Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:42 pm

I found this person and his videos weeks ago, and been doing some reading. I find this to be very closely to the views described in this forum, and you guys might find this EXTREMELY interesting. He has a little bit of stand up comedian in his bood, and has very theatrical style of appearence. This could be used against him as a strawman, but the critiques he gives stand alone strongly.

So basically Bill Gaede has made extremely good debunking and attacking against the theory of relativity and special relativity. Gaede later wrote a critique of mathematical physics and the usage of the scientific method. He basically attacks these theories by pointing out that they are using semantic abstract concepts and circular logic.

The vast array of his arguments revolve around the fallacy of reification, or misplaced concreteness. Gaede explains that all theories of mathematical physics use abstract concepts as physical objects acting in reality. "Forces", "waves", "points", "fields", and so on, are not physical, but conceptual, according to Gaede.

He has made a book named "Why God Doesn't Exist" where he attacks the cult of Mathematical Physics and fields such as General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory as a religios cults and not real scientific fields.

He has a youtube channel here.






Last edited by Vrilseeker on Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:03 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:48 pm


“A relativist is an individual who doesn't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb.”
― Bill Gaede, Why God Doesn't Exist

“A mathematician is a magician who converts adjectives into nouns: continuous into continuum, infinite into infinity, infinitesimal into location, 0D into point, 1D into line, curved into geodesic...”
― Bill Gaede, Why God Doesn't Exist

“If you can't illustrate 'it', 'it' doens't belong in Physics as a noun! You can't put an article in front. You can't put a verb after!”
― Bill Gaede, Why God Doesn't Exist

“A mathematician believes that describing the speed of Mercury with equations amounts to science.”
― Bill Gaede


Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sat Apr 19, 2014 3:53 pm

What is time? - Salzburg 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yND9NvEjnhY

What is Physics? - Salzburg 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd_jq3rgXgk

Great lectures.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:06 pm

Bill Gaede wrote:
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03Intro.html

They usurp grand titles such as 'physicist' and 'scientist', but do not be misled. The members of the
establishment are just mathematicians. The mathematical physicists have become the priests of the modern world, listening to your petty confessions about how you think the world works and then setting you straight, telling you how the Universe 'really' works. Authority no longer emanates from the Bible. It now flows from variables, equations, and numbers.

However, as it turns out, Mathematics is NOT the language of Physics or of Science! In fact, Math has absolutely nothing to do with Physics and very little to do with Science. Mathematics is a language like Mandarin is a language. Would it make any sense to say that Mandarin is the language of Physics? A mathematician has no more authority to draw conclusions about the physical world from a set of functions than a medieval priest had of prescribing indulgences pursuant to his particular interpretation of the Bible. In fact, Mathematics is a language that makes people stupid. By definition, a stupid person is someone with no common sense, and all relativists, mechanics, and string theorists freely admit that they have long ago surrendered their collective common sense. A mathematical physicist is an individual who has placed all his faith in equations at the expense of rationality. He no longer has the ability to tell fact from fantasy. The layman follows his lead and holds him in high regards merely because the mathematician is a celebrity.

Bill Gaede wrote:
Contemporary Mathematical Physics is comprised of three pillars: General Relativity (GR), Quantum
Mechanics (QM), and String Theory (ST). The establishment regards these disciplines with absolute
reverence, but don't be misled. GR, QM, and ST are actually more like Andersen's proverbial Emperor's Clothes tale. The mathematician points to an invisible entity and tells you what you are observing. Suspiciously, the idiot of Mathematics always ends up with his beloved point. An atom is a particle. An electron is a particle. A photon is a particle. An event is a particle. And a string is made of particles. When you insinuate that his interpretation borders on the irrational, the moron goes absolutely bonkers! He urges you to set aside your common sense and intuition and trust his equations and calculations. He throws a list of who's who at you to reinforce his claim. All the celebrities of Nobel and Templeton fame believe in the particle. So who are you to question so much authority?

But I have just shown that you can provide different physical interpretations to an equation. So what compels you to switch your intellectual allegiance? Why should you trust his interpretation of a physical phenomenon when it is also based on intuition?

The results are on the table. After centuries of raving lunacy, the mathematicians of this world have
absolutely nothing to show for their abstract theories. We have yet to see a mockup of space-time or a picture of a single particle of the Standard Model or a sculpture of the 1-D Planck Length theorists claim the Universe is made of. Not a single mathematician on Earth can tell you WHAT light IS. Not a single mathematician working at NASA or CERN can tell you how a simple magnet works or WHAT the invisible lines of force that surround it ARE. Not a single mathematician at Cambridge or at Harvard can illustrate mass or energy for you. And certainly numbers and equations will not help them in any of these quests.

The underlying problem is that the mathematicians have never defined the word science unambiguously
and have yet to grasp the nature of the scientific method. The establishment has erroneously concluded
that experimentation and Math are necessary components of the scientific method. A mathematician
models the path of an invisible particle with an equation, runs a test to prove his hunch, and then boasts
that the experiment has proven his theory. [1] Yet, when you go back to check, the infamous particle was
merely an assumption. If the invisible thing at the center of his experiment is not a particle, his alleged
'proof' disintegrates before your very eyes. The mathematicians mistake assumptions for proofs and
confuse hypotheses with theories.

