Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Nassim Haramein's Delegate Program

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I did a search for "Dr Robert Koontz on Haramein."

In the search results is this interesting website: Vortex Network News. Scrolling down the page I see that there's a lot of talk about free energy. We know that free energy technology is suppressed. I'm realizing this has a lot to do with the controversy over Haramein.

The reason this website came up is the statement:

What really fascinated Bill was AlienScientist's review of Nassim Haramein's breakthrough paper, "The Schwarzschild Proton."


Here is the description of that interview:

Jan 02, 2010 at 10:00AM

Alien Scientist

Bill's special guest this week is the AlienScientist.

The AlienScientist is a man named Jeremy (approx 30) He prefers to have his last name/identity withheld due to the sensitive nature of his work and how that might affect his career goals as a young aspiring scientist and student of Physics. About 3-4 years ago Jeremy read "Behold a Pale Horse" by William Cooper and became interested in the UFO/Alien phenomenon for scientific purposes. This lead him into researching other conspiracies, such as 9/11. After reviewing much of the available information found online and finding a lack of strong scientific arguments and evidence, he decided to start making and posting his own videos in an attempt to battle the disinformation and counter-intelligence out there using the only proven method for finding the real truth: The Scientific Method. . . .


Here's the description that goes with Jeremy's video about Haramein's paper:

AlienScientist — August 25, 2009 — Special Thanks to Nassim Haramein!

TheResonanceProject.org

A copy of the paper can be found here:
www.theresonanceproject.org...

Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work:
newsinfo.iu.edu...

An explanation of the Vacuum Density and some application such as the Casimir Effect:
www.soulsofdistortion.nl...



The person named Bill is Bill Alek and here is information about him:

William Alek has more than 25 years of experience as an embedded computer hardware and software engineering consultant. He has provided consultation in these areas for companies such as Motorola, Honeywell, General Electric, Bendix, Rockwell International, Mack Trucks, Cummins Diesel, etc. He is a 1979 graduate of the Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois, with a B.S.E.E. degree. He is also the Chief Director and President of the Progressive Tech Center, an organization that is pioneering advanced alternative technologies and sustainable green holistic community lifestyles. The tech center is officially incorporated in the state of Arizona and is applying for nonprofit "scientific" 501(c)3 corporation status through the federal approval process. William guides the activities of the tech center by bringing together qualified individuals who desire to be part of our cutting-edge technology team. Please visit ProgressiveTechCenter.org... for more information.


On the Vortex Network News website is a free audio archive on a program that Bill Akek did based on Jeremy's video and Nassim's paper. He gave the program the heading "The Schwarzschild Proton - Unifying Gravity with the Strong Nuclear Force."

In the program, Bill talks about the significance of the double taurus having a counter-rotation in its ring structure. He says that counter-rotation is very important in an anti-gravity effect. He said he's done work replicating the Nazi Bell device, which is modeled on counter-rotating opposing magnetic fields.

Here's the link to the audio:

www.achieveradio.com... Progressive Technology Hour with William Alek&Sh

[edit on 6/3/2010 by Mary Rose]




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
On the Vortex Network News website is a free audio archive on a program that Bill Akek did based on Jeremy's video and Nassim's paper. He gave the program the heading "The Schwarzschild Proton - Unifying Gravity with the Strong Nuclear Force."


I took a look at Bill Alek's article (on his web site) and the very first page contains lots of crap that can only be written by a person quite ignorant in physics. One example is claiming that Boltzmann's constant is "invariant" -- well duh, because it's not even fundamental and represents a relation between UNITS OF MEASUREMENT of pressure, volume and temperature, which are historically arbitrary.

The "The Schwarzschild Proton" crap is utterly hilarious if you bothered to read it (I did).

Shame on charlatans.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here's the link to the audio:

www.achieveradio.com... Progressive Technology Hour with William Alek&Sh


The second half of this program is interesting in that he talks about what he believes to be erroneous assumptions in academia that students must adopt if they are to graduate. He states that there is an underlying wrong assumption that gravity is a weak force, and this has led to other wrong assumptions.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The "The Schwarzschild Proton" crap is utterly hilarious if you bothered to read it (I did).


But it was given "best paper" award by some computer programmers, you can't dispute that!


I don't think they knew how to read the paper, and I don't think most of Haramein's followers know how to read the paper either, because if they did, they would know it's a joke just like you said.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I took a look at Bill Alek's article (on his web site)


What article is that?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I took a look at Bill Alek's article (on his web site)


What article is that?
Not sure which one buddhasystem looked at but his stuff here seems pretty nonsensical.

He claims somehow the Pound–Rebka experiment proves we can extract "free energy" from different inertial reference frames.

The claim makes no sense, or if you think it does, please explain how that's possible.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the Pound–Rebka experiment


Are you saying that the Pound-Rebka experiment does not show that an energy exchange occurs between gamma rays and the vacuum?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
the Pound–Rebka experiment


Are you saying that the Pound-Rebka experiment does not show that an energy exchange occurs between gamma rays and the vacuum?


If we put a gamma ray emitter in a vacuum, the gamma ray emitter is emitting gamma ray energy. the energy travels THROUGH the vacuum but I don't know what you mean by an exchange. In the Pound-Rebka experiment the exchange didn't happen with the vacuum, it happened with the receiver sample in the basement, when the gamma rays hit the receiver. That's where the energy exchange took place, right?

Regarding the change in the energy of the gamma rays, think of a baseball analogy. Throw a baseball up into the air, and it reaches a peak height before falling back to the Earth. Has there been an energy exchange between the baseball and the vacuum or the atmosphere when it's at the peak height? No. Then what gives it the energy to accelerate back to the Earth? It's just reacting to the distorted space-time around the Earth warped by gravity, and that's exactly what the gamma rays are doing. Stand on the moon and aim an EM energy beam so it just misses the Earth. The beam will be blueshifted as it gets closer to the Earth and then redshifted as it passes the Earth and goes out into space. This is analogous to the baseball picking up velocity as it approaches the Earth and losing it as it goes further away (when you throw it up).

So yes, I'm saying that the Pound-Rebka experiment does not show that an energy exchange occurs between gamma rays and the vacuum, any more then throwing a baseball up in the air shows the baseball transferring energy to the vacuum.

The change in the energy levels of both the baseball and the gamma rays are a result of a change of their position relative to a massive object (The Earth in these examples) and not a result of an exchange with the vacuum.

It's interesting how the gravity of a massive object distorts space-time but this is what I meant that facts are more interesting than fiction. The real results of the Pound Rebka experiment are just as interesting to me as someone else's delusional interpretation of the results is to them.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Mary Rose
 

Here's an experiment you can try that's a variant of the Pound-Rebka experiment. Find a 10 story building with a laundry chute, like a hospital.

Have someone stand in the basement with a radar gun so you can aim it up the laundry chute. Now from the basement, carry a baseball with you up 10 flights of stairs. Drop the baseball down the laundry chute and measure the speed of the baseball as it approaches the basement.

The baseball was moving pretty fast at the basement, right? Did the energy to accelerate that baseball come out of the vacuum?

Here's a hint, did you notice you were breathing hard after climbing 10 flights of stairs?

THAT is where the energy came from, your carrying the baseball up the 10 flights of stairs. It didn't come out of the air.

The Pound Rebka Experiment is very similar to this except they just use gamma rays instead of a baseball. It's a little more complicated but very parallel because in both cases the gamma rays and the baseball have more measurable energy in the basement. In the case of the baseball the energy is in the form of velocity increase and in the case of the gamma rays it's in the form of frequency increase. Both are due to gravity and not drawing energy out of a vacuum.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here's the link to the audio:
www.achieveradio.com... Progressive Technology Hour with William Alek&Sh

The second half of this program is interesting in that he talks about what he believes to be erroneous assumptions in academia that students must adopt if they are to graduate. He states that there is an underlying wrong assumption that gravity is a weak force, and this has led to other wrong assumptions.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's interesting how the gravity of a massive object distorts space-time but this is what I meant that facts are more interesting than fiction.


In my notes from listening to the audio link above, I wrote down “space is curved is incorrect; it’s flat” and “curvy matter.”

I’m going to fill out the contact form on the Progressive Tech Center website to see whether I can get Bill Alek to take a look at your posts and to respond to them.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here's the link to the audio:
www.achieveradio.com... Progressive Technology Hour with William Alek&Sh

The second half of this program is interesting in that he talks about what he believes to be erroneous assumptions in academia that students must adopt if they are to graduate. He states that there is an underlying wrong assumption that gravity is a weak force, and this has led to other wrong assumptions.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's interesting how the gravity of a massive object distorts space-time but this is what I meant that facts are more interesting than fiction.


In my notes from listening to the audio link above, I wrote down “space is curved is incorrect; it’s flat” and “curvy matter.”


The universe is "flat" but that has a different meaning. The curvature of space time is a visualization tool, as is the analogy of putting a heavy ball on a stretched out rubber sheet to illustrate how gravity works. Physicists use mathematics to describe gravity, but most of us get watery eyes when we look at equations filled with integral symbols and lots of Greek letters. So we look at analogies, but the math is where the rubber meets the road on making predictions and confirming if the mathematical predictions are realized with experiments.

"He states that there is an underlying wrong assumption that gravity is a weak force" What does that mean? The gravitational constant has been calculated to a fairly certain value. The debate about the true value revolves around apparently experimental errors of less than plus or minus 1%:


Originally posted by Arbitrageur

www.npl.washington.edu...

Recently the value of G has been called into question by new measurements from respected research teams in Germany, New Zealand, and Russia. The new values disagree wildly. For example, a team from the German Institute of Standards led by W. Michaelis obtained a value for G that is 0.6% larger than the accepted value; a group from the University of Wuppertal in Germany led by Hinrich Meyer found a value that is 0.06% lower, and Mark Fitzgerald and collaborators at Measurement Standards Laboratory of New Zealand measured a value that is 0.1% lower. The Russian group found a curious space and time variation of G of up to 0.7% The collection of these new results suggests that the uncertainty in G could be much larger than originally thought. This controversy has spurred several efforts to make a more reliable measurement of G.



Originally posted by Mary Rose
I’m going to fill out the contact form on the Progressive Tech Center website to see whether I can get Bill Alek to take a look at your posts and to respond to them.
Fine with me.

Please also ask him to explain what is meant by an "underlying wrong assumption that gravity is a weak force"

Specifically, does he have a different value for Newton's constant of gravitation?


Value 6.674 28 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Standard uncertainty 0.000 67 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2


Does he have a different measurement of the gravitational constant that's more than 1% different from that number?

Or is he saying Einstein is wrong about how different inertial reference frames affect gravitational effects?

We would need to see some numbers, measurements, equations, observations, experiments, or papers to understand what he's talking about. Saying there's an "underlying wrong assumption that gravity is a weak force" isn't specific enough, please ask him to give some specifics about that. If he thinks the gravitational constant is different from the reference number I posted, what does he think it is?

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Too late. I've already sent it. Why don't you fill out your own contact form?



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Too late. I've already sent it. Why don't you fill out your own contact form?



That's OK. I already have a pretty good idea about the experimental results of measuring the gravitational constant. If he had a new measurement for gravity that shattered the old measurements I'm pretty sure I would have read about it on www.sciencedaily.com

The purpose of my post was to give you some ways to think about and assess the credibility of different sources of information you might encounter.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Here's the link to the audio:

www.achieveradio.com... Progressive Technology Hour with William Alek&Sh


For some reason, the above link doesn't work now.

The program in question - "The Schwarzschild Proton - Unifying Gravity with the Strong Nuclear Force," - is dated October 10, 2009.

Here is a link to the general archives page for The Progressive Technology Hour:

www.achieveradio.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The AlienScientist is a man named Jeremy (approx 30) He prefers to have his last name/identity withheld due to the sensitive nature of his work and how that might affect his career goals as a young aspiring scientist and student of Physics....

Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work:
newsinfo.iu.edu...


The theoretical physicist referenced above is:

Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.


The above is referring to an article dated April 5, 2010 entitled "Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."

The article begins:

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.


The concluding paragraph:

This model in isotropic coordinates of the universe as a black hole could explain the origin of cosmic inflation, Poplawski theorizes.




The AlienScientist is a man named Jeremy (approx 30) He prefers to have his last name/identity withheld due to the sensitive nature of his work and how that might affect his career goals as a young aspiring scientist and student of Physics....

An explanation of the Vacuum Density and some application such as the Casimir Effect:
www.soulsofdistortion.nl...


The above is referring to “Chapter 4 The zero point field.”

The first paragraph:

The invisible field
Quantum science in the 20th century revealed the presence of an all-pervasive background sea of quantum energy in the universe. Cambridge University’s Dr. Harold Puthoff was one of the first to measure this energy of the universe. This energy was measured at zero degrees Kelvin, the absolute lowest possible temperature in the universe equal to minus 273 degrees Celsius. At this temperature according to Newtonian physics all molecular and atom movement should have ceased and no energy should be measured at all! Instead of finding no energy, as was expected, he found what he called a ‘seething cauldron’ of energy and henceforth it was given the name zero point energy (ZPE). Harold Puthoff proved that the physical vacuum is not devoid of energy at all and that instead of being a vacuum, space it is actually a plenum.

The last paragraph:

The science of sacred geometry claims that everything in our universe has an underlying invisible geometric structure following a fundamental principle. Contemporary scientists now use sacred geometry to explain how physical reality is constructed from the omni present and all-pervasive background energy of the physical vacuum.



[edit on 6/5/2010 by Mary Rose]



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
I’m going to fill out the contact form on the Progressive Tech Center website to see whether I can get Bill Alek to take a look at your posts and to respond to them.
Let us know if he replies.


Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a link to the general archives page for The Progressive Technology Hour:

www.achieveradio.com...

At least they have a warning to not believe what you hear....what was the exact wording again? Oh yeah:


Shows are for Entertainment ONLY.....

These broadcasts are presented and made public AS ENTERTAINMENT, in the hope that they will be entertaining to listeners. They are not intended to diagnose... any disease ...., nor is the information presented necessarily accurate or verifiable.


It's funny how the science shows I listen to don't have such a disclaimer that the information may not be accurate or verifiable, like this one:

Physics Phrontiers


Physics means getting physical if you’re tackling the biggest, most mysterious questions in the universe. Stoic scientists endure the driest, darkest, coldest spots on the planet to find out how it all began and why there’s something rather than nothing. From the bottom of an old iron mine to the top of the Andes, we’ll hear their stories.

Plus, Steven Weinberg on this weird stuff called dark energy, and Leonard Susskind sees double, no, triple, no, …infinite universes.
Guests:

* Anil Ananthaswamy – Corresponding editor for New Scientist magazine in London and author of The Edge of Physics: A Journey to Earth’s Extremes to Unlock the Secrets of the Universe
* Steven Weinberg – Nobel Prize-winning physicist at University of Texas at Austin and author of Lake Views: This World and the Universe
* Leonard Susskind – Professor of theoretical physics, Stanford University
* André de Gouvêa – Associate professor of physics, Northwestern University

I don't necessarily believe everything they have to say either, but at least there's no disclaimer that some of it may be BS. I think the difference is, when the Nobel prizewinner speculates, he admits it's speculation, unlike some of the pseudoscientists who make stuff up with no evidence and claim it's true.


reply to post by Mary Rose
 


Those are interesting topics that I'd rather discuss instead of Nassim Haramein, but do they have any connection to him? If so I missed what the connection is.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here is a link to the general archives page for The Progressive Technology Hour:

www.achieveradio.com...

At least they have a warning to not believe what you hear....what was the exact wording again? Oh yeah:


Shows are for Entertainment ONLY.....

These broadcasts are presented and made public AS ENTERTAINMENT, in the hope that they will be entertaining to listeners. They are not intended to diagnose... any disease ...., nor is the information presented necessarily accurate or verifiable.


They are dealing with cutting-edge technology and they also have the powers that be to contend with who do not want free energy.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
It's funny how the science shows I listen to don't have such a disclaimer that the information may not be accurate or verifiable, like this one...


You are very mainstream and you are protecting the status quo as if your life depended on it. I'm not surprised.



Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . do they have any connection to him? If so I missed what the connection is.


The connection to him should be clear if you read my posts.

AlienScientist/Jeremy references them in relation to his exploration of Nassim's work.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
. . . do they have any connection to him? If so I missed what the connection is.


The connection to him should be clear if you read my posts.

AlienScientist/Jeremy references them in relation to his exploration of Nassim's work.


OK sorry for not being more clear, I see the Jeremy/Alienscientist connection.

It's the connection with Poplawski I don't see and I re-read your post and I still don't see it.


Originally posted by Mary Rose

Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work: newsinfo.iu.edu...


The theoretical physicist referenced above is:

Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.


Oh and that link newsinfo.iu.edu... doesn't explain anything so maybe it's broken and that might answer my question if I could see it but I can't.



posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:24 PM
link   
May I join?


Great debate going on in here.

I will side with Haramein, as I believe both intuitively and through the scientific method he will be more or less correct.

The torus shape of density fluctuations of space time is absolutely ingenious, and is the simplest way to explain quantum mechanics and classical mechanics in a unified theory that incorporates EM and gravity...IMO. I can't imagine a simpler, Occams razor friendly theory.

There has to be the alternating flow in the torus in order to preserve equilibrium, IMO.

Yin and Yang.



From Leedskalnin's 'Magnetic Current':

Now about the sphere magnet. If you have a strong magnet you can change the poles in the sphere in any side you want or take the poles out so the sphere will not be a magnet any more. From this you can see that the magnet can be shifted and concentrated and also you can see that the metal is not the real magnet. The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything.. In fact they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. The North and South Pole magnets they are cosmic force, they hold together this earth and everything on it. Each North and South Pole magnet is equal in strength, but the strength of each individual magnet doesn't amount to anything. To be of practical use they will have to be in great numbers.

www.leedskalnin.com...

This is also how geomagnetic fields are arranged/oriented, in the torus(nesting toruses, like fractals etc.).

AlienScientist's video about Haramein's paper was posted earlier, if that doesn't blow your mind I don't know what will.

Also, know that Blavatsky and Theosophy probably suggests the same... Hitler and his SS knew this physics IMO...but I digress.



Gravity makes much more sense than the nuclear force. And I think the other mysterious nuclear force has already been thrown out by the mainstream. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So that leaves EM radiation and Gravity.

How to reconcile them into one theory?

Haramein has done a damn good job.

A fitting quote from Einstein:

If, then, it is true that the axiomatic foundation of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, may we ever hope to find the right way? Furthermore, does this right way exist anywhere other than in our illusions? May we hope to be guided safely by experience at all, if there exist theories (such as classical mechanics) which to a large extent do justice to experience, without comprehending the matter in a deep way?

To these questions, I answer with complete confidence, that, in my opinion, the right way exists, and that we are capable of finding it. Our experience hitherto justifies us in trusting that nature is the realization of the simplest that is mathematically conceivable. I am convinced that purely mathematical construction enables us to find those concepts and those lawlike connections between them that provide the key to the understanding of natural phenomena. Useful mathematical concepts may well be suggested by experience, but in no way can they be derived from it. Experience naturally remains the sole criterion of the usefulness of a mathematical construction for physics. But the actual creative principle lies in mathematics. Thus, in a certain sense, I take it to be true that pure thought can grasp the real, as the ancients had dreamed. (Einstein 1933, p. 183; my translation)


plato.stanford.edu...

All for now.

Peace.




posted on Jun, 5 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

It's the connection with Poplawski I don't see and I re-read your post and I still don't see it.


Originally posted by Mary Rose

Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work: newsinfo.iu.edu...


The theoretical physicist referenced above is:

Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.


Oh and that link newsinfo.iu.edu... doesn't explain anything so maybe it's broken and that might answer my question if I could see it but I can't.


Here is the post again, with a live link:


Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Mary Rose

The AlienScientist is a man named Jeremy (approx 30) He prefers to have his last name/identity withheld due to the sensitive nature of his work and how that might affect his career goals as a young aspiring scientist and student of Physics....

Theoretical Physicist comes up with a similar conclusion to Haramein's work:
newsinfo.iu.edu...


The theoretical physicist referenced above is:

Poplawski is a research associate in the IU Department of Physics. He holds an M.S. and a Ph.D. in physics from Indiana University and a M.S. in astronomy from the University of Warsaw, Poland.


The above is referring to an article dated April 5, 2010 entitled "Our universe at home within a larger universe? So suggests IU theoretical physicist's wormhole research."

The article begins:

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Could our universe be located within the interior of a wormhole which itself is part of a black hole that lies within a much larger universe?

Such a scenario in which the universe is born from inside a wormhole (also called an Einstein-Rosen Bridge) is suggested in a paper from Indiana University theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski in Physics Letters B. The final version of the paper was available online March 29 and will be published in the journal edition April 12.


The concluding paragraph:

This model in isotropic coordinates of the universe as a black hole could explain the origin of cosmic inflation, Poplawski theorizes.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join