A Perspective on Science 0

DrRocket · May 3, 2008

A Perspective on Science 0 In the short time that I have participated in this form I have noticed that the denizens, in my opinion, are largely divided into 3 categories:1) Several pretty solid scientific and technical types (from whose knowledge I have profited)2) Many young eager minds with a desire to learn 3) A few from the lunatic fringe.  These people ought to have to pay for air.Folks in category 2 may have a hard time distinguishing those in category 3 when big words and elaborate constructions are used to disguise poor science.  While an open-minded approach and free debate are necessary for science to progress, a good scientist needs to be able to recognize a crackpot, discount his rants, and apply his attention to more promising ideas.  He also needs to distinguish when even a good scientist is reflecting his own biases and objectives and is acting as an advocate rather than a purely objective scientist.If category 2 people come to recognize nothing else, I hope that they learn that science usually advances in small steps, not major revolutions, and that big ideas are not initially announced on informal bulletin boards.  If a strong position taken on an open bulletin board seems wacky, it probably is.For what it is worth I intend to make a few posts, I think about 5, in an attempt to describe, based on my experience, what science is, how it is developed, some notions that might help to distinguish good science from junk science, and the proper roles for objective science and advocacy.  My hope is that this will be of interest to and generate comments from category 1, but more importantly be a help to those in category 2 in their quest to understand science and perhaps participate in the scientific and engineering community.  I doubt those in category 3 will gain much benefit, but I anticipate they will incur no harm not of their own making.I envision the posts to be elaborations of the following: I. Science and mathematics II.  Science, engineering and complexityIII.  Development of science and the role of rigor IV.  More on complexity V.   Science and social responsibility I have in fact formulated the contents for each of these topics and am posting them simultaneously because there is some overlap in the topics and because someone wishing to comment may wish to see the totality so as to support or criticize the whole beast – whether for errors of commission or omission.  Unfortunately these posts are bit long, but that seems to be unavoidable.I am putting them in the Physics Forum, since physics is, I believe, the best model for science as a whole and therefore receives the lion’s share of attention , because I think it most likely to benefit category 2 readers in that forum, and mostly because there didn’t seem to be any better place to put them.The posts will, quite obviously reflect my own biases and idiosyncrasies.  I am sure some from category 1 will disagree with some of my views, on good grounds.  Please make your own views known as that can only help with my ultimate goal of providing a benefit to category 2.  I expect to also, unavoidably, hear from category 3.  So be it.  I think that may also support my goal.  Those of you in category 2, please also feel free to comment and question, but most of all participate in the exercise of recognizing the category of the individual participants.  After all, the development of that discriminatory capability is the real point.In the interest of allowing the community to evaluate my idiosyncrasies and biases in some context, I offer up a small window on that which has formed my personal perspective.  I have had university education in both engineering and mathematics -- BS, MS in electrical engineering,  Ph.D. in mathematics.  I have taught some engineering and mathematics at 3 major universities. I have worked briefly at a technical level for a major oil refiner and a major electrical utility.  I have spent over 24 years in aerospace and defense working with the design, analysis and manufacture of explosives, incendiaries, munitions, solid rockets, associated electrical systems and nuclear hardness at both a technical and executive level, with close association with a very fine and talented group of engineers, physicists and chemists, plus the odd mathematician (and we can be pretty odd).  That work included dealing with large computer models involving many physical phenomena.  In that time I have had the need and the pleasure of learning quite a bit more physics than what I covered formally in university study.  The study of physics has proven not only professionally useful but a most engaging hobby.  I have had the privilege to know and to work with some extraordinarily smart people in academia, industry, government and the military and to learn a great deal from them, both in the realm of science and on broader issues.  I know that there is more that I do not know than that I do know -- much, much more.  I have had to evaluate scientific and engineering opinions and models, determine the confidence that could placed on them and make go/no-go decisions on which depended very expensive missions and business objectives.  I believe that my BS (not Bachelor of Science) meter is fully operational.And, oh yea, I retired, early, a couple of years ago so I have had the time to put this together. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

saul · May 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A Perspective on Science 0 In the short time that I have participated in this form I have noticed that the denizens, in my opinion, are largely divided into 3 categories: 1) Several pretty solid scientific and technical types (from whose knowledge I have profited)2) Many young eager minds with a desire to learn 3) A few from the lunatic fringe.  </DIV>  4) People like me who've done science and maths at some time in the past but maybe never used it in much detail beyond the exam room. And, who maybe never have the time (due to other commitments) to explore or develop their knowledge of physics and astronomy in the mental or practical way they'ed hoped to.I for one, am grateful to all who post here in a such a simple fashion and who go the extra mile at times to simplify things (even though it may sometimes feel like pulling your own teeth) <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />  Thank you fellow posters, there's always someone listening, even when they're not posting! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nimbus · May 3, 2008

n/t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · May 3, 2008

Wow, if even the barest bones of your qualifications are true, I feel sorely outclassed!  I've got a BS in physics, and almost no real experience using that degree (ugh!).  However I do have a knack for explaining physics to the layman (or woman...or cat), thus my attempts at the "lectures". Now, I'd personally have preferred you not to have chosen the simultaneous posting.  It's tantamount to spam, as you've blitzed the physics forum.  However they are quality posts (I'm scanning now for further comment) that do belong here, so no big deal.  I'd just space them out a bit next time (say a day or so).  It also keeps from overwhelming readers.You'll also catch your formatting glitches

Anyway, on to the topic!I generally agree with your three categories of posters, with one exception, mainly a fourth category.  There are a lot of people that are in #3, that are really just mistaken, and have yet applied (or learned) the critical thinking necessary to see through some of the wierdos out there.  There's also those who may be onto something, but take it to far IMHO...for instance Micheal Mozina is a wonderful example of someone with alternative views that have a core of truth, and who exhibits good etiquete when discussing them.  He knows he's not mainstream, and doesn't pose as it.So the true nutters who just won't give up, and insist on trying to waylay any serious discussion that doesn't include their ideas, those belong in #4. THe main reason I'm here, and I've always debated those in #3 (and especially #4) isn't usually to convert or convince those people. It's to provide the balance to their views for people in #2, those who don't know really anything yet, including what questions to ask, or how to look at problems.  If I don't speak up, the average person has no recourse but to follow those I believe to be wrong, sometimes dangerously so.But all people in your categories are welcome here, so long as they are "POLITE" and civil, and stay on topic. Anyway, I look forward to reading your other posts throughout the day!  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

derekmcd · May 3, 2008

Might I suggest putting all of these into one thread.  Submit your initial post to the thread, then "reserve" the next 5 by creating 5 new empty posts immediately after the first one.  Then, using the edit feature, you can submit the remaining text at your liesure.It might make a good sticky thread to remain at the top of the forum.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

DrRocket · May 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good post Doc, I'm going to fix the formating for you, Posted by nimbus</DIV>Thanks for the fix.  I'm not quite sure what happened.  What I thought I was posting looked like your reformatting.  I'm not sure how it got so compressed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Might I suggest putting all of these into one thread.  Submit your initial post to the thread, then "reserve" the next 5 by creating 5 new empty posts immediately after the first one.  Then, using the edit feature, you can submit the remaining text at your liesure.It might make a good sticky thread to remain at the top of the forum.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Probably a good idea, but unfortunately read by me too late. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wow, if even the barest bones of your qualifications are true, I feel sorely outclassed! Posted by Saiph</DIV>Don't.  You are squarely in category 1.  In any case, I included that stuff (it's accurate) in the hope that the category 2 guys won't put me in category 3 too quickly.  For you category 1 folks it is irrelevant, since all that really matters are ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...  There are a lot of people that are in #3, that are really just mistaken, and have yet applied (or learned) the critical thinking necessary to see through some of the wierdos out there.  There's also those who may be onto something, but take it to far IMHO...for instance Micheal Mozina is a wonderful example of someone with alternative views that have a core of truth, and who exhibits good etiquete when discussing them.  He knows he's not mainstream, and doesn't pose as it....  Posted by Saiph</DIV> I think one can probably refine the classification scheme and add more categories, but for the purpose at hand, I believe that 3 suffice.  I have left the application of the classification to the reader, as it is subjective.  Personally, I put people who are mistaken but rational and willing to learn in category 2 (young minds may occur in bodies of any age).  However, I have seen enough, in the thread on why"electricity is the only forbidden topic in astronomy" to have a rather different opinion of someone who insists that the sun is a glowing neon light with a solid metallic core, that pysicists don't understand "electricity" and that there is conspiritorial silence regarding a pet idea. The ability of a delusional individual, who possesses just enough command of the language to allude to valid advanced physics, to misdirect the category 2 people most likely to benefit from a forum such as this endows that individual with the power to inflict damage and a likelihood to do so.  That damage will probably not be incurred by those who debate him, but will more likely occur to the younger people who only make themselves known on occasion by posting simple but insightful questions indicating an interest in science and the potential to become fruitfully involved as they mature.Nuts rarely claim to be part of the mainstream.  They often have a delusion of having a clarity of vision denied to the mainstream and being in possession of revelations that will, when recognized, cause them to be lauded as geniuses.  Quite mad.  We can only hope that the madness does not infect the innocent, and do what we can to contain it.In an odd twist, I think that the politely crazy are more likely to cause damage than are the raging nuts.  It is more difficult for a newbie to recognize lunacy in a polite discussion, than it is to recognize invalidity in the rants of the violently insane. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

kyle_baron · May 7, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think one can probably refine the classification scheme and add more categories, but for the purpose at hand, I believe that 3 suffice.  I have left the application of the classification to the reader, as it is subjective.  Personally, I put people who are mistaken but rational and willing to learn in category 2 (young minds may occur in bodies of any age).  However, I have seen enough, in the thread on why"electricity is the only forbidden topic in astronomy" to have a rather different opinion of someone who insists that the sun is a glowing neon light with a solid metallic core, that pysicists don't understand "electricity" and that there is conspiritorial silence regarding a pet idea. The ability of a delusional individual, who possesses just enough command of the language to allude to valid advanced physics, to misdirect the category 2 people most likely to benefit from a forum such as this endows that individual with the power to inflict damage and a likelihood to do so.  That damage will probably not be incurred by those who debate him, but will more likely occur to the younger people who only make themselves known on occasion by posting simple but insightful questions indicating an interest in science and the potential to become fruitfully involved as they mature.Nuts rarely claim to be part of the mainstream.  They often have a delusion of having a clarity of vision denied to the mainstream and being in possession of revelations that will, when recognized, cause them to be lauded as geniuses.  Quite mad.  We can only hope that the madness does not infect the innocent, and do what we can to contain it.In an odd twist, I think that the politely crazy are more likely to cause damage than are the raging nuts.  It is more difficult for a newbie to recognize lunacy in a polite discussion, than it is to recognize invalidity in the rants of the violently insane. Posted by DrRocket</DIV> Wow Dr. Rocket, I think you could have a second profession as a psychiatrist.  Some of my favorite phrases:1.  Mistaken, but rational.2.  A delusional individual who possesses just enough language to allude to valid advanced physics.3.  Nuts rarely claim to be part of the mainstream.4.  Quite mad.5.  Politely crazy.  (my favorite)6.  The rants of the violently insane. Obviously, you're a highly intelligent, scientific individual, with related work experience.  And you're comfortable inside  your little box.  Well, La-De-Da, I suggest you open the lid, pop your head out, and have a look around.  Outside the box, is what a lot of us do here.  I guarantee, that the air is a lot fresher outside.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />  In other words, get off your high horse.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And you're comfortable inside  your little box.  Well, La-De-Da, I suggest you open the lid, pop your head out, and have a look around.  Outside the box, is what a lot of us do here.  I guarantee, that the air is a lot fresher outside.    In other words, get off your high horse.  Posted by kyle_baron</DIV> You just jealous of his horse.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" />Besides, people should learn what's going on inside the box first before they venture outside. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · May 8, 2008

Thanx, DrRocket. If I haven't said it before, you are a very welcome addition to SDC.I am mostly a self educated man, but am a self-taught, learn as I go type of person.I taught myself electronics and have a 25 year career in the industry, so I do what I need to.I enjoy the challenges of being asked tough questions here at SDC (especially by #2's), but find I often have to go back and reeducate myself on math which has lain dormant for too many years, so it takes lots of time and effort.For you, the knowledge is much deeper and closer to the surface...<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />I thank you for your series here, which I just did a full cover to cover read through; it will take some time to reread, ponder and draft useful replies. A prospect I look forward to.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

yevaud · May 8, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanx, DrRocket. If I haven't said it before, you are a very welcome addition to SDC. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> We've been reading your posts as you've gone along, and they are acutely good.  As everyone says, you are a more than welcome addition to SDC.  Particularly here in the Physics forum, where poor Saiph has been working himself to death.  Saiph: <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/995c5bba-3c4e-4364-8aa1-fae87729ecc5.Medium.gif" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

drwayne · May 9, 2008

Thinking about your groups from the opening post:One thing to keep in mind is the role experience has in how one reacts to material, and how we might classify ourselves and interact as a result.I am, by training and experience, a physicist with a background in solid state and chemical physics, with a fair amount of materials science thrown in*.  I am not a cosmologist, or a high energy guy, so I tend to be very circumspect n engaging in discussions in those sorts of areas.My criteria for engaging in discussions with someone positing something new and different tends to be whether I have enough knowlege in a topic to form gateway questions that give me a clue, past the big words, as to whether someone knows what they are talking about.An example of this would be if someone strike up a discussion about, say, fusion/fission.  I remember one person, who is not longer here, appeared and started offering strong opinions, including that certain elements would undergo fission.  When I asked him if he understood the binding energy per nucleon curve, and how it applied for understanding which elements would undergo fusion, and which would undergo fission, he had no clue what I was talking about.  (At least he admitted it he didn't know, another person tried to bluster that the curve meant nothing, and that if was just some stupid theory I was "fond of").  Bottom line, if someone is going to indicate that there is an issue with a theory, and your gateway question indicates that they do not even understand the basics of the theory, then their opinions go under the "relatively safe to ignore" category.Wayne*I also act as a software engineer, optical engineer and court jester as required to stay employed <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Saiph · May 9, 2008

I still wouldn't put those ideas in the "safe to ignore" category, especially on a board like this that draws the curious and scientifically inexperienced.But you're right, a large number of #3's are people who are willing to run with the alternative ideas without fully, or even partially, understanding how the mainstream gets their answers. I'll take EU and michealmozina for example.  No insult to him, but I don't know if he understands how spectra are gathered, and interpreted.  Specifically the Saha-boltzman equation that takes into consideration energy states and temperatures.Basically, by ignoring this, he ignores one of the biggest breakthroughs in astronomy...  and it allows him to take off with EU and Iron Sun.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

DrRocket · May 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thinking about your groups from the opening post:One thing to keep in mind is the role experience has in how one reacts to material, and how we might classify ourselves and interact as a result.I am, by training and experience, a physicist with a background in solid state and chemical physics, with a fair amount of materials science thrown in*.  I am not a cosmologist, or a high energy guy, so I tend to be very circumspect n engaging in discussions in those sorts of areas.My criteria for engaging in discussions with someone positing something new and different tends to be whether I have enough knowlege in a topic to form gateway questions that give me a clue, past the big words, as to whether someone knows what they are talking about.An example of this would be if someone strike up a discussion about, say, fusion/fission.  I remember one person, who is not longer here, appeared and started offering strong opinions, including that certain elements would undergo fission.  When I asked him if he understood the binding energy per nucleon curve, and how it applied for understanding which elements would undergo fusion, and which would undergo fission, he had no clue what I was talking about.  (At least he admitted it he didn't know, another person tried to bluster that the curve meant nothing, and that if was just some stupid theory I was "fond of").  Bottom line, if someone is going to indicate that there is an issue with a theory, and your gateway question indicates that they do not even understand the basics of the theory, then their opinions go under the "relatively safe to ignore" category.Wayne*I also act as a software engineer, optical engineer and court jester as required to stay employed Posted by drwayne</DIV>I could not possibly agree with you more on all counts. Of particular importance is your use of "gateway" questions to determine if someone is in touch wiith reality.  I have seen cases at a rather high and public professional level that could have benefited from  that approach -- cold fusion to be precise.  ln that case we had Pons and Fleishman claiming to have produced fusion at basically room temperature.  The evidence was based on calorimetric measurements and an apparent excess of energy coming out of their apparatus over what was going in.  But the better physicists noted that particles that must be emitted from hydrogen fusion were absent, and immediately questioned the results.  But media hysteria took over, and it was a long time before the real explanation came out -- poor technique in the calorimetry experiment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 9, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still wouldn't put those ideas in the "safe to ignore" category, especially on a board like this that draws the curious and scientifically inexperienced.But you're right, a large number of #3's are people who are willing to run with the alternative ideas without fully, or even partially, understanding how the mainstream gets their answers. I'll take EU and michealmozina for example.  No insult to him, but I don't know if he understands how spectra are gathered, and interpreted.  Specifically the Saha-boltzman equation that takes into consideration energy states and temperatures.Basically, by ignoring this, he ignores one of the biggest breakthroughs in astronomy...  and it allows him to take off with EU and Iron Sun.  Posted by Saiph</DIV>I think Wayne meant that they are safe for him to ignore in forming his own perspectives.  I agree with him on that point.I think you meant prehaps not safe to ignore from the perspective of preserving the benefit of a forum such as this for people with relatively little background or experience but who are honestly trying to learn some science.  I agree with you on that point, and that is why I put up the 5 posts.With regard to your example, I think we both know the level of lack of understanding of fundamental physics that is involved.  That level is actually negative.  Negative because the knowledge of what is actually known seems to be pretty close to zero.  And the level of things that are known that are in fact false is pretty high."It's not what we don't know that hurts. It's what we know that just ain't true" -- Mark TwainYou might want to take a look at some of the later posts in the series for thoughts on how to approach subjects that are not coming from the "lunatic fringe" but that also deserve critical thinking.  In those cases not outright dismissal but at least some deeper thought on what conclusions can be safey reached from the data and analysis that are available. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · May 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A Perspective on Science 0 In the short time that I have participated in this form I have noticed that the denizens, in my opinion, are largely divided into 3 categories: Posted by DrRocket</DIV>There are basically 2 groups of people who deal with science.1) Those who understand that they don't understand2) Those who don't understand that they don't understand.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

drwayne · May 27, 2008

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

DrRocket · May 27, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Posted by drwayne</DIV>These guys sure do use a lot of words to say that some people are too dumb to know that they are stupid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

drwayne · May 28, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These guys sure do use a lot of words to say that some people are too dumb to know that they are stupid. Posted by DrRocket</DIV>Yep, that's basically the point.

Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

emperor_of_localgroup · May 28, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Posted by drwayne</DIV>Hahaha, I enjoyed the article. Let me clarify my comments about 2 groups in my last post.1) Those who understand that they don't understand [This group includes students (humble and necessary for them), and top scientists in the world, top 1% - 5%] 2) Those who don't understand that they don't understand. [Rest of us are in this group]I myself, like most members here, swing between this 2 groups depending on the topics.   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Earth is Boring </div>

drwayne · May 28, 2008

Viewed another way, there is a factor which is the ratio of what we think we know to what we actually know..  Within a given person's life, this factor can and does change.  It peaks about the same time that one's estimate of their parents intelligence reaches a minimum (the estimate at that point being somewhere between a rock not that smart), and oscillates after that.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · May 28, 2008

The linked article is one of my "hint" links, another being (used mostly in my role as a moderator in a C++ IDE board):http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.htmlWayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

neuvik · May 29, 2008

Great work on the Prespectives DrRocket, they were a pleasure to read.    Its good to have the knowledgeable trying to help others.   My thanks to contributors!  Maybe some day I'll get past the 3.5 mark and make a 2! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I don't think I'm alone when I say, "I hope more planets fall under the ruthless domination of Earth!"SDC Boards: Power by PLuck - Ph**king Luck </div>

A Perspective on Science 0

DrRocket

Guest

saul

Guest

nimbus

Guest

Saiph

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

kyle_baron

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

yevaud

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

drwayne

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

drwayne

Guest

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

neuvik

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page