After 2500 years of research, the disciples of Pythagoras and Euclid have nothing to exhibit at their trade
shows, nothing to show during their show-and-tells. The mathematicians are still in the Dark Ages as far as
their understanding of nature is concerned. They have merely modified the language of Plato and
Augustine. The members of the establishment continue to talk about spirits and ghosts and miracles, but
today allude to such phenomena using scientific-sounding names like 'singularity' and 'carriers of force'
and 'uncertainty.' The irony is that the mathematicians believe that the development of technology proves
that the inventions we enjoy today confirm their theories.

The language of Physics and of Science is called visualization. In order for the prosecutor and the juror to
be on the same wavelength, they must both watch the same movie. If the prosecutor is talking about rocks
and the juror imagines trees they cannot possibly be communicating. We don't understand rocks and trees.
We see them with our eyes! There is only one way to guarantee that everyone visualizes the same thing: the
presenter should be able to make a movie of his theory. A theory is an explanation of how or why
something occurred. If the presenter cannot put his ideas on the Big Screen for everyone to watch (the
same thing), he is not doing Science. And in order for the theory to be converted into a movie, an even more
fundamental requirement is form. Without shapes, the prosecutor has nothing to film and the juror has
nothing to watch. The first requirement of science and of the scientific method is to produce the physical
objects. We cannot make a film with abstract concepts! We cannot do science with the idiotic words of
Mathematics: energy, mass, time, force, or field. These are not physical objects. These words do not
represent things that have shape.

Science is not about running experiments or proving theories. Science is about communicating ideas.
Afterwards you can infer whatever you like, run experiments in the lab, and reach your own conclusions. In
order to communicate ideas precisely, the presenter absolutely needs to define his words rigorously. A
precise definition of the words tat make or break a theory is the second requirement of the scientific method.

Mathematical Physics fails both of these requirements. Not a single mathematician in the world can make a
movie of his presentation. What is he going to put on the screen? A picture of energy? A scene where mass
jumps up and down? And not a single mathematician on Earth defines the words that make or break his
theory rigorously. The contemporary mathematicians:

• tell you that their crucial words are primitives (i.e., undefinable) (e.g., point, line, mass, energy, time)
• use these terms inconsistently during their talks anyways
• replace concepts with objects (e.g., the center of mass with a dot, space-time with a tesseract)
• move abstract concepts (e.g., transfer energy, accelerate point particles, bend time, blend orbitals)
• describe interactions between abstractions (e.g., virtual particles, field and charge, annihilation of two 0-D particles)


...and then wish you to believe that they are doing Science. The mathematicians of Mathematical Physics
are the first to attempt to give a physical interpretation to their equations. When you call their bluff and show
that the explanation is irrational, relativists defend themselves by saying that you are raising a philosophical
issue and not one that concerns Science (meaning Physics). But it was they who introduced 'philosophy' (i.
e., give a physical interpretation) to the equations in the first place. In other words, the mathematician wants
you to believe that he is authorized to provide a physical interpretation to a series of variables or to a
function because he is backed by Math and celebrities. When you question his logic, he accuses you of
relying on subjective intuition and common sense at the expense of objective Mathematics. He dismisses
your attack as petty philosophy, meaning that it's just your opinion. If this fails to persuade you, he
produces next a list of celebrities from the 'scientific' community who believe in the same idiocy he does.
These people are backed by Nobel Prizes (which their peers gave to them). Look behind you. Who votes for
your version?

This site has the purpose of exposing Mathematical Physics for what it is: an irrational religion. The most
natural place to start the discussion is by telling you a little bit about who these latter-day astrologers and
alchemists are, what they believe in, and what they do. Let's see how much they really know and settle once
and for all whether they have any authority to interpret the physical world for you.

I argue that Mathematics is not only NOT the language of Physics, but that it has absolutely nothing to do
with Physics... Mathematics is a language like Chinese is a language. Would it make sense to say that
Swahili is the language of Physics? The language of Physics is visualization. If a mathematician cannot
make a movie of his theory, he is not doing Science, let alone Physics. Period! He has not explained the
phenomenon. Unfortunately, we have delegated the task of uncovering the nature of our Universe to idiots
that laymen mistake for geniuses. I can find no better word than idiot to qualify an individual who has a
Masters Degree or a PhD and offers irrational and fantastic physical interpretations for natural phenomena.
Anyone who invokes such ridiculous concepts as space-time, Big Bang, black hole, parallel universe, field,
energy, mass, wave-packet, point particle, time travel, tunneling, warped space, or annihilation to explain a
phenomenon of nature should be kicked out of Science and locked up in a mental institution. The official
scientific world is a farce. The establishment has gone completely mad.

The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world. They 'describe' a phenomenon for you
with variables and urge you to believe their physical interpretations on the authority of their calculations.
Actually their interpretations of the real world have as much to do with their equations as the Bible with the
existence of God, but naive people have gradually willed themselves to believe the experts. They stand
respectfully in awe of the nonsense coming out of the universities and think tanks. The result is that we
have made a 180 turn. We are back to the middle ages as far as understanding of nature is concerned.

If, like me, you suspect the physical interpretations of the mathematical sages of our world, the following
pages contain material that will provide you with solid arguments in your heads-to-heads with relativists,
mechanics, and string theorists. I have simplified concepts and theories of Mathematical Physics and
illustrated wherever possible to make the site accessible to the average visitor. You don't need to know
Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock. A good dose of common sense will do!
Back to top Go down
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:53 pm

Looks interesting. Thanks.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 1:27 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:13 am

This is extremely important. I kind of think that this has exposed a certain type of a scientific fraud practiced in an enviroment which claims to be scientific, but really is authoritarian, and has little or nothing to do with science.

I mean the explenations given to GM, ST and UF is so obviously circular. Especially when there is no way for ordinary person to varify, when the language is "advanced", and you are automatically accused of not understanding, and thus implying you are stupid.

I mean most of these mathematical physicist are in TV and are held as a personification of educated and intelligent, and ordenary people just stupid. These theories are also a ideological structure for many political and social implications.
Back to top Go down
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:38 am

Quote :
Guillermo "Bill" Gaede (November 19, 1952) is an Argentine engineer and programmer who is best known for Cold War industrial spying conducted while he worked at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Intel Corporation (Intel). While at AMD, he provided the Cuban government with technical information from the semiconductor industry which the Cubans passed on to the Soviet bloc, primarily to the Soviet Union and East Germany.[1] In 1992, Gaede turned himself over to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which placed him in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI began working with Gaede in a counter-espionage operation intended to penetrate Cuban intelligence using his contacts on the island. During this time Gaede obtained work at Intel Corp. in Chandler, Arizona. Intel Security discovered the nature of his activities at AMD and terminated him, but not before Gaede filmed Intel's state-of-the-art Pentium process from home.
Gaede fled with this technology to South America where he allegedly sold the information to Chinese and Iranian representatives. Upon his return to the United States,[2] Gaede was arrested,[3][4] prosecuted, and convicted.[5][6][7] He was convicted and sentenced to 33 months in prison on June 1996,[8][9][10] after which he was deported.[11][12] The 9th Circuit Court rejected Gaede's appeal,[13] and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.[14]
Gaede later wrote a critique of mathematical physics and the usage of the scientific method in the disciplines of physics, biology, anthropology and palaeontology according to his own interpretations.[15][16][17][18] Gaede's theories have mainly been proliferated via the internet.[19][20]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've become obsessed with this guy.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 42
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:53 am

I don't claim to be a mathematician or physicist, but if someone can explain how Einstein's concepts of time dilation and length contraction are false, when they've been experimentally verified many times, I'm all ears.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 3:44 pm

Recidivist wrote:
I don't claim to be a mathematician or physicist, but if someone can explain how Einstein's concepts of time dilation and length contraction are false, when they've been experimentally verified many times, I'm all ears.  

Well basically they are not verified as you think. For example Global Positioning System aka GPS is used as a proof of a time dialation theory. Bill Geade says that light is physical particles and not "energy". He does agree that those physical particles carry energy, but that light is small physical particles. He makes a case that you can explain light bending by gravity with classical physics, and thus time is just measurement of physical particles.

Time as a concept can be explained by classical physics, there is a simple explanaton why gravity explains seemingly relativity of time, when measurable change happens in gravitical pull between space and earth. That doesn't prove relativity. It just proves that gravity is no longer in effect in space where gravity is zero. Of cource there would be change in calculations and measurements. The theory of time dialation uses time as physical object, when time is only a scale of measurement, and not a physical object.

Bill Geade makes a case that you cannot go through lenght, wight, or time, as they are only abstract concepts, and only units of measurements. You can only go through materialistic object. He basically makes a case that there is no proof of Einsteins theories, and those anomalies used as a proof can be explained through classical physics, and GR, ST, and our current understanding of QM is simple dialectical miss undertanding and fabrication.  For him energy cant be without a physical object. Energy is a unit of measurement, and not a physical object. So it cant be calculated and understood like a physical object.

Basically he makes a case for classical physics, and makes compelling case to disprove mathematical physics, which he claims uses lenght, wight, time, "space", "energy", and other abstract concepts, and tries to calculate them like they were physical objects. He accuses them of using circular logic, and he show how they do it. He accuses them of semantic fabrication and missleadin the community into believing, and he demonstrates this by showing their logical fallacies.

I suggest you watch these two lectures.

What is time? - Salzburg 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yND9NvEjnhY

What is Physics? - Salzburg 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd_jq3rgXgk
Back to top Go down
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2074
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 4:40 pm

Vrilseeker wrote:
Well basically they are not verified as you think. For example Global Positioning System aka GPS is used as a proof of a time dialation theory.

Maybe I missed something but I didn't understand his argument about the time measurements in his lecture. What was that about the two sand clocks and the gravitational effect? For satellites they don't use sand clocks or anything with a pendulum. I don't see how a quartz clock or an atomic clock is influenced by the gravity they are exposed to.


My position on Einstein is that he used already established theories and mostly did the interpretation and combination of them. He interpreted them in a way which was completely counter intuitive. What it created was a set of theories which could predict certain phenomena.

Today, those theories are holy and nobody is taken seriously who is proposing different theories, which would end up explaining a lot more in a more plausible manner. But the established theories have a strong lobby.

Hannes Alfven did some interesting theories on the universe, among other things.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He was also rather critical about Einstein.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:06 pm

Anfang wrote:
Maybe I missed something but I didn't understand his argument about the time measurements in his lecture. What was that about the two sand clocks and the gravitational effect? For satellites they don't use sand clocks or anything with a pendulum. I don't see how a quartz clock or an atomic clock is influenced by the gravity they are exposed to.

Yes, I think the point was that the enviroment changes. Those sandclocks were using gravity, so they were useless. As does gravity change, so does tempeture, so does pressure. But I do see, that it's a weak argument as I myself am not sure how GPS netwrok works, and how does digital clocks work in huge tempeture changes, zero gravity, zero presure, and radioation. I do know that GPS is a network of satellites and they calibrate their time and position constantly in relations to earth. There has to be some physical consequences with so radical enviromental changes. This radical enviromental change would explain the time dialation between earth orbit and on the ground.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:18 pm

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:24 pm

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
Stephen J. Crothers wrote:
How I was expelled from the University of New South Wales
(An example of the suppression of science)

by

Stephen J. Crothers

In about March 2003 I formally commenced part-time candidature for the PhD in the School of Physics at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia, under the supervision of Professor John K. Webb. The support supervisor was Professor Michael Ashley. I was initially engaged in the development of a computer simulation program in relation to Extra-Solar Planets.

About a year later I began work on General Relativity as a sideline. After a few months I came up with a result that proved black holes inconsistent with General Relativity. I presented this to Professor Webb. He was initially enthusiastic, and even arranged for me to deliver a lecture to his undergraduate General Relativity class. Before my informing him, Webb had never heard of Schwarzschild's original solution.

Later Webb arranged for me to have some contact with his colleague, Professor Paul Davies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He and Davies, both being British, knew each other from their Cambridge days. Davies initially replied in a derogatory tone, claiming that Schwarzschild's original metric, which he had never before seen, was not Ricci flat, and did not satisfy Einstein's field equations. I proved these claims false, at the request of Webb. That drew more attention from Davies. Unfortunately, Davies turned out to be rather inept (see some of his correspondence here), so he sent my analysis to Professor Peter Szekeres of the University of Adelaide, son of George Szekeres of the Kruskal-Szekeres extension. He proved just as inept. He too had never before heard of Schwarzschild's original solution, and claimed that it was equivalent to Hilbert's metric (the one always and erroneously called "Schwarzschild's" solution by the writers of textbooks and papers). I provided a demonstration that this claim is false. Evidently Szekeres either did not understand this or did not want to hear of it. He dismissed my analysis unscientifically. Davies, in subservience to Szekeres, then failed to respond any further. Webb began to falter on the strength of the incompetent advice.

Webb also insisted that I confer with Professor Michael Kruchiev at UNSW. I reluctantly complied. When I walked into Kruchiev's office he immediately told me that he was not interested in discussion of my work, but if I needed his help, he said, "I'm all yours". He evidently thought himself a big-shot in science. There was some brief exposition by Kruchiev of the Kruskal-Szekeres extension. I remarked that this gives a non-static solution to a static problem (isn't that a contradiction?). He looked at me stupefied. I terminated the meeting after about 10 minutes, as it was obviously pointless.

Webb then attempted to engage Professor Victor Flambaum at UNSW. Flambaum refused to meet with me or to read my papers, claiming, according to Webb, that I had no chance of being right. At that time there was a Russian visitor at UNSW (Flambaum and Kruchiev are also Russians). Webb discussed the matter with the visitor. The visitor claimed that Schwarzschild's original solution was wrong. He also told Webb that he had just completed writing a book on General Relativity in which he derived the black hole solution following the work of Weyl. I pointed out to Webb that this claim was nonsense as it is clearly argued by Weyl in his book, 'Space, Time, Matter' that there is no 'interior' solution as claimed by the proponents of the black hole. I referred Webb to the relevant pages in Weyl's book.

I had a meeting with Webb some time later, in his office, for discussion of the theory. He understood nothing, and told me so; but he lent his support to my continued research.

In mid to late 2004, with the support of Webb, I formally changed my PhD thesis to theoretical research in General Relativity.

In late 2004 and early 2005 Webb was in Cambridge on Sabbatical. He told me that he would discuss my work with his colleague John Barrow, and with a bloke named Joao Magueijo. I received nothing from Webb in relation to these two colleagues of his. In fact, Webb was silent, but eventually replied to my email, clearly indicating that he was no longer in support of my work. He even became abusive, to which I responded appropriately, not being one to allow anyone to intimidate me. I had initially thought Webb a decent chap, but it turned out that he is in fact a rather disingenuous fellow.

I was then published in the journal Progress in Physics, by invitation of the Editors. Webb would not recognise the publications claiming in so many words that Progress in Physics was not to be taken seriously.

I wrote up my thesis and made representation to Professor Mike Gal for early submission. Webb informed me that he was not prepared to "sign off" on my thesis and that I must change my thesis topic if he was to continue as my supervisor. I rejected his ultimatum, and informed Gal. Gal told me that I did not need Webb's consent to submit, but since my submission was early, I would have to go through a bureaucratic process to get my thesis submitted, and that the School of Physics would support my submission. Gal informed the Head of School, Professor Warwick Couch, of the situation and arranged a meeting in Couch's office. I was to meet Couch in the company of Gal. Later Gal claimed that he was mistaken in his advice on how early submission was to be effected.

The meeting took place. Gal and Couch insisted that I send a paper to a journal of their choosing, namely, Physical Review, and paid no regard to my publications in Progress in Physics. I objected on the grounds that it is inappropriate to publish the same paper in another journal. They also insisted that I allow Professor Chris Hamer of UNSW to read my papers so that Hamer could send them a report and his recommendations. I met with Hamer a couple of days later and gave him several of my published papers. During our meeting I asked Hamer to identify the quantity r in Hilbert's metric. He told me that it's "the radius." He is incorrect.

About a week or so later I received an email from Hamer, along with a copy of his report and recommendation, which he had sent to Couch and Gal. He claimed that I was but an "apprentice" in these matters. He had evidently read only one of my papers and did not understand anything. His report contained a gross misrepresentation of my work. He had actually altered my work and thereby claimed that I was in error and that I should not be permitted to submit and that if I wanted a PhD from UNSW I must change my topic as Webb had dictated. Go here for Hamer's covering letter, and go here for Hamer's incompetent report.

I wrote in protest to Gal and Couch of Hamer's misrepresentation and incompetence. Couch replied that I was rude in my remarks about Professor Hamer, and totally disregarded Hamer's alteration of my work and misrepresentation thereof. My reply to Hamer is here. Couch and Gal would not support my PhD submission, contrary to Gal's previous advice.

I wrote to the University Academic Committee in protest. Go here for my letter. The Academic Committee replied in full support of its professors in the School of Physics, and completely ignored Hamer's alteration of my work and his misrepresentation of my work. Go here for the Committee's letter in reply. My next letter to the Academic Committee is here. The whitewash reply is here, wherein the Presiding Member Faculty of Science, Dr. David Cohen, defends the misconduct of Gal and the other relevant professors in the School of Physics, and conveniently omits addressing most of the issues upon which I specifically called for his comment. I was not invited to meet with the Academic Committe, but Gal conferred with them.

I was then formally without a supervisor (although actually without a supervisor since early 2005 when Webb withdrew his support), and therefore effectively expelled de facto from PhD candidature since the University rules do not allow candidature without a supervisor, as the Academic Committee and the professors well knew. No one in the School of Physics would replace Webb as supervisor, and the University officials all knew this. By this tactic the University eliminated me from the PhD programme, whilst maintaining a façade of integrity and due process, despite the fact I was not invited to the meeting of the Academic Committee.

I received a letter dated 16 December 2005 from UNSW threatening me with legal action if I did not pay fees for 2005. Go here for the letter. I wrote back denying liability for the fees, since I had effectively been expelled and was without any supervisor for that year. Go here for my reply. The Deputy Vice Chancellor wrote back waiving the fees, but made no comment as to the misconduct of Hamer and the other professors. Go here for his letter.

It was brought to my attention by the folks at ArchiveFreedom that they received a letter of disapproval of the report herein (to which their website contains a link) on the dishonourable acts and omissions perpetrated by the physics professors and Academic Committee of the University of New South Wales, from the founder of its School of Theoretical Physics, Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora. The letter was forwarded to me for response. Mr. Hora claims that his University and his professors did no wrong, and told me that my report is insulting to UNSW, its professors, and himself. He does not disapprove of the serious misconduct of his professors one bit. You can read his arrant nonsense here. Professors at UNSW seem to think that they can commit fraud with impunity. I doubt that the courts would agree with them.

During the course of these events I attempted to engage in discussion some so-called 'experts' in General relativity. Amongst them were included all the members of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation. Of the latter I managed to engage M.H.A. MacCallum in some discussion. MacCallum was from the outset rude and condescending, and quite inept. He did not even know how to deal with a constant of integration, as his correspondence with me attests. Go here for his first letter (with some later ones appended). I replied here. He next provided some incorrect argument as to why I was wrong and the usual suspects right. Go here for this laughable document. I replied here. With MacCallum, the gloves came off.

J. Berkenstein (member of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation) wrote to me but offered no science, and simply called me an "antiquarian" and generally insulted me. He then disappeared.

I had some very brief correspondence with J. Pullin (member of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation) one J. Sennovilla in Spain. Neither provided any scientific discourse.

I also wrote to the famous Mr. Roy Kerr, of the Kerr solution, and pointed out errors in the standard interpretation of his metric, and provided him with copies of my relevant papers. As I did not hear from him I sent a second email complaining to him that it was discourteous of him not to reply. He finally replied on the 2nd March 2006, and it was pathetic. First, he told me that my complaint of his discourtesy was "insulting crap". Then he told me that my work was "rubbish" and referred me to the usual change of co-ordinates (e.g. Kruskal-Szekeres). He offered no mathematical refutation or sound scientific arguments, although I requested him to provide this. I pointed out that he was circular in trying to refute me by referring me to the Kruskal-Szekeres type co-ordinates since I had proved the Kruskal-Szekeres co-ordinates invalid. Evidently that was too sophisticated for his poor brain. Kerr simply took his bat and ball home when it become apparent to him that he couldn't win with mindless doubletalk, evidently being of the view that facts which upset his applecart can be disposed of by ignoring them. Very convenient I'm sure, but certainly not science. You can read the Kerr correspondence here.

My papers were posted to the electronic archive of the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy, but members of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitational and/or their associates, servants or agents, arranged for all my papers to be removed from the ICTP, without my knowledge. I was subsequently barred from posting papers to the ICTP website. It became clear that the ICTP is also actively engaged in the suppression and falsification of science. You can read about that here. My papers are cited on the website of the American Mathematical Society.

A Simple Non-Mathematical Proof

It is very easily proven that the black hole and the big bang contradict one another and so they are mutually exclusive. All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations pertain to universes that are spatially infinite, are eternal, contain only one mass, are not expanding, and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But the alleged big bang universes are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), are of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial), are expanding, and are not asymptotically anything (Crothers 2013). Thus black hole universes and big bang universes contradict one another. They are mutually exclusive and so they cannot co-exist. It is therefore not possible for a black hole to be present in a big bang universe or even in another black hole universe, and likewise it is not possible for a big bang universe to be present in a black hole universe or in another big bang universe. Nonetheless the astrophysical magicians superpose black hole and big bang universes notwithstanding that they are incompatible by their very definitions, and that the Principle of Superposition does not hold in General Relativity. Much of modern physics is simply manufactured in this way and so it bears no relation to the actual Universe.
Back to top Go down
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 42
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Tue Apr 22, 2014 7:24 am

Vrilseeker wrote:

I suggest you watch these two lectures.

What is time? - Salzburg 1 of 3
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What is Physics? - Salzburg 1 of 3
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He reminded me of a Christian holding up the fossil of a complex organism, incredulous that it could have arisen via natural forces. His counter argument is that it is all a result of mislabeling or semantics. I don't get it. It's not a rebuttal to Einstein's work. He didn't say anything of substance.

Here is a video which explains relativity in simple terms:

(In Einstein's theory the maximum velocity (speed of light) is preserved in all frames of reference regardless of the velocity of the observers. Experimentally verified several times in different experiments.)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:56 am

Quote :
He reminded me of a Christian

Quote :
I don't get it.

Could those two statements have something intimately to do with eachother?


Quote :
the maximum velocity (speed of light)

False.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]




Is time travel really possible? Personally dought it. But who really knows? Only current plausable explainations of it being possible is in the theory of everything which specifically includes 10-11 dimensions.


Quote :
Christian

So you basically are a progressive modern right? If not tell me who the modern day priest class is / who our equivalents of Copernicus and Galilei are.

Here's a hint:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2074
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Tue Apr 22, 2014 10:14 am

Special relativity contains a number of paradoxes.
Who says that the space ship is moving and not earth.
And if that is so, they why would the clock in the space ship run slower? It runs slower from Sarah's perspective, yet from Adam's perspective in the space ship, Sarah's clock on earth runs slower.
So whose clock did run faster or slower?

Here's what special relativity actually does -
It takes an observation, like the Michelson Morley experiment which tried to find the light ether and it provides a formula and a set of ideas which are supposed to explain the results. And with those formulas, things can be calculated and predicted - don't get me wrong, but, ... the ideas, the explanations themselves are contradictory.

The explanations for that so called twin paradox are supposed to be found in general relativity - it has to do with acceleration. Adam, who is on the space ship, experienced acceleration, Sarah did not, so, if Adam has been flying in that space ship and Sarah remained back on earth then Adam was the only one who experienced acceleration - that's why he's the one who aged less than Sarah, when they meet back up on earth. This acceleration provides an asymmetry. In other words, that's what makes Adam different from Sarah.

Special relativity with its nice images is full of contradictions - that light clock with the two mirrors explains not why time is supposed to actually have run slower on Adam's ship. For Adam it didn't, it's just Sarah's perception, and when Adam returns back to earth then there should be no difference in aging between Adam and Sarah, see special relativity and twin paradox.

It takes general relativity to explain a difference in passed time.
And how is that supposed to work? Adam at one point accelerated the ship, and later he hits the brakes and gets back out on earth to meet up with Sarah, yet, the difference in time passed has nothing to do with the acceleration itself but with the amount of time spent at that velocity different from Sarah. How is that supposed to work? Did the process of acceleration propel him into a different state of time-reality? Does it matter if I accelerate slowly or quickly? Apparently not, because according to the formulas of special relativity it's just a matter of speed, relative to the still standing observer.

But, we already addressed the issue that all reference frames are equal and so we can't tell whether Adam or Sarah has been moving at a high speed.
I don't understand the causal connections here - what matters for the time dilation is the speed and the time spent at that particular speed, yet, it's the acceleration which distinguishes Adam from Sarah and why Adam's clock is supposed to have been ticking slower when they meet back up on earth and Adam has aged less.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 42
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu Apr 24, 2014 6:58 am

There Will Be Blood wrote:
False
Nice one. The video you posted does not support your claim, quite the opposite.

To go faster than the speed of light would require infinite energy. Not possible.

Quote :
If not tell me who the modern day priest class is / who our equivalents of Copernicus and Galilei are.
Copernicus was a priest? Tell us more.

Anfang wrote:
Did the process of acceleration propel him into a different state of time-reality? Does it matter if I accelerate slowly or quickly? Apparently not, because according to the formulas of special relativity it's just a matter of speed, relative to the still standing observer.

From my understanding the flow of time is determined by the velocity which is relative to the invariant velocity of light, which does not experience time.

How long does it take light to reach us from a galaxy two billion light years away, from the perspective of the light?
No time at all. The journey is instantaneous.

Quote :
Hafele and Keating Experiment

"During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein's theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock "paradox" with macroscopic clocks."

J.C. Hafele and R. E. Keating, Science 177, 166 (1972)

One of the most important ramifications of the theory for KTS is that it is not possible to go back in time and change the past. The past is fixed and immutable.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:10 am

Not the point. It could be faster, many believed so, and hence time travel is possible? Something wrong with the entire scheme if it potentially allows impossibilities. First before anything explain to be what the 11th dimension is(I know, just testing). You keep your authority figures, I'll keep my common sense. Problem solved!

Gravity:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This sounds better off the face of it. Less multi-ethnic. Have any of the problems he highlighted been solved?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Recidivist

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 471
Join date : 2012-04-30
Age : 42
Location : Exile

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:26 am

Time travel forward in time is possible. But NOT backwards.

Your authority figures are liberal cranks making TV programs that offer the sheep a way out of their miserable existences by imagining a world of endless possibilities. A world which sadly for them does not exist.

When you have concrete eveidence of faster than light travel bring it back here. That doesn't include episodes of Star Trek.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:35 am

I said if. Again not the point.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
There Will Be Blood

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 852
Join date : 2013-09-08
Location : Taiwan

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:41 am

Just wondering have you taken college courses in Physics, Mathematics, or Economics ?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Anfang

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 2074
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 34
Location : CET

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu Apr 24, 2014 10:19 am

Recidivist wrote:
To go faster than the speed of light would require infinite energy. Not possible.

For any object to travel at the speed of light requires infinite energy. Just as fast as speed of light.
Luckily photons have no mass, otherwise it would take infinite energy to accelerate light coming from a light bulb to send it on its way.

But light has a kinetic energy and an impulse (experimentally shown) which would usually require a mass. But apparently it has none, Why? Because it wouldn't work with the theory.

Then again, light supposedly bends towards planets in their gravitational field, but no mass, according to another part of that theory.

Light doesn't always travel at the speed of light, actually, it never does. Light would travel at the speed of light in a perfect vacuum. Yet, there is no perfect vacuum, not even out there in space. In all other denser mediums it travels slower.
If that is so then there would pass some time for the light 'particle' or 'wave' when it travels from one end of the galaxy to the other, from the perspective of the light.
The theory is that the light interacts with the molecules and atoms and particles along its path and this slows it down. Energy gets absorbed and emitted again. Light is always in interaction with space, there is no 'empty' space in my view. No perfectly sharp limits for atoms as well. Quantum theory is talking about probabilities. Interactions between particles have sometimes a sharply defined potential but perfectly sharp it is not. The particle is a simplification and an abstraction, often accurate enough to describe a phenomenon, but sometimes not.

Modern physics, and its theories have started to overlap in areas of explanation. Light is a particle, oh no, light is a wave,... fluid dynamics, electric field dynamics and so on. Those areas of reality with overlapping theories, which try to describe it, produce at times contradictory predictions - even more so, now, theory comes first observation comes later. Which means that the interpretation of the observed is already biased depending on who and which kind of theory tries to incorporate the observed phenomenon.

I don't believe in THE theory to describe it, the whole universe. There are more plausible and more accurate theories than others obviously but no perfection. No mathematical model to end all searching and explain it all, far from it. And the more gets revealed the more fuzzy the edges become. Ultimately lost in fluidity.
The opposite of focus actually. So modern physics is also walking towards the path of chaos in the area of thought.

Speed of light...
If they want to keep that an ultimate constant then we'll have to dilate the space and time. Well, they actually do that. And voila, speed (which was length of path divided by time) can stay still, while space and time gets variable.

Hmmm... Why not, if there are three connected things and two are variable then the third one is just an absolute on paper via definition.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Thu May 12, 2016 8:36 pm

A nice graphic presentation of Einstein's Relativity theory.
Watching this, you understand the a-po(ca)lytical messianic implications.


_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Lyssa
Har Har Harr
avatar

Gender : Female Posts : 9035
Join date : 2012-03-01
Location : The Cockpit

PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics Fri May 13, 2016 4:02 am

Einstein and Spinoza.

Quote :
"I believe we can guess at the first time Einstein read Baruch Spinoza's Ethics (Ethica Ordinae Geometrico Demonstrata), a system constructed on the Euclidean model of deductions from propositions. Soon after getting his first real job at the patent office, Einstein joined with two friends to form a discussion circle, meeting once or twice a week in what they called, with gallows humor, the Akademie Olympia. We know the list of books they read and discussed. High among them, reportedly at Einstein's suggestion, was Spinoza's Ethics, which he read afterwards several times more. Even when his sister Maja joined him in Princeton in later life and was confined to bed by an illness, he thought that reading a good book to her would help, and chose Spinoza's Ethics for that purpose.

By that time Spinoza's work and life had long been important to Einstein. He had written an introduction to a biography of Spinoza (by his son-in-law, Rudolf Kayser, 1946); he had contributed to the Spinoza Dictionary (1951); he had referred to Spinoza in many of his letters; and he even had composed a poem in Spinoza's honor. He admired Spinoza for his independence of mind, his deterministic philosophical outlook, his skepticism about organized religion and orthodoxy – which had resulted in his excommunication from his synagogue in 1656 – and even for his ascetic preference, which compelled him to remain in poverty and solitude to live in a sort of spiritual ecstasy, instead of accepting a professorship at the University of Heidelberg. Originally neglected, Spinoza's Ethics, published only posthumously, profoundly influenced other thinkers, such as Friedrich Schlegel, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Goethe (who called him "our common saint"), Albert Schweitzer, and Romain Rolland (who, on reading Ethics, confessed, "I deciphered not what he said, but what he meant to say"). For Spinoza, God and nature were one (deus sive natura). True religion was based not on dogma but on a feeling for the rationality and the unity underlying all finite and temporal things, on a feeling of wonder and awe that generates the idea of God, but a God which lacks any anthropomorphic conception. As Spinoza wrote in Proposition 15 in Ethics, he opposed assigning to God "body and soul and being subject to passions." Hence, "God is incorporeal" – as had been said by others, from Maimonides on, to whom God was knowable indirectly through His creation, through nature. In other pages of Ethics, Einstein could read Spinoza's opposition to the idea of cosmic purpose, and that he favored the primacy of the law of cause and effect – an all-pervasive determinism that governs nature and life – rather than "playing at dice," in Einstein's famous remark. And as if he were merely paraphrasing Spinoza, Einstein wrote in 1929 that the perception in the universe of "profound reason and beauty constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man."

Much has been written about the response of Einstein's contemporaries to his Spinozistic cosmic religion. For example, the physicist Arnold Sommerfeld recorded in Schilpp's volume that he often felt "that Einstein stands in a particularly intimate relation to the God of Spinoza." But what finally most interests us here is to what degree Einstein, having reached his Third Paradise, in which his yearnings for science and religion are joined, may even have found in his own research in physics fruitful ideas emerging from that union. In fact there are at least some tantalizing parallels between passages in Spinoza's Ethics and Einstein's publications in cosmology – parallels that the physicist and philosopher Max Jammer, in his book Einstein and Religion (1999), considers as amounting to intimate connections. For example, in Part I of Ethics ("Concerning God"), Proposition 29 begins: "In nature there is nothing contingent, but all things are determined from the necessity of the divine nature to exist and act in a certain manner." Here is at least a discernible overlap with Einstein's tenacious devotion to determinism and strict causality at the fundamental level, despite all the proofs from quantum mechanics of the reign of probabilism, at least in the subatomic realm.

There are other such parallels throughout. But what is considered by some as the most telling relationship between Spinoza's Propositions and Einstein's physics comes from passages such as Corollary 2 of Proposition 20: "It follows that God is immutable or, which is the same thing, all His attributes are immutable." In a letter of September 3, 1915, to Else (his cousin and later his wife), Einstein, having read Spinoza's Ethics again, wrote, "I think the Ethics will have a permanent effect on me."

Two years later, when he expanded his general relativity to include "cosmological considerations," Einstein found to his dismay that his system of equations did "not allow the hypothesis of a spatially closed-ness of the world [raeumliche Geschlossenheit]." How did Einstein cure this flaw? By something he had done very rarely: making an ad hoc addition, purely for convenience: "We can add, on the left side of the field equation a – for the time being – unknown universal constant, - lambda['lambda']." In fact, it seems that not much harm is done thereby. It does not change the covariance; it still corresponds with the observation of motions in the solar system ("as long as lambdais small"), and so forth. Moreover, the proposed new universal constant lambdaalso determines the average density of the universe with which it can remain in equilibrium, and provides the radius and volume of a presumed spherical universe.

Altogether a beautiful, immutable universe – one an immutable God could be identified with. But in 1922, Alexander Friedmann showed that the equations of general relativity did allow expansion or contraction. And in 1929 Edwin Hubble found by astronomical observations the fact that the universe does expand. Thus Einstein – at least according to the physicist George Gamow – remarked that "inserting lambdawas the biggest blunder of my life."

Max Jammer and the physicist John Wheeler, both of whom knew Einstein, traced his unusual ad hoc insertion of lambda, nailing down that "spatially closed-ness of the world," to a relationship between Einstein's thoughts and Spinoza's Propositions. They also pointed to another possible reason for it: In Spinoza's writings, one finds the concept that God would not have made an empty world. But in an expanding universe, in the infinity of time, the density of matter would be diluted to zero in the limit. Space itself would disappear, since, as Einstein put it in 1952, "On the basis of the general theory of relativity . . . space as opposed to 'what fills space' . . . had no separate existence."

Even if all of these suggestive indications of an intellectual, emotional, and perhaps even spiritual resonance between Einstein's and Spinoza's writings were left entirely aside, there still remains Einstein's attachment to his "cosmic religion." That was the end point of his own troublesome pilgrimage in religiosity – from his early vision of his First Paradise, through his disillusionments, to his dedication to find fundamental unity within natural science, and at last to his recognition of science as the devotion, in his words, of "a deeply religious unbeliever" – his final embrace of seeming incommensurables in his Third Paradise."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

_________________
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν." [Heraclitus]

"All that exists is just and unjust and equally justified in both." [Aeschylus, Prometheus]

"The history of everyday is constituted by our habits. ... How have you lived today?" [N.]

*Become clean, my friends.*
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://ow.ly/RLQvm
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics

Back to top Go down
 
Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Debunking the myth of General Relativity and cult of Mathematical physics
» Advertisement in a newspaper of general nationwide circulation
» Rev. Sun Myung Moon is dying - current big cult story unfolding
» Iraq to buy general cargo ships
» Parliament to vote on General Amnesty, Infrastructure law draft next Monday Read more: http://www.iraqinews.com/baghdad-politics/parliament-to-vote-on-general-amnesty-infrastructure-law-draft-next-monday/#ixzz29DQfNh9Q Follow us: @IraqiNews_com on Twitt

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: