Forums

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages 
Theories of Everything
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> New Science
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 08:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

D’oh, we may never decode the universe
Jonathan Leake

SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.

Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.

He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.

“A ‘true’ fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just be too hard for human brains to grasp,” said Rees, who is also the astronomer royal.

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.”

Rees’s thesis could prove highly provocative to other scientists, especially those who have devoted their careers to understanding such mysteries.

He is well placed to understand the potential limitations of science. Besides heading Britain’s premier scientific organisation, he is also professor of cosmology at Cambridge University, where he is one of Britain’s most respected astrophysicists. He is currently delivering the annual BBC Reith lectures.

Rees’s warning, in a Sunday Times interview, is partly prompted by the failure of scientists working on the greatest problem of modern physics — to reconcile the forces that govern the behaviour of the cosmos, including planets and stars, with those that rule the so-called microworld of atoms and particles.

Rees points out how Albert Einstein was able to use mathematical theories developed in the early 19th century to build his 1915 theory of general relativity, describing how gravity controlled stars and planets.

Similarly, early 20th-century physicists such as Paul Dirac used “off-the-shelf” mathematical systems when devising quantum theory, which describes how nature works at a sub-atomic level.

The problem faced by their successors is that the two theories are deeply contradictory — and no one can find the mathematical tools needed to bring them together into a “unified theory”.

Rees points out that thousands of scientists have been working on this problem for several decades and are still nowhere near an answer.

“There are powerful reasons to suspect that space has a grainy structure but on a scale a trillion trillion times smaller than atoms. Solving how this might work is crucial for 21st-century science,” he said.

Rees believes the most promising idea is “string theory” which suggests that the particles that make up atoms are “woven from space itself”.

Such particles, he suggests, could exist in 10 or 11 dimensions. Humans, by contrast, can experience only the three spatial dimensions plus time.

He adds that there could even be other 3-D universes “embedded alongside ours”.

“In theory, there could be another entire universe less than a millimetre away from us, but we are oblivious to it because that millimetre is measured in a fourth spatial dimension and we are imprisoned in just three,” he said.

Such ideas sound extraordinary but Rees wonders if they can ever be proved. He suggests humanity may have reached the limits of comprehension.

“Some aspects of reality — a unified theory of physics or a full understanding of consciousness — might elude us simply because they’re beyond human brains, just as surely as Einstein’s ideas would baffle a chimpanzee,” he said.

Other scientists are more optimistic. Brian Cox, the BBC science presenter and physics professor who was awarded an OBE yesterday, said: “The idea that certain things are beyond us is quite a bleak one and history does show that we can eventually overcome the most difficult of problems.”

The mind boggles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece
Back to top
View user's profile 
Pietro_Mercurios
Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 09:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
D’oh, we may never decode the universe
Jonathan Leake

SOME of the greatest mysteries of the universe may never be resolved because they are beyond human comprehension, according to Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society.

Rees suggests that the inherent intellectual limitations of humanity mean we may never resolve questions such as the existence of parallel universes, the cause of the big bang, or the nature of our own consciousness.

He even compares humanity to fish, which swim through the oceans without any idea of the properties of the water in which they spend their lives.

“A ‘true’ fundamental theory of the universe may exist but could be just be too hard for human brains to grasp,” said Rees, who is also the astronomer royal.

“Just as a fish may be barely aware of the medium in which it lives and swims, so the microstructure of empty space could be far too complex for unaided human brains.”

...

The mind boggles

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article7149095.ece

Cough! Lord Kelvin cough!
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 09:46    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lord Kelvin (and others) notwithstanding, it does seem likely that a finite sized human brain must have some limits to its comprehension of a possibly infinite universe. Our most succesful theories, Quantum Physics and General relativity, are only comprehensible in detail to a small percentage of the human race - and we know these two theories are incompatible anyway!

As the article says, string theory (which also goes under other names, depending which aspects of nature are being emphasised) seems like a promising approach, but it's hideously complex in practice and, despite years of research, it has failed to make any testable predictions, as far as I'm aware.

We may not yet be at the limit of human understanding, but we might be getting quite close.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Ronson8Offline
Things can only get better.
Joined: 31 Jul 2001
Total posts: 5945
Location: MK
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 10:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah yes, when the warp drive is finally invented, something will have to fly in front with a red flag. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 10:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

The history of string theory is quite interesting. It seems to be able to replicate various conclusions from quantum and relativity theories, but in a more complex way.

This suggests that a TOE might in fact be incredibly complicated, and perhaps beyond our reach.

There's no rule that says the universe has to be a simple place. The idea that it might be probably derived from the great success early science had with relatively simple rules. Newton's theory of gravity can be expressed as one simple equation, but from that can be deduced the orbits of comets and planets, the tides and gravitationally locked satellite rotation, the paths of ballistic missiles, and so on.

But eventually we found that Newton's theory failed to deal with certain situations (the orbit of Mercury, and the curvature of light in a gravitational field), and it had to be replaced with General Relativity.

So the history of science seems to demonstrate that as we delve deeper into the mysteries of the universe, we find more complexity, and there may not be a simple way to describe it. We'll probably continue to make scientific progress, but a TOE may forever remain an unattainable Holy Grail.
Back to top
View user's profile 
MythopoeikaOffline
Joined: 18 Sep 2001
Total posts: 9657
Gender: Unknown
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 14:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

rynner2 wrote:
This suggests that a TOE might in fact be incredibly complicated, and perhaps beyond our reach.


Nah. I can reach all my toes, and they're not complicated. Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile 
PeripartOffline
is still wondering
Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Total posts: 2899
Age: 46
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 13-06-2010 21:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mythopoeika wrote:
rynner2 wrote:
This suggests that a TOE might in fact be incredibly complicated, and perhaps beyond our reach.

Nah. I can reach all my toes, and they're not complicated. Very Happy

It doesn't count if you bend your knees, you know.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 19-06-2010 08:01    Post subject: Reply with quote

From a long article about Brian Cox, physics prof and TV star:

Until last year, when filming began to take precedence, Cox was one of the swarms of scientists tending to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern, in Geneva, where, he recently admitted, rather endearingly, "the wheels are coming off our picture of the way the universe works at the moment. We don't know what 96% of the universe is made of." Really? "Well," he says now, "they're trying to bolt the wheel back on – an 11-dimensional wheel." Much laughter. One criticism of the work done at Cern is that it relies too much on string theory (hence the 11 dimensions), and that string theory, being currently eons ahead of the scientifically provable, depends too much on the pursuit of mathematical elegance.

That's not very evidence-based, is it? The pursuit of beauty? "I mean, well – reductionism is pleasing to many scientists. So this desire to unify phenomena together into a simpler description – that's when you use this term beautiful. It's true that there's no a priori reason why that's the path you should take in understanding the universe. But there's actually evidence that it's worked in the past – Einstein's often cited, but it's true: the general theory of relativity was a genuine aesthetic choice, really. There was no experimental justification for going beyond Newton's laws of gravity. It was purely aesthetic.

"But it predicts things. I find it amazing, for example, that you get binary pulsars" – a kind of small but dense star – "orbiting around each other a thousand times a second – the most violent thing you can imagine, churning up space and time. And you make measurements with radio telescopes, and you get the answer that Einstein's theory predicts – and he wrote that in 1915, when he didn't know about pulsars, and he didn't know about radio telescopes. But you're right – a good scientist, a really pure scientist, would have to accept that that constant drive to unify forces together and to find a simpler, more economical description of nature, is really a choice – it's an act of – I was going to say an act of faith, but that makes it sound mystical, and there's nothing mystical about science actually."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/jun/19/saturday-interview-physicist-brian-cox
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 22-06-2010 09:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

Long article:

The hunt for the God particle
We have all heard of 'dark matter'. But what about dark galaxies, dark planets - even dark people? Ian Sample reports on the new holy grail of physics
Ian Sample guardian.co.uk, Monday 21 June 2010 21.00 BST

Durham, northern England, December 2009. The largest meeting of particle physicists in the country is underway and James Wells, a leading theorist at Cern, the European nuclear research organisation near Geneva, is beguiling his audience with an idea that has all the makings of the next great revolution in science.

Wells, a tall, softly-spoken 44-year-old from Tampa Bay, Florida, begins with an uncomfortable home truth. Particle physicists have a problem, he says. They are an anthropocentric bunch, too preoccupied with the particles and forces that impinge on humanity. They have spent so much time unravelling mysteries such as the structure of atoms and why the sun shines that they have neglected other avenues of inquiry. They need to broaden their horizons, Wells says. To think beyond the world we see and touch.

If that was the stick, next came the carrot. Our knowledge of the cosmos tells us that the stuff around us, from plants and people to stars and planets, is made from just a handful of elementary particles. On top of these, there is a small number of forces that make nature run smoothly, doing things like keeping planets in their orbits and ensuring everyday objects don't suddenly collapse into a pile of atoms. But how do we know, asks Wells, that there isn't much more going on than this? Our knowledge of nature and how it works is based on observations. What if we can't see everything? What might we be missing out on? There could be a "hidden world" out there, Wells says, where particles and forces are busily at work, all around us, but beyond the realm of our senses.

The phrase "hidden world" sounds like a science-fiction cliche, but it simply means that there may be more particles and forces at work in the world – and the cosmos at large – than those we see when we look around. They are so aloof, so hidden from our daily experience, that they go completely unnoticed.

"It would be strange if we were so special that we could feel and observe everything that is going on out there," says Wells, who is one of a growing number of physicists working on the hidden worlds idea. "We are lumps of clay swirling on a little blue marble in an overwhelming vastness of universe. We have to envision that there is more going on. There really should be additional particles and forces," he says.

etc...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/21/higgs-boson

LHC thread: http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=32540
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 31-08-2010 08:06    Post subject: Reply with quote

Are we living in a designer universe?
The creators of the world were closer to men than to gods, argues John Gribbin.
Published: 8:35AM BST 31 Aug 2010

The argument over whether the universe has a creator, and who that might be, is among the oldest in human history. But amid the raging arguments between believers and sceptics, one possibility has been almost ignored – the idea that the universe around us was created by people very much like ourselves, using devices not too dissimilar to those available to scientists today.

As with much else in modern physics, the idea involves particle acceleration, the kind of thing that goes on in the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland. Before the LHC began operating, a few alarmists worried that it might create a black hole which would destroy the world. That was never on the cards: although it is just possible that the device could generate an artificial black hole, it would be too small to swallow an atom, let alone the Earth.

However, to create a new universe would require a machine only slightly more powerful than the LHC – and there is every chance that our own universe may have been manufactured in this way.

This is possible for two reasons. First, black holes may – as science fiction aficionados will be well aware – act as gateways to other regions of space and time. Second, because of the curious fact that gravity has negative energy, it takes no energy to make a universe. Despite the colossal amount of energy contained in every atom of matter, it is precisely balanced by the negativity of gravity.

Black holes, moreover, are relatively easy to make. For any object, there is a critical radius, called the Schwarzschild radius, at which its mass will form a black hole. The Schwarzschild radius for the Sun is about two miles, 1/200,000th of its current width; for the Earth to become a black hole, it would have to be squeezed into a ball with a radius of one centimetre.

The black holes that could be created in a particle accelerator would be far smaller: tiny masses squeezed into incredibly tiny volumes. But because of gravity's negative energy, it doesn't matter how small such holes are: they still have the potential to inflate and expand in their own dimensions (rather than gobbling up our own). Such expansion was precisely what our universe did in the Big Bang, when it suddenly exploded from a tiny clump of matter into a fully-fledged cosmos.

Alan Guth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology first proposed the now widely accepted idea of cosmic inflation – that the starting point of the Big Bang was far smaller, and its expansion far more rapid, than had been assumed. He has investigated the technicalities of "the creation of universes in the laboratory", and concluded that the laws of physics do, in principle, make it possible.

The big question is whether that has already happened – is our universe a designer universe? By this, I do not mean a God figure, an "intelligent designer" monitoring and shaping all aspects of life. Evolution by natural selection, and all the other processes that produced our planet and the life on it, are sufficient to explain how we got to be the way we are, given the laws of physics that operate in our universe.

However, there is still scope for an intelligent designer of universes as a whole. Modern physics suggests that our universe is one of many, part of a "multiverse" where different regions of space and time may have different properties (the strength of gravity may be stronger in some and weaker in others). If our universe was made by a technologically advanced civilisation in another part of the multiverse, the designer may have been responsible for the Big Bang, but nothing more.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7972538/Are-we-living-in-a-designer-universe.html
Back to top
View user's profile 
Zilch5Offline
Vogon Poet
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Total posts: 1568
Location: Western Sydney, Australia
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 01-09-2010 00:15    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hm - funny how these things go around in circles - I remember reading something along those lines over 20 years ago in the Rolling Stone magazine. The headline was something like "God is a Hacker" - or maybe not - too long ago.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-09-2010 08:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

Popular science books take off: a big bang in physics publishing
Popular physics books have never been so popular. It's about time, says Tom Chivers.
Published: 11:52PM BST 06 Sep 2010

The universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate, yet we still don’t know what much of it is made of. If I had to guess, I’d say that most of it consists of books telling us that the universe is expanding at an ever-accelerating rate. Cool The soaring popularity of popular physics books is a publishing phenomenon.

Traditionally, evolutionary biology has received most attention from publishers. As the philosopher and neuroscientist Daniel Dennett says, no area of science has been so well served by its writers: Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould and John Maynard Smith are particularly fine examples.

But since Dennett wrote that in 1995, evolutionary theory has been fighting for shelf space, as quantum physics and relativity mount a comeback. The past few weeks have seen Stephen Hawking’s new book, The Grand Design, move from the books pages to the front pages with its provocative argument that physicists do not need a creator to explain the universe’s existence. But a reader could equally well pick up We Need to Talk about Kelvin by Marcus Chown; In Search of the Multiverse by John Gribbin; Quantum by Manjit Kumar; Void by Frank Close; and dozens more.

“There’s a real interest in science books at the moment,” says Stuart Clark, author of The Universe (part of the “Big Question” series). And it’s not as if they’re light reading. Clark’s own book asks what stars are made from, whether there are alternative universes, what the fate of the universe will be, and whether, à la Hawking, there is cosmological evidence for the existence of God.

Marcus Chown agrees that such science is becoming mainstream: another of his books, Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You, sold 60,000 copies. “I thought the words 'quantum theory’ would put people off, but they appear to think: 'I’ve heard of that. I ought to find out what it’s about.’ Popular science is a mature part of literature.”

It’s not just literature that has seen a flourishing of interest. This year, popular physics has been dominated by the TV series Wonders of the Solar System, presented by Professor Brian Cox. It has given physics, in the form of astronomy and cosmology, the box seat in the scientific mainstream. Clark says it’s not just down to the former D:Ream keyboard player, though: “Cox realises science is inherently interesting, that you don’t have to bust a gut with hyperbole and CGI to keep the public’s interest.”

The first episode of Wonders pulled in 2.8 million viewers and created a huge buzz online. As Chown says, “what was striking was how many non-scientists on Twitter absolutely loved it”.

But as the sales figures suggest, interest has been building for a few years. One of the biggest sellers, Simon Singh’s 2004 book Big Bang, was also one of the first – following the granddaddy of the genre, Hawking’s A Brief History of Time.

The book is now more than 20 years old – but, says Chown, it changed everything. “Ten million copies sold and 237 weeks on the bestseller list. There have been popular science writers before – Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov. But I don’t believe there were popular science sections in bookshops before Hawking.”

Whatever the reason, the explosion of interest is overdue. Physics – the stuff of the impossibly huge and the unimaginably tiny – shouldn’t need a reason to be popular beyond its own incredible subject matter.

Open these books and you’ll find out more about how the universe began and what it is made of; why planets orbit stars and why stars glow. You’ll discover the weird stuff that goes on at quantum level – particles that are in two places at the same time and that seem to know if you’re watching them. You’ll learn why the universe had to be how it is, since we’re here to talk about it. It’s a chance to dip your toe in the greatest pool of learning in human history – and a section in Waterstone’s is the very least that it deserves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/7985508/Popular-science-books-take-off-a-big-bang-in-physics-publishing.html
Back to top
View user's profile 
ramonmercadoOffline
Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003
Total posts: 21380
Location: Dublin
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 07-09-2010 12:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its back to the 90s. Physics and Quantum Mechanics in particular were popular topics then.

Its about time the Quantum Mechanics were unionised.
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 16-09-2010 20:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

ramonmercado wrote:
Its about time the Quantum Mechanics were unionised.

Here's one of the shop stewards (one of my heroes of science):

How Richard Feynman went from stirring jelly to a Nobel Prize
By Robin Ince
Comedian

Nobel Prize-winning and eccentric physicist Richard Feynman has been called a buffoon and a magician, but is lauded as a man who could make science accessible and interesting for all.

When I was a child I desperately wanted to be a scientist, but then it all went wrong. Unfortunately, during the early years of my secondary school education, science became joyless.

It was a subject that seemed disjointed from the world even though it is the method that attempts to explain the world and the universe.

If only it were possible to place an automaton Richard Feynman in every school. Children would leave each day wide-eyed with astonishment and eager to run home to look down their microscopes or mull over the movement of a bee in a flower border.

Richard Feynman did not understand how scientific knowledge could make anything dull.

He once related an argument with an artist who declared that scientists removed the beauty of flowers and made them seem dull. Feynman vehemently disagreed.
"A knowledge of science only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts," he said.

Anyone who has watched The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, a BBC documentary about Feynman broadcast in 1981, will know how much more interesting the world is if you look at it through his eyes.

For 50 minutes, Richard Feynman sits in an armchair and talks about his relationship with science.

"I do not feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is so far as I can tell. It does not frighten me."

His fearlessness and enthusiasm are contagious. The viewer leaves the film eager to learn and ponder why things are as they are. The staid monotony of existence, that adult malaise vanishes and questions of childhood resurface.

Why is the sky blue? Why is my face reflected in a window? Why can nothing go faster than the speed of light? Feynman removes the viewer's fear of their own inquisitiveness.

Richard Feynman may have been engaged in the great questions of quantum mechanics, but that did not stop him wanting to know the answer to more trivial matters from an early age.

In his memoirs, What Do You Care What Other People Think?, Feynman explains how he felt on discovering Santa Claus was not real.
"I was not upset. I was relieved that there was a much simpler phenomenon to explain how so many children got presents the same night!" Very Happy

Later, at university, his roommate returned home one day to find him leaning out of a window on a freezing winter's day, stirring something in a bowl. Feynman had suddenly become intrigued by a problem - could jelly set at freezing temperatures if constantly stirred?

It is incidents like this that prompted physicist Freeman Dyson to consider him "half genius, half buffoon". He would later correct this to "all genius, all buffoon".

But Feynman was no ordinary genius. An ordinary genius is someone like you or me, just many times better. As the late, great Nobel Laureate physicist Hans Bethe remarked: "Feynman was a magician. With a magician, you just do not know how he does it."

Despite the awe that his students and fellow scientists felt for him, Feynman declared: "I have limited intelligence and I use it in a particular direction."

With this "limited intelligence", he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itiro Tomonaga in 1965 for their work on quantum electrodynamics, the field of science which describes how light and matter interact.

But his father, a uniform salesman, had instilled in him not only a thirst for scientific knowledge but also a distrust of epaulettes and baubles and Feynman was no lover of accolades.

He was apparently very reluctant to accept the prize and was eager to remind people that just because someone held a position of authority, this was no signifier that they must be correct.

As Richard Feynman's father taught him the scientific method, it was his mother whom he thanked for the other part of his personality that made him such an irresistible character. "She had a wonderful sense of humour. I learned from her that the highest forms of understanding we can achieve are laughter and human compassion."

etc...

Archive on 4 – The Feynman Variations, presented by physicist Brian Cox, will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 on Saturday 18 September at 2000 BST, or listen afterwards via BBC iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11299244
Back to top
View user's profile 
rynner2Online
What a Cad!
Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Total posts: 26143
Location: Under the moon
Gender: Male
PostPosted: 23-03-2011 22:13    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everything and Nothing - 1.

Prof Jim Al-Khalili sets out to discover what the universe might actually look like and charts the stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos.

Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

In two epic, surreal and mind-expanding films, Professor Jim Al-Khalili searches for an answer to these questions as he explores the true size and shape of the universe and delves into the amazing science behind apparent nothingness.

The first part, Everything, sees Professor Al-Khalili set out to discover what the universe might actually look like. The journey takes him from the distant past to the boundaries of the known universe. Along the way he charts the remarkable stories of the men and women who discovered the truth about the cosmos and investigates how our understanding of space has been shaped by both mathematics and astronomy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00yb59m/Everything_and_Nothing_Everything/
Back to top
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Fortean Times Message Board Forum Index -> New Science All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group