

and your ideas are always out-of-date and hence WRONG

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 29-Jun-2014 22:41:33
#73 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1208
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
As I keep telling you all: quantum mechanics is closer to reality than GR.

So you keep asserting, but as yet you have failed to provide any evidence for your assertion. Feel free to show an equation whereby quantum mechanics can be used to determine the orbit of a planet. You claim that GR is only a "localised effect" and then assert that quantum mechanics, which only works at subatomic levels (with the possible exception of cats) is somehow more accurate at intergalactic distances.

Quote:
Many a nimrod will deny that there is ether

The proponents of the hypotheses concerning luminiferous ether used their ideas and their mathematics to make certain predictions. When experiments were carried out to confirm these predictions the results were conclusive. The predictions, and the hypotheses that were used to form the predictions were demonstrated to be false. It is called science, and it works.
Compare the results obtained from the Michelson-Morley with the observations using GR. Michelson Morley demonstrated that there was no fringing that would have been a consequence of luminiferous ether. GR determined that there was a discrepancy in levels of known energy and mass, but also indicated where to look to find the missing components. And subsequent searches have produced evidence of the existence of the "missing" mass and energy.

Quote:
Here again you see how 'science' just keeps continuing down the wrong path because it is so well established

This statement would only be true if the definition of "the wrong path" were a path that had a preponderance of corroborative evidence as opposed to a random guess, or shot in the dark that made no predictions and was entirely untestable.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2014 3:04:43
#74 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:

Lou wrote:
Quote:

BrianK wrote:
Stichin is the Dr. Oz of historians.

Funny, recently it was discovered that one of Saturn's moons formed before the rest of the solar system...isn't that something else Sitchin said? Basically if got captured during one of Nibiru's fly-by's...

Funny how science keeps corroborating Sitchin and not the opposite...


Flash back, not too far, about how you could learn from Heim to do some actual science. A great example here. You promoted the discovery of Saturn having a moon from an unknown origin to have an origin. Aka Nibiru. While it's a pretty package for you to hold onto your religion, it clearly is not scientific. Basically because Nibiru wasn't proven to exist, nor was the moon proven to be from the orbit of Nibiru. What you did here was use conflation to make a leap of faith. Science did not prove Stichon's Nibiru hypothesis in any sort of manner.

Last edited by BrianK on 01-Jul-2014 at 02:35 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2014 22:56:03
#75 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

double post

Last edited by Lou on 30-Jun-2014 at 11:01 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2014 22:57:04
#76 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote:

Flash back, not too far, about how you could learn from Heim to do some actual science. A great example here. You promoted the discovery of Jupiter having a moon from an unknown origin to have an origin. Aka Nibiru. While it's a pretty package for you to hold onto your religion, it clearly is not scientific. Basically because Nibiru wasn't proven to exist, nor was the moon proven to be from the orbit of Nibiru. What you did here was use conflation to make a leap of faith. Science did not prove Stichon's Nibiru hypothesis in any sort of manner.

Who said anything about Jupiter?
There you go again...

Last edited by Lou on 30-Jun-2014 at 10:57 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2014 22:59:03
#77 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

http://www.ujp.bitp.kiev.ua/files/journals/57/9/570909p.pdf

A paper on pilot-wave theory.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Lou 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 30-Jun-2014 23:00:20
#78 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 2-Nov-2004
Posts: 3961
From: Rhode Island

@Nimrod

Quote:

Nimrod wrote:
@Lou

Quote:
As I keep telling you all: quantum mechanics is closer to reality than GR.

So you keep asserting, but as yet you have failed to provide any evidence for your assertion. Feel free to show an equation whereby quantum mechanics can be used to determine the orbit of a planet. You claim that GR is only a "localised effect" and then assert that quantum mechanics, which only works at subatomic levels (with the possible exception of cats) is somehow more accurate at intergalactic distances.

Quote:
Many a nimrod will deny that there is ether

The proponents of the hypotheses concerning luminiferous ether used their ideas and their mathematics to make certain predictions. When experiments were carried out to confirm these predictions the results were conclusive. The predictions, and the hypotheses that were used to form the predictions were demonstrated to be false. It is called science, and it works.
Compare the results obtained from the Michelson-Morley with the observations using GR. Michelson Morley demonstrated that there was no fringing that would have been a consequence of luminiferous ether. GR determined that there was a discrepancy in levels of known energy and mass, but also indicated where to look to find the missing components. And subsequent searches have produced evidence of the existence of the "missing" mass and energy.

Quote:
Here again you see how 'science' just keeps continuing down the wrong path because it is so well established

This statement would only be true if the definition of "the wrong path" were a path that had a preponderance of corroborative evidence as opposed to a random guess, or shot in the dark that made no predictions and was entirely untestable.

You have proven that you like to type a lot. That's about it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Nimrod 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 1-Jul-2014 14:05:07
#79 ]
Super Member
Joined: 30-Jan-2010
Posts: 1208
From: Untied Kingdom

@Lou

Quote:
You have proven that you like to type a lot. That's about it.

As well as proving that you trawl the web for any C.R.A.P. that you can post as an alternate for what can be supported by evidence.
It has also been proved that you dishonestly change your inane assertions once they have been proved to be false.
It has also been proved that you accept any baseless assertion as fact just because it is supposed to be "new ideas" even though it can be shown to be not only C.R.A.P. but Stale C.R.A.P..

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BrianK 
Re: Nibiru, what if ? - Part 4
Posted on 1-Jul-2014 15:02:28
#80 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 30-Sep-2003
Posts: 8111
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA

@Lou

Quote:
Who said anything about Jupiter?
There you go again...

Thanks for pointing out my error. Though do note that doesn't invalidate the argument that exactly NOTHING indicated that this moon was from Nibiru and thereby proving Stichin's fanciful planet is real. Which is why you've falsely claimed this to be scientific proof of Stichin's accuracy. That leap you made is neither scientific, nor correct.

A captured moon doesn't seem all that compelling. Heck it's a prediction that GR makes. I'd be more compelled that Stichin got the # of moons around Saturn correct. Though as we know Stichin called Nibiru the 12th planet. AFAIK, we've discovered 8 and have 3 more to find before Nibiru, along with Nibiru, to show Stichin's claim of 12 to be accurate.

Also note - the Titan birthplace is taken from what we know of the Nitrogen composition. To help confirm the findings more work is being done. The Hydrogen ratio will be studied later this year. If those two jive then the Oort Cloud may be the cause. If the Hydrogen doesn't jive then we have no exciting problems to work out.

Did you see the 'Magic Island' on Titan. Are you with the rest of the UFO wonks in believing this to not be a natural effect on Titan but an alien base?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle