Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mister Earl said:
I'm coming in a little late on this one. Is he saying that the sun has a solid iron surface, or a mix of stuff that is mostly iron?
Click to expand...

Solid iron, I think, but I'm new as well.

Is the shape alone of this spherical shell of iron supposed to hold it up against gravitational collapse? I would think that the heat and pressure applied to a spherical, hollow iron shell would immediately rupture and dissolve it, causing the iron to sink into the core.
What mechanism do you propose that would both support a shell like this, and also prevent heat from causing it to lose its rigidity? How think would this shell have to be, and how does that measure up against the known mass of the sun?
Click to expand...

So far, he hasn't presented an answer to any of these questions. And, since he's failed to do so for five years, I wouldn't expect one any time soon.
 
sol invictus said:
You alienated him by completely ignoring nearly everything he posted, despite the considerable time and effort he put into those posts.

Fortunately other readers of this thread (including me) learned quite a lot from them, so the effort wasn't wasted.
Click to expand...

It wasn't wasted on me either. I told him a long time ago he was in the game. What was I supposed to do about everyone else? I still want to hear you *all* commit your public position on the outcome based on the cold hard numbers. It would be really nice if you offered us a "consensus opinion", but that might be a lot to ask for. This should be a "no brainer" based on GM's dessciption. Ben's comments make things really interesting from my perspective, particularly the notion of a consensus. I just *love* being on the outside of the political process. :) You are all of course welcome to ante up your own personal numbers rather than joining the consensus. Care to ante up sol? I'm tired of being on different sides and I want this to be over as quickly as possible. I have no other ulterior motives. Just the rough prediction will do, something that preferably give us the margin of error in determining the "correct" model.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, it is ironic that I am one of only two folks to put any numbers on the table, although i want to hear ben say that the outcome will be decided by the numbers.

It's absolutely amazing to me that I picked such a tiny little sliver of an impossible crackpot number yet everyone seems so squeamish about offering up their public position on the matter. Look folks, if I'm right, you'll come around sooner or later. If I'm wrong, you have a perfect way to falsify my model. What's the hold up? Got numbers Zig on the outline of the disk?
Click to expand...

The problem, that you have YET to address in any fashion beyond your assertion, is that the numbers you are asking for are meaningless.

You want to apply these numbers to an RD image, which does not measure what you want the numbers to apply to.

You got your "numbers" from an erroneous interpretation of a heavily modified image, whose bearing to the actual data is in doubt.

The RD image, and any measurements based thereon, will neither prove nor disprove either theory, so the test you're insisting on is pointless and meaningless.

The fact that you can't realize ANY of this speaks wonders for your reasoning ability.

I'll go on record and say that you won't see anything below the surface of the photosphere, just as you have not seen anything below that surface so far.

If you want to prove your case (and something that is closer to resembling a valid test), you need to take ALL the SDO images that contain the frequency your interested in. We should be able to see your "green lines" in every image, at the same distance from the disc edge.

BTW, regarding the "surface features" you claim to see on the solar "crust"...have you checked the gravitational force acting on your iron shell? I'm not going to repeat what others have said about the shell collapsing..I'll give you whatever magical force inside keeps it spherical. My question is: How to ANY rigid surface features, espescially those made from iron and/or silicon, actually resist the gravity long enough to make any recognizeable three dimensional structure?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It would be really nice if you offered us a "consensus opinion", but that might be a lot to ask for.
Click to expand...


The consensus opinion is, based on your demonstrated lack of qualifications to understand solar physics at any level, that you don't have any idea what you're talking about. The consensus opinion is that you've failed in every conceivable way to support your crackpot claim.

How did this slip by you again?

GeeMack said:
Have you ever figured out how many pixels are involved in your error in counting? I've mentioned it for several days now, ever since you started crowing about how the success of your claim hinges on the location of that green strip in the SDO image, and you've ignored it every time. Doesn't it concern you in the least that you're counting wrong?

Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
I predict it won't matter what software was used to create the image. ....
Click to expand...
I predict that you will never understand that these first light, public relations images constructed from non-calibrated data were created by artists to look pretty. But then your obsession with pretty pictures is well documented.
It is probable that an artist masked off part of an image during the construction of the composite image in order to make the coronal activity prettier.

I predict that you will never be able to answer:
Did you cherry pick the SDO image to support your fantasy*? - the answer is yes. MM saw a "green line" in one PR image and ignored (and it continuing to ignore :jaw-dropp !) its absence in another.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Mr. Spock...

Can I put you down for pi * the diameter of the base of the chromosphere on the circumference?
Click to expand...
No. Space is unusually curved in that vicinity, which is why I said "a little more than three times its diameter" instead of pi.

I'll stand by that estimate. If you are too busy to provide sol invictus with the numbers he needs to calculate the opacity for your conditions, and too busy to fill in ben_m's diagram for your interpretation of the geometry, then I'm too busy to calculate a more precise value for the chromosphere's ratio of circumference to diameter.
:vulcan:
 
Last edited:
Mister Earl said:
I'm coming in a little late on this one. Is he saying that the sun has a solid iron surface, or a mix of stuff that is mostly iron?
Click to expand...

Mostly iron, I think. He's not very clear about these details.

Is the shape alone of this spherical shell of iron supposed to hold it up against gravitational collapse?
Click to expand...

I believe he has suggested there's some internal pressure from plasma inside to help support it. Of course he can't and won't quantify that in any fashion, so we have no way of knowing how much pressure that's supposed to provide.

I would think that the heat and pressure applied to a spherical, hollow iron shell would immediately rupture and dissolve it, causing the iron to sink into the core.
Click to expand...

Your thinking is correct.

What mechanism do you propose that would both support a shell like this, and also prevent heat from causing it to lose its rigidity?
Click to expand...

This is the funniest part:
"Surface tension and electromagnetic influences"

How think would this shell have to be, and how does that measure up against the known mass of the sun?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Michael won't even try to put numbers to any of it. Which is why is current accusations ring so hollow (pun intended).
 
Michael Mozina said:
...Birkeland solar model . ....
Click to expand...
The defaming of Birkeland's good name continues.

Michael Mozina,

Birkeland was a more than competent scientist. He certainly knew about the laws of thermodynamics and would understand that a ~6000 K photosphere rules out an iron crust below the photosphere.
I suspect that he would be appalled at you attributing any part of your fantasy* to him. Especially since you cannot even read his book:
  1. Where is the solar model that predicts the SDO images in Birkeland's book? (really a follow on to questions dating from July 2009)
  2. Where is the the solar wind and the appropriate math in Birkeland's book?
  3. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified fission as the "original current source"
  4. Please cite where in his book Birkeland identified a discharge process between the Sun's surface and the heliosphere (about 10 billion kilometers from the Sun).
  5. Is Saturn the Sun?
* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Hellbound said:
The problem, that you have YET to address in any fashion beyond your assertion, is that the numbers you are asking for are meaningless.
Click to expand...

If my numbers are truly meaningless then the images themselves will demonstrate that point. IF however there is a 4800Km gap between the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere, then what?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Since you seem to disagree with my numbers and methods, put your own numbers on the table and ante up your public position. If you won't do that RC, you are not even in the game! Ante up.
Click to expand...
You are doing such a good job of debunking your fantasy* that there is no need for me to "ante up". It is like watching a monkey play poker :D!

ETA:
I do not really "disagree with your numbers and methods" except in the idiocy of thinking that there is depth information in the 2D image of the Sun (see ben m's post for a graphic illustration of how you are wrong).
I am sure that if you conted the pixels, got a figure of 78,000 km for the width of the green line at one point then the width of the green line at that point is 78,000 km.

Or maybe you are referring to some numbers about the standard model and confirming that you are a crank:


Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank?
  • Unable to understand the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
    Any defects with the standard model does not support your fantasy.
Or maybe this is yet another symptom? I think it is :eye-poppi !

* Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If my numbers are truly meaningless then the images themselves will demonstrate that point. IF however the is a 4800Km gap between the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere, then what?
Click to expand...


The question is, if there isn't...

Are you really going to admit that your crackpot conjecture has been shown to be false if that green line doesn't really separate the chromosphere from your alleged solid surface? I don't believe you will, and I don't think anyone else here believes it either.
 
FYI sol the only three numbers I am even remotely actually interested in are your numbers and Ben's numbers, and Spock's numbers preferably a "consensus" between the three of you. If you can't come with a consensus separate numbers will do, but it would be nice if we all have our margins of error, and it's first come first serve on the margins of error. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI sol the only three numbers I am even remotely actually interested in are your numbers and Ben's numbers, and Spock's numbers preferably a "consensus" between the three of you. If you can't come with a consensus separate numbers will do, but it would be nice if we all have our margins of error, and it's first come first serve on the margins of error. :)
Click to expand...
I defer to sol invictus and ben_m, who are the only physical scientists in that trio.

Before they can give you their numbers, you'll have to give sol invictus the numbers he needs to complete his calculation of the opacity, and you'll have to fill in ben_m's diagram. Focus!
:vulcan:
 
Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank

First asked 3 May 2010
Michael Mozina,

Are you aware that you are displaying the symptoms of a crank or crackpot?
  1. No actual scientific model so you have no way of making any quantitative predictions.
    The scientific theory has a model, makes predictions and these are found to be correct.
  2. Your fantasy* has not changed significantly in the 4 or more years that you have been touting it. All you have been doing is bolting on more stuff withough addressing the fundemental flaw - your iron crust cannot exist.
  3. Ignoring the lack of evidence for your fantasy*.
  4. No scientific analysis of any observational data about the Sun. All you do is take the images constructed from the data and imagine that you see things in them (the "I see bunnies in pretty pictures" anaysis!).
  5. A rather astounding lack of knowledge of physics, especially in relation to the Sun, e.g. you were ignorant of optical depth.
  6. A nasty dependence on argument by authority, incuding attributing your fantasy to Birkeland.
    It is almost as if the only physics books that you have ever read are by Birkeland and Alfven. Even then you get a lot wrong about Birkeland 's book.
  7. An inability to answer questions (over 60 now in my list!).
  8. Unable to understand the logical fallacy of false dichotomy.
    Any defects with the standard model does not support your fantasy.
  9. Displays of the repetative behaviour typical of cranks or crackpots.
    The biggest one is the continuous posting of images that just display your lack of understanding of them.
  10. (4 May 2010) Not realizing that they have to defend their fantasy* by actually dong some work. They usually try to get other people to do their work for them. They typically ignore the results and then expect other people not to notice this.
    Michael Mozina did this with his constant shifting of the goalposts for sol victus's optical depth calculation. And he is deluded enough to think that this behavior will encourage other people to do he work for him, e.g.
    Michael Mozina said:
    Since you seem to disagree with my numbers and methods, put your own numbers on the table and ante up your public position. If you won't do that RC, you are not even in the game! Ante up.
    Click to expand...
  11. (4 May 2010). A little truism that cranks ignore: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    An iron crust inside the Sun is extraordinary since it violates the laws of thermodynamics. A delusion that it can be seen in RD images is not even evidence.
*A fantasy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.[/quote]
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I defer to sol invictus and ben_m, who are the only physical scientists in that trio.

Before they can give you their numbers, you'll have to give sol invictus the numbers he needs to complete his calculation of the opacity, and you'll have to fill in ben_m's diagram. Focus!
:vulcan:
Click to expand...

I would be most appreciative of any input or insights you have to offer us during this process Mr. Spock. I appreciate your math and physics skills a great deal.
 
Last edited:
Hellbound said:
Even in the image he chose, he only looks at one small area. Shouldn't the green line be visible in multiple places around the rim?
Click to expand...
That is correct.
Michael Mozina's interpretation of the green line (parbably an artifcat introduced by an artist making the pretty PR picture) seems to be as a kind of limb darkening of the photosphere & chromosphere? & corona? above his iron crust fantasy. This has a few consequences:
  1. It should be seen in original images used to create the picture.
    The image has been deconstructed and the green line is not there. But if the deconstruction was wrong I am sure that MM's comphrehensive image processing skills can fix it :rolleyes:.
  2. It should be in every image constructed from the data.
    It is not in the first image that MM ignored.
  3. It should be present around the the entire limb.
    It is not.
  4. It should be consistently bright.
    It is not.
 
Ziggurat said:
I believe he has suggested there's some internal pressure from plasma inside to help support it. Of course he can't and won't quantify that in any fashion, so we have no way of knowing how much pressure that's supposed to provide.
Click to expand...
MM has not yet got to one of the craziest part of his fantasy - why there are layers to start with (hint: "mass separation" which imples that inside his iron crust there is a Co crust, inside that a Ni crust, etc.).
And of course yet another fatal flaw in his fantasy - no mechanism by which his iron crust can be created to start with!
 
Michael Mozina said:
If my numbers are truly meaningless then the images themselves will demonstrate that point. IF however there is a 4800Km gap between the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere, then what?
Click to expand...


The sun is a sphere. It is not a disc and does not incorporate any disk. The sun also has no edges. Therefore when you refer to the "edge of the disk" you can only be referring to a characteristic of an optical image of the sun, not of the sun itself.

The bottom of the chromosphere is a feature of the sun.

Since images of the sun are generally found on earth, and the earth is about 93,000,000 miles from the sun, there will always be a gap of about 93,000,000 miles between "the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere."

My conclusion then is that gap were found to be 4800 Km instead, we'd all burn up. (Unless for some reason we sent a rocket carrying photographs of the sun to the sun. In which case the rocket and the photographs would burn up.)

Do you see the problem here? You are inquiring about the distance between an optical artifact on an image, and a physical feature of the sun. It's like asking how far the horizon is from Mexico. The question makes no sense (other than in the way I just answered it).

Perhaps you meant to ask something more like, "What if a gap representing, on the scale of the image under examination, a distance of 4800 Km, between the edge of the sun's disk and [some other feature of the image whose position in the image can be ascertained by...]?" That's a question that could make sense. But you have not yet asked it, because you have not filled in the details of the necessary part inside the brackets.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Myriad said:
The sun is a sphere. It is not a disc and does not incorporate any disk.
Click to expand...

I can't win for loosing around here with terminology. First I started with sphere, then we agreed on disk. Now I'm being reamed again? :) Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :) The terminology around here is like quicksand. We have glow in the dark "photospheres" around here to worry about. :)
 
W.D.Clinger said:
I defer to sol invictus and ben_m, who are the only physical scientists in that trio.

Before they can give you their numbers, you'll have to give sol invictus the numbers he needs to complete his calculation of the opacity, and you'll have to fill in ben_m's diagram. Focus!
:vulcan:
Click to expand...

FYI I would *MUCH* rather that Ben use his own diagram to come up with numbers. The three of you are the only ones clever enough to even be in the hunt IMO. The three of you might give me a run for my money and I *really* want a fair comparison of solar models.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
I can't win for loosing around here with terminology. First I started with sphere, then we agreed on disk. Now I'm being reamed again? :) Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :) The terminology around here is like quicksand. We have glow in the dark "photospheres" around here to worry about. :)
Click to expand...

The sun is a sphere. The photosphere is a sphere (you can tell by the name). The image is a disk. Can you comprehend the difference? It's really not hard.
ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg
 
Ziggurat said:
The sun is a sphere. The photosphere is a sphere (you can tell by the name). The image is a disk. Can you comprehend the difference? It's really not hard.
[qimg]http://www.library.yale.edu/librarynews/ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Ya, and in my little allegory I used the term "disk" if you noticed. When we get along the limbs we get 3D information.
 
Ziggurat said:
The sun is a sphere. The photosphere is a sphere (you can tell by the name). The image is a disk. Can you comprehend the difference? It's really not hard.
[qimg]http://www.library.yale.edu/librarynews/ceci-n-est-pas-une-pipe.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Actually your "photosphere" turns out to be a glow in the dark green ring. :) I'm telling you, the terminology around here is killing me.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, and in my little allegory I used the term "disk" if you noticed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed it. You said, "IF however there is a 4800Km gap between the edge of the disk and the bottom of the chromosphere..." Clearly you are referring to the actual physical objects, not the image, in that sentence. In which case, "disk" is not appropriate, sphere is.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually your "photosphere" turns out to be a glow in the dark green ring. :) I'm telling you, the terminology around here is killing me.
Click to expand...

Because you are an illogical thinker, and cannot understand the logical criteria for the distinctions. I doubt you understand the reason I posted that picture, either.
 
Michael Mozina said:
I can't win for loosing around here with terminology. First I started with sphere, then we agreed on disk. Now I'm being reamed again? :) Damned if I do, damned if I don't. :) The terminology around here is like quicksand. We have glow in the dark "photospheres" around here to worry about. :)
Click to expand...


If you're talking about an image of the sun, "disk" is a perfectly good term to use, while "sphere" is completely wrong.

The sun is not a disk; 2D images of the sun are not spheres.

If you "can't win for losing" on that point, it's because you continue to confuse characteristics of images of the sun with characteristics of the sun. For example, the sun is always hot, while images of the sun are usually not. I trust that you understand that distinction. Similarly, images of the sun can have patterns that look a heck of a lot like Ethel Merman, but the sun itself does not have Ethel Merman on it. I'm not sure whether you understand that distinction or not, which is why I asked about it earlier. Similarly, images of the sun show a disk, but the edge of the disk is not the edge of the sun. I'm pretty sure you do not understand that distinction, though I'm baffled as to why not. (Believe it or not, the surface of the sun continues on past where the edge of the disk appears in pictures, and even goes around to the far side!)

Anyhow, your problem with this is why your question about the distance between the edge of the disk (a characteristic of pictures of the sun) and the bottom of the chromosphere (a layer that exists on the sun itself) makes no sense. Again, it's like asking how far the horizon is from Mexico. The problem isn't just terminology, it's the thinking behind the terminology, which fails -- doesn't even seem to try, actually -- to make any distinction between characteristics of images and characteristics of the thing that's been imaged.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI I would *MUCH* rather that Ben use his own diagram to come up with numbers. The three of you are the only ones clever enough to even be in the hunt IMO. The three of you might give me a run for my money and I *really* want a fair comparison of solar models.
Click to expand...
FYI, Ben's diagram is nothing to do with coming up with numbers.
It is a demonstration of the 3D geometry that you are ignorant of and how it is impossible to extract depth information from a 2D image exclusively.
You can get depth information from a 2D image, e.g. by knowing wher ethe light sourses are. But the Sun is the light source in 2D images of the Sun so there are no shadows to help.

This thread is not about a comparison of solar models. It is about your iron crust fantasy*.

Scientific models stand on their own merits. The match to observations and predictions (successful or not) from one scientific model only affect that model. They are compared when it comes to choosing the most valid model. The current solar model has decades of observational support.
Your fantasy* is an epic failure
  • It is not a scientific model. It has no quantitative predictions.
  • It is a fantasy that has been completely debunked as shown below.
*A fantasy because it violates thermodynamics, e.g see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been debunked!
The fact that it fails many other observations (an iron crust at a temperature of > 9400 K :jaw-dropp ) and predicts absolutely nothing just makes it a joke. See the over 60 questions that Michael Mozina is incapable of answering.[/quote]
 
Reality Check said:
FYI, Ben's diagram is nothing to do with coming up with numbers.
Click to expand...

Of course it does RC and FYI you're definitely going to need to include that diagram in coming up with your numbers, or you won't even be in the hunt IMO. :) Ben is certainly on the right track, but I still need numbers and margins of error and I can't be the one doing that calculation.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Oh the irony. :) Wake up and smell the coffee. The only way you can "challenge me" at this point is with "numbers". You know, those thingies you play with all day? I'd suggest you join sol and/or Spock in some consensus, but frankly I think you'd do more harm than good, and I want a fair fight on the numbers. I'd just prefer you put up or shut up at this point and do it by yourself so you have nobody to blame but yourself.
Click to expand...


I have contacted the SDO science team at NASA and have received word back on the image that occupied pretty much all of Michael's attention for the past week. Since he first started crowing about his discovery, over a thousand posts have gone by. During that time Michael has been insulting, belligerent, ignorant of relevant questions, badgering, uncivil, and treated pretty much everyone in this discussion like crap.

Here's the word straight from NASA. When they map the color values, the behavior of the pixels outside the limb is treated differently than the portion of the image over the disk. A gradient filter is applied to the image so the off-disk area will be enhanced to bring out details. That filter causes a discontinuity at the apparent limb because of a slight inequality of the radius of the filter and the solar image.

sdoapodcolorcomp.jpg

The green line is there because of the processing. In this image, which I sent along with my communication in order to get a definitive reply, you see arrow "A" pointing to the edge of the filter applied in the image processing software. The arrow "B" is pointing to what amounts to the actual limb of the Sun. The apparent roughness of that "B" edge is due to the emissions picked up by the three filters used to make the composite, all of which are coming from above the photosphere.

A week of Michael's uncivil tantrums, bullying, whining, taunting, and complaining. Over a thousand posts exchanged. And the SDO science program at NASA says Michael is wrong.
 
Michael Mozina said:
So now that you've had all that professional help, are you ready to bet that pretty hair of yours yet?
Click to expand...

Can you at least agree that if GM's information from NASA is correct, then the green strip in the SDO image does not represent a 4800 km band of transparent neon?

I'm not asking you to say that your model is wrong, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that if GM is correct, then the SDO image does not provide definitive proof of that one claim.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course it does RC and FYI....
Click to expand...
Still wrong MM: There is no way to "extract numbers" from ben m's ASCII diagram relevant to the SDO image.
The diagram is a demonstration of the 3D geometry that you are ignorant of and how it is impossible to extract depth information from a 2D image exclusively.
You can get depth information from a 2D image, e.g. by knowing wher ethe light sourses are. But the Sun is the light source in 2D images of the Sun so there are no shadows to help.

And of course GeeMack has done the thing that you did not do - checked with the actual NASA SDO team - and your green line is a processing artifact.
I suspect that the NASA SDO team had a good laugh at the thought of someone trying to extract scientific information from a pretty picture created for PR purposes.
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
Can you at least agree that if GM's information from NASA is correct, then the green strip in the SDO image does not represent a 4800 km band of transparent neon?

I'm not asking you to say that your model is wrong, I'm just asking you to acknowledge that if GM is correct, then the SDO image does not provide definitive proof of that one claim.
Click to expand...

Oh, I already admit the one image is not definitive proof of either position at the moment. That was my whole point of predicting the outcome of the RD images at different iron ion wavelengths and predicting the color schemes, etc. We'll need more than one image to get a definitive answer. I just claimed Birkeland's solar model passed the first test and offered a 2nd more definitive test that might help us decide.
 
Great Job, GeeMack!
Isn't it amazing that anyone could think he could make new scientific discoveries by looking at pictures and not having any idea of the processing involved? When such "scientific discoveries" contradict mainstream science, it is even more astonishing that anyone would be so foolish!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom