|
Posted by oriel36 on December 9, 2006, 11:41 am
Please log in for more thread options
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> oriel36 wrote:
> > you spend you
> > time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> > of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> > concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
> Why do you think that?
show/hide quoted text
> Do you think that orthodox astronomy somehow denies that we live in a
> Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun?
> Of course, once we use gravity to calculate the three-dimensional
> positions of all the planets, then we calculate their positions from an
> Earth viewpoint to figure out where to point our telescopes. That's
> because our telescopes rest on the surface of the Earth.
> Or is using "gravity to calculate the three-dimensional positions of
> all the planets" supposed to be our mistake? You have posted things
> about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow
> having taken a wrong turn.
> Since Kepler's laws derive - perfectly, without any mismatch - from the
> laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the
> inverse-square law of gravity - your objections seem to be bizarre.
> Maybe you _are_ inviting us to look at celestial mechanics from a
> valuable new perspective that would make it easier to understand, but,
> I'm sorry, I have to tell you the truth: right now, all you are
> managing to do is annoy and confuse people.
> John Savard
Let me see how you are justifying the return of a star to a location in
23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds using the motions of the Earth and I
will show you exactly where Newton jumped the tracks.
As for pretensious 17th century "Universal Law Of Gravitation' it
amounts to forcing the Earth's motions into the calendar system via
terrestrial ballistics,it is not just wrong ,it is completely
counter-productive for 21st century needs.
You must be delighted that most here would not stand a chance to find
their way to the correct astronomical view of things even with the
availibility of modern imaging to make things easy to grasp.Most of
all,it is the easy to understand images which affirm how we see orbital
motions around the Sun from an orbitally moving Earth that makes this
endeavor disappointing -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
The faster orbitally moving Earth causes the slower forward motion of
the outer planets to temporarily fall behind thereby the apparent
motion of the planets against the stellar background was and remains
resolved.
The careless manner in which the resolution for retrogrades was falsely
framed and presented by Newton represents not just a catastrophic
disservice to Copernican and pre-Copernican astronomers but represents
such an information loss that nothing productive becomes possible in
astronomy which requires a high level of intuitive intelligence.
You find it impossible to see where Newton switched the version of
retrogrades ,what they are and how they are resolved from an orbitally
moving Earth -
" For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes
stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are
always seen direct," NEWTON
The leftover principle of axial rotation as a seperate motion derived
from the correct way to resolve retrogrades facilitated the great
Western adaption of the 24 hour clock system to terrestrial longitudes
without ever having to justify the correlation between clocks and axial
rotation using an external reference.
Destroying the two main achievements of Western astronomy is no small
feat yet that is exactly what happened.Apparently you can live with it
but I assure you I will not.
|
|
Posted by oriel36 on December 9, 2006, 12:35 pm
Please log in for more thread options
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> oriel36 wrote:
> > you spend you
> > time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> > of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> > concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
> Why do you think that?
> Do you think that orthodox astronomy somehow denies that we live in a
> Solar System where all the planets, including the Earth, orbit the Sun?
> Of course, once we use gravity to calculate the three-dimensional
> positions of all the planets, then we calculate their positions from an
> Earth viewpoint to figure out where to point our telescopes. That's
> because our telescopes rest on the surface of the Earth.
> Or is using "gravity to calculate the three-dimensional positions of
> all the planets" supposed to be our mistake? You have posted things
> about Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler being right, but Newton somehow
> having taken a wrong turn.
> Since Kepler's laws derive - perfectly, without any mismatch - from the
> laws of motion set forth by Newton, from angular momentum, from the
> inverse-square law of gravity - your objections seem to be bizarre.
I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
correct
It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
Even when it is now entirely productive to mesh astronomy with
climatology and geology while keeping their identities intact,you
remain stuck with 17th century conception based on 17th century data
and that is quite something.Again,are the images of the Earth from
space or the time lapse footage not magnificent enough to demonstrate
where productive astronomical working principles turned to wretched
Newtonian nonsense .
As there is nothing difficult with basic astronomical tenets,is there
some perverse satisfaction in sticking with something that is incorrect
and only because you can do so without objection ?. -
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml
Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
orbital motion ?I am at a loss as to why even the most indifferent
observer would choose to believe not just a counter-productive
principle but to completely ignore the exquisite adaption that took
place at the beginning of heliocentric astronomy.
Look and see the references from Nasa,Encarta and Britannica all
supporting that awful view of the correlation between clocks and
terrestrial motion/geometry,it must seem like a small thing that being
wrong by 3 minutes 56 seconds has little effect on things but I assure
you the information loss kills astronomy stone dead or at least buries
it under centuries of garbage.
You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
PH=C6NOMENON IV.
"That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five
primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the
earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean
distances from the sun." Newton
No point in asking you what he means by 'periodic times' because if you
knew the original Keplerian reasoning you would not adhere to that
rubbish above.
show/hide quoted text
> Maybe you _are_ inviting us to look at celestial mechanics from a
> valuable new perspective that would make it easier to understand, but,
> I'm sorry, I have to tell you the truth: right now, all you are
> managing to do is annoy and confuse people.
>=20
> John Savard
|
|
Posted by on December 9, 2006, 11:40 pm
Please log in for more thread options oriel36 wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
> the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
> of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
> correct
> It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
> clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
> raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
> genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
> dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
I thank you; this is a clear statement of a place where you disagree
with the conventional view.
It certainly is true that every 24 hours, the Earth turns to face the
Sun, and this is a more useful figure than the 23 hour and 56 minute
one.
If you are, however, claiming that Tycho Brahe's model of the Solar
System, in which both the Sun and the Earth stood still, is the correct
model of reality, then I would have to disagree with you. We know that
the stars in the sky are not a painted backdrop, but they are instead
other Suns a vast distance away.
Not only, therefore, cannot the celestial sphere rotate around the
Earth once a day, it also cannot do so once a year.
The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
But that isn't the Earth's only motion; it also revolves around the
Sun.
At one time, it was thought that Mercury was tidally-locked in its
orbit, so that one face of it always was turned to the Sun.
The standard textbooks gave it a rotation period of 88 days, and a
revolution period of 88 days.
But it is more natural to think of Mercury as 'standing still' in that
case when it comes to rotation. The rotation on its axis every 88 days
can be thought of as a consequence of its movement around the Sun.
If we think of a revolution around a primary as "including" the
orbiting body facing the primary - as the Moon does always turn one
face to the Earth - then, if one removes the included part from Earth's
axial rotation, indeed, the Earth turns on its axis once every 24
hours.
Generally speaking, however, we don't think of revolution as
'including' rotation, because mathematical laws of adding angular
momenta linearly work more simply the other way - even if it seems less
natural.
show/hide quoted text
> Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
> celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
> orbital motion ?
If we removed Earth's rotation around the Sun, we would not be able to
explain why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun. The Earth is moving in
a circular path; absent the Sun's gravity, that does not constitute an
inertial frame of reference, although with that gravity, it is a
geodesic.
Taking the celestial sphere as stationary allows centrifugal force from
the circular motion of each planet to balance the Sun's gravity on each
planet. Why pick Earth - instead of Jupiter - to be still while the
celestial sphere moves?
show/hide quoted text
> You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
> find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
> of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
> Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
No, the Sun around the Earth is not the same as the Earth around the
Sun. If Sun around Earth, then Jupiter around Earth.
And no stellar parallaxes.
So established astronomy does not believe that at all.
John Savard
|
|
Posted by oriel36 on December 10, 2006, 11:37 am
Please log in for more thread options
jsavard@ecn.ab.ca wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> oriel36 wrote:
> > I tell you what bizarre is,you cannot even manage to get the rate for
> > the axial rotation of the Earth right when most people who know nothing
> > of astronomy will tell you it is 24 hours exactly and they will be
> > correct
> > It is true that the principles which determine the correlation between
> > clocks and axial rotation are entirely unfamiliar to this generation
> > raised on celestial sphere geometry and the Ra/Dec system but it would
> > genuinely be bizarre if there was not one vocal objection to the now
> > dominant view of 23 hours 56 minutes 04 seconds.
> I thank you; this is a clear statement of a place where you disagree
> with the conventional view.
The dominant and conventional view can be clearly presented through an
animated graphic -
http://www.opencourse.info/astronomy/introduction/02.motion_stars_sun/celestial_sphere_anim.gif
Every star in that graphic will return to a location in 23 hours 56
minutes and 04 seconds as long as you have 3 years of 365 days and 1
year of 366 days day.It would probably be of little use to point out
that it is impossible to work the annual orbital cycle of the Earth
using a system with an alternative number of days every 4th year but
such is Newtonian system which forces planetary motion into the
celestial sphere geometry above.
show/hide quoted text
> It certainly is true that every 24 hours, the Earth turns to face the
> Sun, and this is a more useful figure than the 23 hour and 56 minute
> one.
A location on Earth does Not,I repeat,does Not return to face the Sun
every 24 hours.My astronomical ancestors knew that the total length of
a day varies and created the Equation of Time (EoT) system which uses
noon to equalise the variations in the total length of a day to an
equable 24 hour day.Not just equalise to a 24 hour day but use noon to
allow one 24 hour day to elapse into the next 24 hour day.When it was
discovered that the Earth had an axial rotation and this rotation
caused the daily cycle,they simply overlaid the human devised EoT
principle on axial rotation as an independent motion and created the
present system where clocks correlate and are in sync with axial
rotation at 4 minutes for each degree of rotation making 24 hours/360
degrees precisely.
show/hide quoted text
> If you are, however, claiming that Tycho Brahe's model of the Solar
> System, in which both the Sun and the Earth stood still, is the correct
> model of reality, then I would have to disagree with you. We know that
> the stars in the sky are not a painted backdrop, but they are instead
> other Suns a vast distance away.
Here you plummet back to your celestial sphere roots and that is
fairly usual,these posting are designed to make participants familiar
with the astronomical timekeeping side of things and no demands are
made beyond appreciating what our pre-Copernican and heliocentric
ancestors did and how they did it.
The clock and calendrical systems are two seperate systems,for you
require the equable 24 hour day to calculate the annual orbit as being
over 365 days and roughly 6 hours.It is an astonishingly intricate and
exquisite series of maneuvers which use natural noon to create the
equable 24 hour day as an average against the annual orbit and then
rework this equable day into the calculation of the annual cycle where
you can then create the calendar system using a celestial reference
system.
show/hide quoted text
> Not only, therefore, cannot the celestial sphere rotate around the
> Earth once a day, it also cannot do so once a year.
> The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
> and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
The 'fact' is that you are working on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3
years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days,an impossible way to work with
the Earth's orbital motion and consequently the annual cycle.
http://www.pfm.howard.edu/astronomy/Chaisson/AT401/IMAGES/AACHCIR0.JPG
You cannot make your 'sidereal' motion fit into Keplerian orbital
geometry ,this one -
http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/04f15.jpg
The Earth travels slower the further it exists from the Sun and faster
the closer it exists,a simple attempt to fit the .986 degree sidereal
view will generate the ugly spectacle of the being contrary to this
Keplerian insight.
show/hide quoted text
> But that isn't the Earth's only motion; it also revolves around the
> Sun.
> At one time, it was thought that Mercury was tidally-locked in its
> orbit, so that one face of it always was turned to the Sun.
> The standard textbooks gave it a rotation period of 88 days, and a
> revolution period of 88 days.
> But it is more natural to think of Mercury as 'standing still' in that
> case when it comes to rotation. The rotation on its axis every 88 days
> can be thought of as a consequence of its movement around the Sun.
> If we think of a revolution around a primary as "including" the
> orbiting body facing the primary - as the Moon does always turn one
> face to the Earth - then, if one removes the included part from Earth's
> axial rotation, indeed, the Earth turns on its axis once every 24
> hours.
> Generally speaking, however, we don't think of revolution as
> 'including' rotation, because mathematical laws of adding angular
> momenta linearly work more simply the other way - even if it seems less
> natural.
I may be doing a great disservice to the astronomical timekeepers who
origially created the clock and calendar systems which we use today
insofar as I am presenting where Flamsteed/Newton jumped the tracks by
creating celestial sphere geometry out of axial rotation and
orientation.
The heliocentric astronomers could easily adapt what the antecedent
astronomical timekeepers created insofar as the unused portion left
over from explaining the observed motion of the planets is axial
rotation.You can see the orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
slower moving outer planets as an independent motion to affirm that we
see planetary motion around the Sun from a moving Earth -
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
There is really nothing difficult in making the effort to draw the
conclusion that axial rotation causes the daily cycle and from there to
overlay the pre-existing Equation of Time system which creates the 24
hour day on top of the principle of axial rotation as being constant
and independent.Every single person here uses that principle day in and
day out whether they care to appreciate it or not but I would much
prefer if they did become familiar with this shared astronomical
timekeeping heritage,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric.
show/hide quoted text
> > Is it incapacity or is it indoctrination that makes you believe that
> > celestial sphere geometry can be used to explain the Earth's axial and
> > orbital motion ?
> If we removed Earth's rotation around the Sun, we would not be able to
> explain why the Earth doesn't fall into the Sun. The Earth is moving in
> a circular path; absent the Sun's gravity, that does not constitute an
> inertial frame of reference, although with that gravity, it is a
> geodesic.
> Taking the celestial sphere as stationary allows centrifugal force from
> the circular motion of each planet to balance the Sun's gravity on each
> planet. Why pick Earth - instead of Jupiter - to be still while the
> celestial sphere moves?
In the 20th century they thought they could build a machine for
everything which is why you had emergence of an exotic concept in the
early 20th century ,a concept whoes conclusions match that of a 1898
science fiction novel by H.G.Wells ( The Time Machine).
This being the 21st century and people have a different view of things
including machines and especially how human industrial affects
climate.They are interested in the intricate web of existence and how
astronomy ,climate and geology mesh but unfortunately what passes for
'astronomy' is an exercise in magnification and celestial sphere
concepts such as 'warped space' and other rubbish.
In astronomical affairs,insights emerge from rough outlines and become
spectacular with familiarity as more definition is applied to those
outlines.It is not an exercise of building facts upon facts for I can
tell you that if you jump the tracks with a 'fact' the continuation
will become more and more corrupt until you arrive at a mess such as
this present era has.Even I have to concede the 'elite' elements which
are present in developing intuitive intelligence which affirms or
rejects propositions using physical considerations but it may be so
rare that few could actually deal with the intentional manipulations of
astronomy by Newton and his disciples.I always liked Pascal's
expression of this -
'We must see the matter at once, at one glance, and not by a process of
reasoning, at least to a certain degree. And thus it is rare that
mathematicians are intuitive and that men of intuition are
mathematicians, because mathematicians wish to treat matters of
intuition mathematically and make themselves ridiculous, wishing to
begin with definitions and then with axioms, which is not the way to
proceed in this kind of reasoning. Not that the mind does not do so,
but it does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules; for the
expression of it is beyond all men, and only a few can feel it.'
Pascal
All this is fine and good but there is a serious modification needed to
Copernican reasoning based on variable inclination of the Earth to the
Sun (Chapter 11 De revoltionibus) in explaining the seasons.It is
crucial for climatological purposes to drop variable axial tilt and
switch to a change in orbital orientation to explain the oscillation of
temperature bands -
http://www.climateprediction.net/images/sci_images/annual.gif
To make a step in the direction of meshing astronomy .climatology and
geology while keeping their identities intact is a tough one but in
developing the inherent intuitive intelligence the initial difficulties
disappear just as athletes will tell you that the hardest part of
training is actually making that initial effort to begin.
Perhaps in future I will be less inclined to explain where Newton went
astray for I am only obliged to present what is correct.
show/hide quoted text
> > You are being civil John and I appreciate that but right now I have to
> > find as many ways as possible to promote the great Western achievement
> > of the heliocentric system in an empirical era which believes that the
> > Sun around the Earth is the same as the Earth around the Sun -
> No, the Sun around the Earth is not the same as the Earth around the
> Sun. If Sun around Earth, then Jupiter around Earth.
> And no stellar parallaxes.
> So established astronomy does not believe that at all.
>
> John Savard
|
|
Posted by on December 10, 2006, 3:53 pm
Please log in for more thread options oriel36 wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> It would probably be of little use to point out
> that it is impossible to work the annual orbital cycle of the Earth
> using a system with an alternative number of days every 4th year but
> such is Newtonian system which forces planetary motion into the
> celestial sphere geometry above.
It is true that I see no particular problem with the year and the day
being incommensurable. Synodic or sidereal.
show/hide quoted text
> A location on Earth does Not,I repeat,does Not return to face the Sun
> every 24 hours.My astronomical ancestors knew that the total length of
> a day varies and created the Equation of Time (EoT) system which uses
> noon to equalise the variations in the total length of a day to an
> equable 24 hour day
I left out these complications, due to the elliptical nature of the
Earth's orbit, but I am glad that you are aware of them.
But don't those complications mean that the idea of a 24-hour axial
period that has any meaning *except* as the mean solar day, which is
what you seem to be advocating, is even *less* tenable?
show/hide quoted text
> Here you plummet back to your celestial sphere roots and that is
> fairly usual,these posting are designed to make participants familiar
> with the astronomical timekeeping side of things and no demands are
> made beyond appreciating what our pre-Copernican and heliocentric
> ancestors did and how they did it.
The celestial sphere defines a reference frame. Your "no demands are
made" statement here means I may be misunderstanding you in a different
sense.
Instead of claiming that the "celestial sphere" system - in its
simplicity and consistency - is _wrong_, you may simply be trying to
say that earlier systems of understanding the Solar System can also be
valid and consistent at least from the calendrical and horological
perspectives - even if we are pushed to the Newtonian celestial sphere
system when we try to account for the planets as moving bodies ruled by
Newton's Laws.
But you are advocating a heliocentric viewpoint, not a geocentric one,
and the idea of a heliocentric viewpoint *other* than the current
celestial sphere one - and other than Tycho Brahe's compromise, which
you seem to reject also - causes me a problem, since I can't visualize
what that viewpoint might *be*. Thus, I still don't understand what you
are saying some of our astronomical predecessors were doing.
show/hide quoted text
> > The Earth does return to face in the *same direction* every 23 hours
> > and 56 minutes. That is a fact.
> The 'fact' is that you are working on a 1461 day cycle broken into 3
> years of 365 days and 1 year of 366 days,an impossible way to work with
> the Earth's orbital motion and consequently the annual cycle.
It certainly is true that the Earth spends the *same* amount of time
every year going around the Sun once. But that time happens to be 365
days plus an odd fraction, somewhat less than 1/4 of a day. Why is it
untenable for that to happen?
show/hide quoted text
> The Earth travels slower the further it exists from the Sun and faster
> the closer it exists,a simple attempt to fit the .986 degree sidereal
> view will generate the ugly spectacle of the being contrary to this
> Keplerian insight.
I assure you, when I use a 24 hour day on my clocks and watches, I am
not doing so with the intent of claiming that this mean solar day
matches exactly what I would see on a sundial; I am not denying the
Equation of Time!
In claiming that the 24 hour day is more real than the 23 hour and 56
minute day, it seems like you're trying to work the Equation of Time
backwards, but I'm sure _that_ is only a clumsy and overly-literal
reading on my part.
But it *really* seems to me that the Equation of Time only even begins
to make sense if we start from what you call the erroneous viewpoint of
Newton and Flamsteed, if we start from the celestial sphere as our
basis. So when I say I am baffled by your position, I am not being
merely rhetorical.
show/hide quoted text
> I may be doing a great disservice to the astronomical timekeepers who
> origially created the clock and calendar systems which we use today
> insofar as I am presenting where Flamsteed/Newton jumped the tracks by
> creating celestial sphere geometry out of axial rotation and
> orientation.
> The heliocentric astronomers could easily adapt what the antecedent
> astronomical timekeepers created insofar as the unused portion left
> over from explaining the observed motion of the planets is axial
> rotation.You can see the orbital motion of the Earth overtaking the
> slower moving outer planets as an independent motion to affirm that we
> see planetary motion around the Sun from a moving Earth -
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif
> There is really nothing difficult in making the effort to draw the
> conclusion that axial rotation causes the daily cycle and from there to
> overlay the pre-existing Equation of Time system which creates the 24
> hour day on top of the principle of axial rotation as being constant
> and independent.Every single person here uses that principle day in and
> day out whether they care to appreciate it or not but I would much
> prefer if they did become familiar with this shared astronomical
> timekeeping heritage,both pre-Copernican and heliocentric.
show/hide quoted text
> Perhaps in future I will be less inclined to explain where Newton went
> astray for I am only obliged to present what is correct.
To the extent that you believe that Newton and Flamsteed went astray,
that the celestial sphere is not a good reference frame to start from,
I believe you to be mistaken. Furthermore, I feel that this error will
hinder your attempts to show how pre-Copernican and heliocentric
astronomy both share a common valid core of ideas between them by
rendering these unintelligible.
Using the celestial sphere as a starting point is not just
"indoctrination". It makes sense as the simplest place to start from
and disentangle all the other individual motions of the various bodies
in the Solar System. Because that's going to be the starting point of
the people reading your words, it will keep them from making sense to
these readers. I wish to grapple with your claim that Newton and
Flamsteed went astray, because I hope to show you how you have
misunderstood them.
John Savard
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Western Crises at sunset | September 21, 2005, 2:14 pm |
| Re: Western Feminists Silent | January 14, 2008, 1:29 am |
| Western prominence, Jan 14th | January 14, 2008, 6:34 pm |
| Solar Prominences, Western Limb | February 11, 2008, 4:47 pm |
| ?new impact Crater found in Western Australia | March 24, 2008, 10:50 pm |
| Well, aids provoke on the part of cheerful cracks, unless they're western. | December 8, 2007, 9:54 pm |
| He may all right trade surrounding and fears our nervous, western exams in view of a expedition. | August 13, 2007, 7:14 am |
| GREAT RED SPOT NOT AS GREAT | February 26, 2009, 6:07 pm |
| Re: The great Pay-Day | December 25, 2007, 1:09 pm |
| Great News | August 5, 2005, 4:05 pm |
|
XML Sitemap
> > you spend you
> > time making sure humanity never appreciates astronomy and the methods
> > of our ancestors.In a Christian season of giving, with your exotic
> > concepts ,you offer people sand to eat.
> Why do you think that?