Previous in Forum: Hmm...Deep, Deep, Deep Lies the Source of Earth's Water   Next in Forum: Summer Projects
Close
Close
Close
44 comments
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 201
Good Answers: 5

Big Bang

06/16/2014 11:36 PM

I have not thought too much about this idea but I would like your opinion of it. When the universe emerged from the big bang (which I call Event zero), it is possible that this occurred because of quantum fluctuations. E=mc2, so the energy involved with the event created matter. The creation of matter always involves the creation of particle pairs, matter and anti matter. Anti matter can be looked upon as matter travelling backwards in time (Feynman). As soon as these matter and anti matter particles meet, they annihilate releasing energy. My proposition is that this is what happened at the very start and that annihilation occurred but only for the first Plank time. (That is 10-43Seconds). Annihilation stopped after this time, not because there was an imbalance of the particle pairs (as is thought) but because the anti matter and matter particles were separated not by distance but by time. The energy released in the first Plank time would supply the energy needed to drive the exponential expansion of this universe and the antimatter universe. It is possible that in the other universe time would have the same direction as in ours, that is both universes would obey the same laws of entropy. I am not a cosmologist and have not gone into this very deeply. I doubt that I could but I would like to know if there is anything that we know of that could immediately prove this impossible. Both universes could occupy the same space but at different times. Gravity might leak between the two and (by processes unknown) be the source of dark energy and dark matter. Anyway, it's a theory and one I would like to either disprove, for which I do not have the training or to have examined, for which I have not had the training. Your opinions would be greatly appreciated.

Register to Reply
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
2
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 42377
Good Answers: 1690
#1

Re: Big Bang

06/16/2014 11:54 PM

That you have not thought too much about this idea is evident.

1. Separate your thoughts into discreet paragraphs. Provide some basis for these random declarations. You have enough material here for 10 different threads.

2. Define terms you have invented, and those whose meanings you have redefined. "Gravity leakage" is a tantalizing term. You must have some reason for the use of this term, among others, what is it?

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11119
Good Answers: 918
#10
In reply to #1

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 10:48 AM

Gravity leakage is an old one from string theory. Closed end strings represent all baryonic matters and the three fundamental forces.

Open strings would be gravity.

While closed ended strings are bound to the brane that they exist on, open strings are free to interact with the bulk and other branes.

The explanation would account for why gravity is such a weak force, yet infinite in its reach as it is trans dimensional.

Register to Reply
Guru
Safety - Hazmat - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Engineering Fields - Chemical Engineering - Old Hand

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 14331
Good Answers: 162
#31
In reply to #1

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 10:59 AM

Gravity leakage - depends could solve that?

__________________
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just build a better one.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster #2
#43
In reply to #31

Re: Big Bang

06/25/2014 2:54 AM

The solution for gravity leakage is rubber underwear

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mossel Bay, SA
Posts: 777
Good Answers: 21
#44
In reply to #43

Re: Big Bang

06/25/2014 2:55 AM

Won't an adult diaper do ?

Register to Reply
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21024
Good Answers: 793
#2

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 12:33 AM

Plank and Planck are not the same. Discreet and discrete are not the same.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster #1
#3
In reply to #2

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 12:34 AM

And blue discrete differs even more.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 42377
Good Answers: 1690
#4
In reply to #2

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 12:44 AM

Same root word.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Deepest Darkest Rutherford Oz
Posts: 951
Good Answers: 145
#5

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 1:19 AM

The answer is always bacon,,,,

__________________
There are two reasons for a man to do a thing, One that sounds good, and the real one...
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Out of your mind! Not in sight!
Posts: 4424
Good Answers: 108
#6
In reply to #5

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 1:32 AM

42!

__________________
Common Sense Dictates
Register to Reply
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - New Member Fans of Old Computers - Commodore 64 - New Member Popular Science - Evolution - New Member United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Illinois, 7 county region (The 'blue dot' that drags the rest of the 'red state' around during presidential elections.)
Posts: 3688
Good Answers: 89
#35
In reply to #6

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:46 PM

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

__________________
( The opinions espressed in this post may not reflect the true opinions of the poster, and may not reflect commonly accepted versions of reality. ) (If you are wondering: yes, I DO hope to live to be as old as my jokes.)
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Optical Engineering - Member Engineering Fields - Engineering Physics - Member Engineering Fields - Systems Engineering - Member

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Trantor
Posts: 5363
Good Answers: 646
#7

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 8:00 AM

I seem to recall reading an article by Isaac Asimov that discussed the same notion - that an anti-matter universe like ours began traveling backwards in time from the moment of 'creation'. That article would have been written back in the 1950s or 1960, long before there was the Hubble Telescope or any other satellites that have provided solid data about the universe and the Big Bang.

__________________
Whiskey, women -- and astrophysics. Because sometimes a problem can't be solved with just whiskey and women.
Register to Reply
2
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11119
Good Answers: 918
#8

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 8:18 AM

I think Feynman's representation is really an abstraction rather than an actual construct.

Feynman diagrams are a useful tool to avoid all those infinite integral sums we get in particle physics. However, it is not telling us that antimatter moves backward in time.

That would make it rather difficult to create and store antimatter in the lab, which we have contained it for many minutes after its creation. If antimatter was retrocausal it would vanish upon creation.

As far as your associated theories of the universe goes, if you are relying on antimatter retrocausality to substantiate them, then I think you will have a problem getting traction with them in an any peer reviewed environment.

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 2)
Guru
Engineering Fields - Electrical Engineering - New Member Fans of Old Computers - Commodore 64 - New Member Popular Science - Evolution - New Member United States - Member - New Member

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Illinois, 7 county region (The 'blue dot' that drags the rest of the 'red state' around during presidential elections.)
Posts: 3688
Good Answers: 89
#36
In reply to #8

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 3:12 PM

"If antimatter was retrocausal it would vanish upon creation."

Or does antimater spontaneously coelesce out of radiation and exist for a (negative) time before we destroy it in a high-energy particle accelerator.

Merlin lived backwards through time, from our point of view he Knew Arthur's future, but understood the king less and less as time went on (from our POV again) and he had less and less 'memory' of this man who seemed to know him very well.

Each side thought the other odd, since they could 'remember tomorrow' not not yesterday.

Retrocausality only becomes a problem if it's supposed to link 'procausal' (assuming the retro- prefix is the same as in retrograde orbit) events, such as the light bulb that lights five minutes before a switch is thrown. Two objects (switch and light) both moving through forward time, but linked through a 'reverse time' connection. If you have seen the lamp off for the past seven minutes (To remove the possibility that the 'pre-event' happened right before observation started) then throwing the switch will do nothing. Either woul will be unable to throw the switch, or a wire will be broken, or the bulb burned out. Now if you see the bulb light up briefly, then sit in the room, observing the apparatus and insuring that nobody touches it, what will happen at the T+5 min mark, when the switch is supposed to me thrown, but you are actively refusing to throw it? Will the switch spontaneously short out and then blow a fuse, providing the closed circuit for the time the lamp was on, or will something bizarre happen for 'breaking causality.'

A particle that travels 'backwards' in time, which we interpret as moving forwards with a reversed polarity, doesn't seem all that 'reality-breaking' when looked at through even basic relativity. From our inertial reference frame we see it as moving backwards or having a reversed polarity, while from it's inertial frame of reference, it is moving forward and WE are the ones moving backward or having the 'wrong' polarity.

If we are in an expanding universe emenating from a Big Bang, why would the antimater universe see time moving the other direction, they live in a contracting universe headed for a Big Crunch.

__________________
( The opinions espressed in this post may not reflect the true opinions of the poster, and may not reflect commonly accepted versions of reality. ) (If you are wondering: yes, I DO hope to live to be as old as my jokes.)
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: About 4000 miles from the center of the earth (+/-100 mi)
Posts: 9725
Good Answers: 1118
#9

Re: Big Bang

06/17/2014 9:47 AM

I've thought the same thing about anti-matter travelling backwards in time from the big bang. (I too am not a cosmologist.) It would explain the predominance of matter over anti-matter. However, I don't think there would be gravitational interaction between our universe and the anti-matter universe travelling backward in time.

However, if there are hidden dimensions (perhaps "rolled up"), it seems plausible that gravity could leak from another parallel universe separated from our universe in one of these hidden dimensions. (I recall a Scientific American article that described the other 3 forces as being confined to the 4 dimensional universe but gravity acting through higher dimensions.)

Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Member

Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: liverpool england
Posts: 7
#11

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:08 AM

some really useful comments here.

In Search Of Intelligent Life, Somewhere; Anywhere.keep looking lyn

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
4
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 201
Good Answers: 5
#12

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:24 AM

Thank you all for your replies. Some have been very helpful.

In reply to Lyn (1). Thanks, I have never been a tidy thinker, a failing I know and have been working on. You make it obvious that I need to do much more in this area.

To Anonymous Hero (10, 8) I have just read Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene and the chapter on string theory explains this leakage of gravity. I just hope I understood it. Perhaps a rereading would help. Also in regard to the Feynman diagrams, I always thought they were a bit more than an abstraction. They are very successful at explaining complex actions so I assumed that they represented reality. More re-examination of what I thought I knew is obviously in order.

And now to Rixter's reply (9). Is this a case of great minds thinking alike, or is it more a case of a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing? I think one thing is for sure, if it did work that way it would explain why there is so much matter still around.

In reply to Usbport (7). Thank you for the reference. I do not recall reading that particular article but may have done years ago. It could be that I had read it and something triggered the memory. As an aside, I like your comment on whiskey and women.

For the record, I know I am whistling in the wind but I object to the term Big Bang. There was no bang, it wasn't big, and the name was originally used as a put down but stuck in the public eye. I think the term Event zero is much more self-explanatory and more user friendly. Whenever the media portrays the event, they do so by showing a huge explosion of light accompanied by sound. No wonder the general public are confused. I think it is time to alter this image and a new term would be a good start.

Thank you all for your replies; I do appreciate your time and help.

Register to Reply Good Answer (Score 4)
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21024
Good Answers: 793
#13
In reply to #12

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:35 AM

To some extent, the term "inflation" has replaced "big bang", but maybe not so much in the popular press.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11119
Good Answers: 918
#25
In reply to #12

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 8:09 AM

Looking at the historical timeline of the early universe would make an explosion seem like the slow swelling of a star becoming a red giant compared to the rate of expansion the universe encountered in the first tiny fraction of a second.

Given that the universe expanded from something the size of a pea to about 3/4 the present size in 10-32 seconds, the term BANG is very much underrated.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 201
Good Answers: 5
#28
In reply to #25

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 9:46 AM

I fully agree that the sudden expansion was awesome and needs a superlative to describe it. I think though that the word bang is misleading to the general lay public. It smacks too much of being an explosion such as is often seen in the Myth Busters series. Visually, one can imagine a balloon with a litre of air in it at a depth of 1000 metres below the sea surface. Releasing the balloon at this depth will cause it to shoot upwards, expanding to a litre when it reaches the surface. In some respects this will resemble the expansion of the universe, even to the extent that space is being created by the expansion. You wouldn't call this expansion a bang, though one could hardly remain unimpressed by the action. I am at a loss to come up with a reasonable alternative for the word bang however. Until some one does, I guess we will just have to live with it.

Register to Reply
Guru
Popular Science - Evolution - New Member Popular Science - Weaponology - New Member

Join Date: May 2006
Location: The 'Space Coast', USA
Posts: 11119
Good Answers: 918
#37
In reply to #28

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 8:07 PM

How about KABOOM?

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 201
Good Answers: 5
#40
In reply to #37

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 11:52 PM

Hmmm. Possibly. Or maybe ETPP, short form of Election Time Political Promise. I am sure every Aussie would understand the symbolism of that one. English is perhaps not the best language to use but who would understand any mathematical symbolism. The problem certainly presents er, problems.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mossel Bay, SA
Posts: 777
Good Answers: 21
#42
In reply to #37

Re: Big Bang

06/24/2014 2:36 AM

Nope. There was no Bang or Kaboom since those require the propagation of sound through space. How about The Big Push ?

Register to Reply
Guru
Safety - Hazmat - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Engineering Fields - Chemical Engineering - Old Hand

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 14331
Good Answers: 162
#32
In reply to #25

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 11:06 AM

I tend to believe that the face of the deep was null and void, until God spoke and said, "Let there be light". Light must have space to propagate in, and for the universe to expand far beyond the speed of light, space must somehow be propagated ahead of the light, almost instantaneously. Mind boggling stuff. I agree with comments that anti-matter (1) is detectable and containable, and (2) does not vanish backwards in time at the instant of formation.

I believe we still do not know that dark matter, or dark energy are, and will not know for quite some time.

__________________
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just build a better one.
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: About 4000 miles from the center of the earth (+/-100 mi)
Posts: 9725
Good Answers: 1118
#38
In reply to #12

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 9:32 PM

Interestingly, I just bought "Fabric of the Cosmos". I was looking for a better explanation of Special Relativity on the internet and ran across the following:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html

which was a excerpt from the book, and provided the best explanation of the why of Special Relativity.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Commentator

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 65
Good Answers: 3
#14

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:38 AM

the "Big Bang" theory does not exist...but I will not get religious on this subject...

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21024
Good Answers: 793
#15
In reply to #14

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:41 AM

Too late.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Associate

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme, England
Posts: 38
#16
In reply to #14

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 3:35 AM

It does exist; however, it is unscientific because, thus far, it is unproven - just as The Theory of Evolution so remains. The fact is that such theories shall remain as such until the proof to support them, is absolutely irrefutable.

Contrary to popular opinion, popularity is no scientific gauge of truth.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21024
Good Answers: 793
#17
In reply to #16

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 3:44 AM

That is offensively ignorant.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply
Associate

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Newcastle-under-Lyme, England
Posts: 38
#18
In reply to #17

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 4:12 AM

Tough mammary glandies!

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 7)
Guru
Technical Fields - Technical Writing - New Member Engineering Fields - Piping Design Engineering - New Member

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Richland, WA, USA
Posts: 21024
Good Answers: 793
#19
In reply to #18

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 4:23 AM

Not for me.

__________________
In vino veritas; in cervisia carmen; in aqua E. coli.
Register to Reply Score 2 for Off Topic
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mossel Bay, SA
Posts: 777
Good Answers: 21
#20
In reply to #14

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 4:41 AM

No need for it either...there is no inconsistency.

Register to Reply Score 1 for Off Topic
Power-User
United Kingdom - Member - Not quite retired Member

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Up an araucaria araucana tree, South London, United Kingdom
Posts: 132
Good Answers: 7
#21

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 4:55 AM

Threads like this often deteriorate, which is sad.

The play on the word "discrete/discreet" itself tempts me to counsel discretion (sorry!).

To the religious, one might conjecture that the infinite power, however we call Him, was (and perhaps is - I believe so) pure energy. That may turn out to be a proposition attractive to both religious and secular theorists. Is that what the Christian Bible means by "in the beginning was the Word"? Word = Idea = Abstract Energy.

Just a thought!

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Mossel Bay, SA
Posts: 777
Good Answers: 21
#22
In reply to #21

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 5:00 AM

Lead us not into temptation....

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 4)
Guru

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: About 4000 miles from the center of the earth (+/-100 mi)
Posts: 9725
Good Answers: 1118
#39
In reply to #22

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 9:42 PM

"Lead me not unto temptation, I can find it myself"

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Out of your mind! Not in sight!
Posts: 4424
Good Answers: 108
#23
In reply to #21

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 5:04 AM

Sure it detoriated right from here or was it from the beginning?

Maybe its a dead end which turns around in its own space time.

Need more beer to understand . . .

.

42

.

.

would be good...

.

can do in my own space time. 500 beer minutes ...

__________________
Common Sense Dictates
Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Guru
Hobbies - Musician - New Member Greece - Member - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greece / Athens
Posts: 722
Good Answers: 28
#24

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 7:32 AM

Hi prof peanut. Richard Feynman (see QED by R. Feynman) just said that the antimatter is equivalent to matter running backwards in time (equivalent in a physical-mathematical meaning). He never claimed that it's a real fact. Moreover, in the very begining of the creation of the Universe (i.e. at t≈0) there was only pure energy and no matter and antimatter existed. Also, if the "antimatter universe" is travelling backwards in time (as a whole) I can't find a way for a gravitational (or any other kind of) interaction with our "matter universe". (It's true, though, that probably the "dark energy" -which causes the accelerated expansion of our universe- is actually the "gravitational interaction" of our universe with another one which is located close to ours but in another spatial dimension.)

__________________
George
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 201
Good Answers: 5
#27
In reply to #24

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 9:26 AM

Thank you, I just read the equivalence as a fact. I must re-read some of the works on the subject and clarify a few misconceptions that have become obvious through reading the replies.

Register to Reply
Guru
Safety - Hazmat - New Member United States - US - Statue of Liberty - New Member Engineering Fields - Chemical Engineering - Old Hand

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 14331
Good Answers: 162
#34
In reply to #24

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 2:19 PM

How do you account for the observation the universe to have slowed in its acceleration in the last 100 million years?

__________________
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Just build a better one.
Register to Reply
Guru
Hobbies - Musician - New Member Greece - Member - New Member

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Greece / Athens
Posts: 722
Good Answers: 28
#41
In reply to #34

Re: Big Bang

06/19/2014 3:56 AM

Hi James. "How do you account for the observation the universe to have slowed in its acceleration in the last 100 million years?" Where did you find that? The Universe is increasing it's rate of expansion (acceleration) for the last 6 billion years. See -e.g.- the following link.

http://www.bigbangcentral.com/accel_page.html

__________________
George
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Guru

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sebastopol, California
Posts: 1145
Good Answers: 50
#26

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 8:56 AM

WWOOOW man! Ssssssssssssspt...cough cough! I'm gonna read this thread again....

__________________
Most people are mostly good most of the time.
Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 201
Good Answers: 5
#29
In reply to #26

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 9:51 AM

sorry, that should have read ... a few misconceptions that I have had and have now become obvious...

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 748
Good Answers: 64
#30

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 10:55 AM

It strikes me funny that as soon as someone applies observation and rational thinking to the theories of evolution and "Big Bang" or whatever label one wishes to put on it, that draws attention to their validity, that someone else then says, "it's too bad the thread has deteriorated".

Scrutiny should be equally applied to any thinking or idea, whether that be evolution, creation, i.e. Intelligent Design.

There are unexplainable events that have taken place in the past and are still happening which our finite minds and thinking don't comprehend. One thing we do know is that this Universe is magnificent, and we understand very little of it.

__________________
One of the greatest discoveries a man makes, one of his great surprises, is to find he can do what he was afraid he couldn't do. Ford, Henry
Register to Reply Score 1 for Good Answer
Power-User
United Kingdom - Member - Not quite retired Member

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Up an araucaria araucana tree, South London, United Kingdom
Posts: 132
Good Answers: 7
#33
In reply to #30

Re: Big Bang

06/18/2014 12:37 PM

The suggestion of deterioration referred to the shorter postings!

Register to Reply
Register to Reply 44 comments
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.

Comments rated to be Good Answers:

These comments received enough positive ratings to make them "good answers".

Comments rated to be "almost" Good Answers:

Check out these comments that don't yet have enough votes to be "official" good answers and, if you agree with them, rate them!
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

adreasler (2); Anonymous Hero (4); Anonymous Poster (2); Deefburger (1); facilitiesmgr (1); G.K. (2); Geoffrey36 (2); gissy (1); Hilton (4); IdeaSmith (2); J.A.C. (1); James Stewart (3); lyn (2); MalteseXXX (2); prof peanut (5); Rixter (3); Tobugrynbak (1); Tornado (5); Usbport (1)

Previous in Forum: Hmm...Deep, Deep, Deep Lies the Source of Earth's Water   Next in Forum: Summer Projects

Advertisement