Smeggy's Forums

Forums where you CAN vent!

Skip to content

LHC: Has the Higgs Bosun been found?

Into science? Chat about its amazing wonders here. E really does equal MC^2 -> Einstein would be proud!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LHC: Has the Higgs Bosun been found?



The world's largest atom smasher is rumoured to have found the Higgs boson, the subatomic particle otherwise known as the 'God particle'.

The speculation is based on a leaked internal note, said to be from physicists at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a 17 mile-long particle accelerator near Geneva, Switzerland.

The rumours started when an anonymous post disclosed part of the note on Columbia University mathematician Peter Woit's blog, Not Even Wrong.

Image

While some physicists are dismissing the note as a hoax, others say the find could be a huge particle physics breakthrough in understanding the workings of the universe.

Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'

The Higgs boson is predicted to exist by the particle physics theory known as the Standard Model. The Higgs boson, physicists believe, bestows mass on all the other particles and was crucial to forming the cosmos after the Big Bang.

It has long eluded physicists who believe it could explain why objects have mass.

Image

Image

Huge atom smashers — like the LHC and the Tevatron, at Fermilab in Illinois — have long been searching for the Higgs and other subatomic matter.

These accelerators slam particles together at enormous speeds, generating a shower of other particles.

The leaked note suggests that the LHC's ATLAS particle-detection experiment may have picked up a signature of the elusive Higgs.

The signal is consistent, in mass and other characteristics, with what the Higgs is expected to produce, according to the note.

Image

Some other aspects of the signal, however, don't match predictions.

Mr Stone said: 'Its production rate is much higher than that expected for the Higgs boson in the Standard Model.'

The signal may be evidence of some other particle, Mr Stone said, adding: 'Which in some sense would be even more interesting, or it could be the result of new physics beyond the Standard Model.'

He pointed out that the note is not an official result of the ATLAS research team, so speculation about its validity or implications, therefore, may be a little premature.

Mr Stone said: 'It is actually quite illegitimate and unscientific to talk publicly about internal collaboration material before it is approved.

'So this "result" is not a result until the collaboration officially releases it.'

Image


Other researchers joined Mr Stone in urging patience and caution before getting too excited about the possible discovery, Fox News reports.

Caltech physicist Sean Carroll said: 'Don't worry, Higgs boson! I would never spread scurrilous rumours about you. Unlike some people.'

Some researchers have already been casting doubt on the possible detection.

Tommaso Dorigo, a particle physicist at Fermilab and CERN, which operates the LHC thinks the signal is false and will fade upon closer inspection.

Mr Dorigo points out, for example, that scientists at Fermilab didn't see the Higgs signal in their Tevatron data, which covered similar ground as the ATLAS experiment.

He feels strongly enough to put his money where his mouth is.

Mr Dorigo said: 'I bet $1,000 with whomever has a name and a reputation in particle physics (this is a necessary specification, because I need to be sure that the person taking the bet will honour it) that the signal is not due to Higgs boson decays.

'I am willing to bet that this is no new particle. Clear enough?'

The rumours follow the buzz earlier this month from Tevatron over the discovery of a new elementary particle that caused a stir within the physics community.

Nigel Lockyer, director of Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, TRIUMF, said: 'My personal judgement is that this excitement is adding fuel to the fire for the next generation of results and discoveries that will be made at the LHC (in Europe) and elsewhere.

'We are so close to learning something profound.'


Article Source and continues ...

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'

It would be even more interesting if it was never found methinks. And quite honestly I don't believe it ever will. I doubt if either the Standard Model or String Theory hold the answers that quantum physicists are looking for. In fact I predict that it will be back to the drawing board in the next two or three years, as the Big Bang Theory rapidly looses ground.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:
Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'

It would be even more interesting if it was never found methinks. And quite honestly I don't believe it ever will. I doubt if either the Standard Model or String Theory hold the answers that quantum physicists are looking for. In fact I predict that it will be back to the drawing board in the next two or three years, as the Big Bang Theory rapidly looses ground.

Interesting take on it there GG. :)

Why, may I ask, do you hold this view?

My thoughts on the subject. We must either believe in infinity of the past or it all started out of absolute nothing. Both are highly incredulous and impossible to get one's head round.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Rumour is they have found something interesting - but it has to go through many levels of analysis and confirmation, both internal and external before they will be able to say with certainty what it is.

Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber a wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction whether you're soar away sun or BBC 1 misinformation is a weapon of mass destruc you could a Caucasian or a poor Asian racism is a weapon of mass destruction whether inflation or globalization fear is a weapon of mass destruction whether Halliburton or Enron or anyone greed is a weapon of mass destruction we need to find courage, overcome inaction is a weapon of mass destruction

User avatar
Bra Burning Hippy
Posts: 3585
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 8:46 pm
How Hot Are You?: A Nice English Summer's Day
Current Mood: waiting

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Maybe a picture of the virgin mary in one of those scatter plots... :chin: :chin:



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Morgan le Fay wrote:Rumour is they have found something interesting - but it has to go through many levels of analysis and confirmation, both internal and external before they will be able to say with certainty what it is.


Sounds like it .....

Mr Dorigo said: 'I bet $1,000 with whomever has a name and a reputation in particle physics (this is a necessary specification, because I need to be sure that the person taking the bet will honour it) that the signal is not due to Higgs boson decays.

'I am willing to bet that this is no new particle. Clear enough?'




and found at Easter , what timeing .......




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LordNibbler wrote:Maybe a picture of the virgin mary in one of those scatter plots... :chin: :chin:


:rofl:

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'

It would be even more interesting if it was never found methinks. And quite honestly I don't believe it ever will. I doubt if either the Standard Model or String Theory hold the answers that quantum physicists are looking for. In fact I predict that it will be back to the drawing board in the next two or three years, as the Big Bang Theory rapidly looses ground.

Interesting take on it there GG. :)

Why, may I ask, do you hold this view?

My thoughts on the subject. We must either believe in infinity of the past or it all started out of absolute nothing. Both are highly incredulous and impossible to get one's head round.

Hey Smegs, just so you know I'm not ignoring your question, and I will get back to it as soon as I get a chance. Kind of busy with decorating and stuff just now. And also, I need to think about how to put my above conclusions into words :chin: :pp:

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'

It would be even more interesting if it was never found methinks. And quite honestly I don't believe it ever will. I doubt if either the Standard Model or String Theory hold the answers that quantum physicists are looking for. In fact I predict that it will be back to the drawing board in the next two or three years, as the Big Bang Theory rapidly looses ground.

Interesting take on it there GG. :)

Why, may I ask, do you hold this view?

My thoughts on the subject. We must either believe in infinity of the past or it all started out of absolute nothing. Both are highly incredulous and impossible to get one's head round.

Hey Smegs, just so you know I'm not ignoring your question, and I will get back to it as soon as I get a chance. Kind of busy with decorating and stuff just now. And also, I need to think about how to put my above conclusions into words :chin: :pp:


No worries. :)

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
ghostgirl wrote:
Physicist Sheldon Stone of Syracuse University said: 'If it were to be real, it would be really exciting.'

It would be even more interesting if it was never found methinks. And quite honestly I don't believe it ever will. I doubt if either the Standard Model or String Theory hold the answers that quantum physicists are looking for. In fact I predict that it will be back to the drawing board in the next two or three years, as the Big Bang Theory rapidly looses ground.

Interesting take on it there GG. :)

Why, may I ask, do you hold this view?

My thoughts on the subject. We must either believe in infinity of the past or it all started out of absolute nothing. Both are highly incredulous and impossible to get one's head round.

Hey Smegs, just so you know I'm not ignoring your question, and I will get back to it as soon as I get a chance. Kind of busy with decorating and stuff just now. And also, I need to think about how to put my above conclusions into words :chin: :pp:


No worries. :)



Right, I will try to at least begin explaining my admittedly outlandish statements above... :breaking:


Light was originally described as a 'wave', but that theory was later revised by Einstein. Einstein did not come up with the new idea about the properties of light, there were those before him who had been working on such a theory, but certainly he was the one who developed the particle theory of light; that is, the theory that light came in distinct packets (quanta). These quanta, he called photons. Photons, he said, were Elementary Particles. This was because the assumption that light could be described as both a particle and a wave had become necessary, by then, in order to explain certain observations that didn't fit the classical 'Wave Model' alone.

Whilst I have no choice but to agree that many observable experiments, - not to mention numerous practical applications, - have verified the nature of light such that it can be described as both a wave and a particle, I would nevertheless argue that in spite of this apparent verification there is still room for doubt.

The aforementioned verifications notwithstanding I still do not believe that this theory is correct. Possibly some as yet unknown constraint imposed upon light by matter itself, as it absorbs or emits radiation, causes light to appear as distinct quanta, perhaps there is some other as yet unexplained reason, or perhaps, as I have come to suspect for various reasons, light does not in fact 'travel' (i.e. at the speed of light or otherwise) at all. Yes, Light, is in fact instantaneous! This notion obviously requires a huge (quantum :D ) leap of the imagination, especially in view of the fact that many observable experiments would appear to dictate to the contrary, not least of which is the apparently inexplicable by-product of such a theory, - i.e. that 'Time', as we know it, would necessarily ceasing to exist.


Anyway, at least in part, my reason for doubting that the 'God Particle' exists, is to do with the fact that, if discovered, the Higgs boson would explain why the photon (at rest) has no mass. And being that a photon is considered to be massless purely because otherwise it would not be able to move at 'the speed of light' through a vaccuum, a 'fact' which in iself I have just stated that I have reason to doubt... ...well, you can see where I'm going with this..?

So basically I tend to see the Higgs as being in a way quite similar to Plank's Constant - i.e. although it isn't an observable fact, they say it nevertheless must exist, purely on the grounds that their' calculations don't otherwise work out. Unfortunately this backwards logic is all too often cited by way of explanation when it comes to describing the topsy-turvy world of quantum mechanics.


But leaving aside the issue of light speed, the Standard Model requires the existence of the Higgs boson for other reasons too. For example in order to explain the amount of Dark Matter that needs to be in our Universe in order for the Standard Model to work. But again, that's assuming that the Universe is currently expanding at the rate that's been 'observed' by cosmologists (by measuring the 'red shift' of stars at the outer edge of the Universe). Or expanding at all, actually. This assumption of an expanding Universe, though, is once again dependent both on physicists being right about the speed of light (or rather of light having a speed), AND ALSO it is dependent on them being right in assuming that their interpretation of the red shift is itself accurate. And remember that without an expanding Universe, the Big Bang Theory is at the very least brought into question and at the very most rendered completely defunked. It's true of course that the Big Bank Theory is not dependent on a Universe that's still expanding, but nevertheless the theory would be less attractive to physicists without the 'observable' expansion.



Ok I know that does not even close to a complete explanation for my initial statement, but I will leave it there for now, because... well basically because I haven't yet worked out how to say the next bit :D

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Very interesting ghostie :)

Regarding light as packets ( Photons ) - Given that light is simply a range of frequencies of electromagnetic energy then why aren't radio waves, or X-rays measure in packets?

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LordNibbler wrote:And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?


It does travel at the same speed as light, but the conversion back to good old analogue, and then out of the speaker at the speed of sound means it may not arrive in your head at the same time.

The best facial is a daily facial.

User avatar
Insane Poster
Posts: 26940
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 6:40 pm
How Hot Are You?: Siberia
Current Mood: unknown

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Smeggy Wrote:
Very interesting ghostie :)

Regarding light as packets ( Photons ) - Given that light is simply a range of frequencies of electromagnetic energy then why aren't radio waves, or X-rays measure in packets?


Lord Nibbler Wrote:
And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?


Well, according to Einstein, the speed of light is really the only speed in the entire universe. That is, ...if you are sitting still, then you are moving through the time dimension at the speed of light. And if you are flying in an airoplane, then your motion along the three cartesian dimensions subtracts from that which is along the fourth (i.e. time) coordinate, the result is that time, for you, will pass more slowly.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Channel Hopper wrote:
LordNibbler wrote:And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?


It does travel at the same speed as light, but the conversion back to good old analogue, and then out of the speaker at the speed of sound means it may not arrive in your head at the same time.


Light isn't of course instantaneous. And in most cases light doesn't travel at the speed of light. Any medium will slow it down. Light only travels at the speed of light in an absolute vacuum

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:
Channel Hopper wrote:
LordNibbler wrote:And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?


It does travel at the same speed as light, but the conversion back to good old analogue, and then out of the speaker at the speed of sound means it may not arrive in your head at the same time.


Light isn't of course instantaneous. And in most cases light doesn't travel at the speed of light. Any medium will slow it down. Light only travels at the speed of light in an absolute vacuum


You seem very sure that light isn't instantaneous, Smeggy, so let me ask you... why does light have to travel anywhere at all? Or perhaps, to put it another way... ...where in the Universe does light not exist already? :pp:



In answer to Lord Nibs' question about radio waves...

It's true, for some reason radio waves don't seem to show particle-like behaviour, which I do agree is odd, especially if we're sticking with the Standard Model theory. Particularly considering the fact that the wave-length certainly of visible light, at least, is actually pretty close to that of a radio wave. And yet light is said to exhibit particule-like behaviour whilst radio apparently doesn't. The answer is that there's NO overall consensus in the physics community regarding this matter; some physicists are of the opinion that a radio photon-particle-quanta-whatever would have to be unfeasibly huge, while other 'experts' believe it must be a case of there being certain frequencies at which photons-particles-quanta-whatever just simply cannot be formed (great these experts, ain't they? :rofl: ).
There are probably other theories about this as well, but the majority of the rest are at least honest enough to admit that they simply haven't a clue why this should be the case. :confused:



I'd just like to point out that we're all discussing Photons as if they have been proven to exist! ...But do they really definitely exist...??


The problem with Light, as well as with any other type of high frequency radiation, is that the momentum of an individual quanta/packet/photon/whatever doesn't 'spread out', and so it can seem as if light is behaving like matter (or a wave) that's been imprisoned inside some sort of special sealed container that prevents the 'packet' from being able to spread out. But all MATTER has mass, and so it follows that if light particles were Massive also, then they would necessarily be restricted to a speed below that of actual light-speed, too (which must obviously be wrong since this would negate the very idea of light-speed).

This is the whole reason why this special, entirely fictitious, force-carrying-ONLY particle, called a photon, was hypothesized to exist (as is the habit in quantum physics). Anyway this entirely made-up particle is described as having ZERO mass.

But it's worth remembering that that up until now not one single photon has ever actually been detected mid-flight, - i.e. whenever physicists DO manage to 'detect' a photon it is always as the result of an energy/momentum swap-over that happens at the photon's eventual destination.

Unfortunately this produces a conundrum for physicists, because Light not only - for the reasons stated above - needs to be describable as a particle, it also exhibits all the same properties as a 'wave' as well - i.e. diffraction, interference, refraction, etc. Were it not for this little snag, it would be fine to just describe light as a particle, and leave it at that. Instead of which we are once again forced to return to seeing light in it's 'other' form as a classical electromagnetic wave.

I don't know about you, but it all seems a bit messy for me, with too many made-up's, and hypotheseszzzzzzzz (what IS the plural of hypothesis anyway?? :pp: ).

I like to think that a grand unification theory would be 'cleaner' than that.

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:
smeggypants wrote:
Channel Hopper wrote:
LordNibbler wrote:And if light is instantaneous, why are (for example), radio waves not instantaneous?


It does travel at the same speed as light, but the conversion back to good old analogue, and then out of the speaker at the speed of sound means it may not arrive in your head at the same time.


Light isn't of course instantaneous. And in most cases light doesn't travel at the speed of light. Any medium will slow it down. Light only travels at the speed of light in an absolute vacuum


You seem very sure that light isn't instantaneous, Smeggy, so let me ask you... why does light have to travel anywhere at all? Or perhaps, to put it another way... ...where in the Universe does light not exist already? :pp:


It's a fair question. OK, look at this way. look at something emitting light, such as an power LED on your phone/TV. then put your hand in the way. You cannot see the light from it anymore. Therefore the path between you eye and that LED has been broken as far as light is concerned. Of course your hand might not stop other electromagnetic waves, but it's stopping the light. Well most of it. A bright enough light will shine though your hand - but not bones :)


In answer to Lord Nibs' question about radio waves...

It's true, for some reason radio waves don't seem to show particle-like behaviour, which I do agree is odd, especially if we're sticking with the Standard Model theory. Particularly considering the fact that the wave-length certainly of visible light, at least, is actually pretty close to that of a radio wave. And yet light is said to exhibit particule-like behaviour whilst radio apparently doesn't. The answer is that there's NO overall consensus in the physics community regarding this matter; some physicists are of the opinion that a radio photon-particle-quanta-whatever would have to be unfeasibly huge, while other 'experts' believe it must be a case of there being certain frequencies at which photons-particles-quanta-whatever just simply cannot be formed (great these experts, ain't they? :rofl: ).
There are probably other theories about this as well, but the majority of the rest are at least honest enough to admit that they simply haven't a clue why this should be the case. :confused:


In other words these packets are only mathmetical models and there isn't actual packets in reality

I'd just like to point out that we're all discussing Photons as if they have been proven to exist! ...But do they really definitely exist...??


See above

The problem with Light, as well as with any other type of high frequency radiation, is that the momentum of an individual quanta/packet/photon/whatever doesn't 'spread out',


how do you mean it doesn't "spread out" - Light waves diffract like any other wave

and so it can seem as if light is behaving like matter (or a wave) that's been imprisoned inside some sort of special sealed container that prevents the 'packet' from being able to spread out. But all MATTER has mass, and so it follows that if light particles were Massive also, then they would necessarily be restricted to a speed below that of actual light-speed, too (which must obviously be wrong since this would negate the very idea of light-speed).


I thought electromagnetic waves had no mass?

This is the whole reason why this special, entirely fictitious, force-carrying-ONLY particle, called a photon, was hypothesized to exist (as is the habit in quantum physics). Anyway this entirely made-up particle is described as having ZERO mass.

But it's worth remembering that that up until now not one single photon has ever actually been detected mid-flight, - i.e. whenever physicists DO manage to 'detect' a photon it is always as the result of an energy/momentum swap-over that happens at the photon's eventual destination.


So a photon is the result of the detection of a light wave?

Unfortunately this produces a conundrum for physicists, because Light not only - for the reasons stated above - needs to be describable as a particle, it also exhibits all the same properties as a 'wave' as well - i.e. diffraction, interference, refraction, etc. Were it not for this little snag, it would be fine to just describe light as a particle, and leave it at that. Instead of which we are once again forced to return to seeing light in it's 'other' form as a classical electromagnetic wave.

I don't know about you, but it all seems a bit messy for me, with too many made-up's, and hypotheseszzzzzzzz (what IS the plural of hypothesis anyway?? :pp: ).

I like to think that a grand unification theory would be 'cleaner' than that.


Well indeed.

I'm not really au fait with photons, but having a lot of knowledge of acoustics and audio engineering I do know a lot about waves. :)

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Lol, will answer all that tomorrow, Smeggy, gotta go to bed now, - up early :( Night night!! :wave:

Image
"TONGUE-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I"

User avatar
Haunting Beauty
Posts: 4600
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm
Location: Scotland
Current Mood: Spine chillingly spooky

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

ghostgirl wrote:Lol, will answer all that tomorrow, Smeggy, gotta go to bed now, - up early :( Night night!! :wave:


have a good 'un :)

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120635
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

WOW I am knackered just glancing through that debate :D ......my dumb observation is the Fact is we have NO facts :D Some Science seems to be based on If, Buts and Maybe's :D




Next

Return to General Science

Similar topics

  • Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
    Top of Page

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests