## Relativity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Noax
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:
Tue Dec 26, 2017 11:20 pm
Also, with respect to your interpretation of Einstein's train thought experiment, I'm not sure how or why you are saying (if you are saying) that this differs from the standard interpretation?
OK, I can go over it in that light.
davidm wrote:When the train moves in such a way that the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are able to look at each other in the the eye, lightning flashes go off.
Nowhere in the experiment are words used that indicate simultaneity like this. "When one event occurs, such and such occurs elsewhere". Can't do that. Einstein just said there were two lightning strikes, the timing of the strikes left unspecified.
For the ground observer, the lightning strikes the front and back of the train simultaneously.
The ground observer detects both strikes at the same time, and later concludes their simultaneity by measuring the distance from the measurement to the marks left on the platform by the strikes. The train is not mentioned in what the ground observer measures since the observer doesn't really know where the train was at the time.
For the train observer, the lighting hits the front of the train first, and the back later.
Yes, as similarly measured by marks at each end of the train,
This means there is no universal quantification, only existential quantification in differing planes of simultaneity. The two observers have different presents.
The way I had it explained is that what was simultaneous in one frame is not in another. Event ordering is frame dependent. What you say here is pretty much the same thing, so OK.
The key point is that for the train observer, even though she does not know it, the future is set in stone. There will be a lightning flash at the rear of the train, sometime soon in her future. This is guaranteed by the fact that the rear train flash already occurred for the ground observer.
I think this goes too far. I understand what you're saying. The 4D view seems necessarily deterministic because of this effect (exemplified by the Andromeda paradox). The future is not set in stone because of this. The rear strike has occurred in the past for both observers by the time the ground observer detects it. Train observer is further away and not yet detected it, but it is still a past event, not a future one.
I see lightning, but it is not determinism, but simply slow sound speed that makes the thunder guaranteed in my future.
Conclusion: the future exists, along with the present and past.
I understand, and disagree with the example given. So we need to rid ourselves of the observation. One observer considered in two different frames, and one event at some distant happens, in the past of the observer in one frame and the future of the other. Essentially two events outside each other's light cones. Does the ambiguous ordering imply a deterministic outcome? It just seems to be 'news not yet known' to both events, but how is that distinct from determinism? Interesting to explore this. Perhaps 'the past/future' means what's in your past/future light cone, and thus this example is not one of a determined future. The other definition (of 'future' say) would be events occurring in the frame-dependent future of some third event which is simultaneous with the observer but in the past of the (eventually) observed event. Since it is frame dependent, we can't call that 'the future', but only 'my future' which might be 'your past' if 'you' are considering a different frame. I think the hard determinism we want here requires 'the future' and not merely 'my future'.

Not asserting correctness there. Just thinking out loud. Thoughts?

Noax
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

### Re: Relativity?

davidm wrote:Conclusion: the future exists, along with the present and past.
Let my try again, and simplify. I had to sit down a bit and see I had made it too complicated.

Under the 4D model, the model is eternalism, and thus already completely deterministic since there is not a division between that which has happened and not yet happened. So all the funny simultaneity games are unnecessary to show that.

Under the 3D model, two events are not ambiguously ordered. If one frame orders them differently, that frame is not the preferred one and it orders events incorrectly. Two events simultaneous in that frame are not in fact simultaneous, and thus there are no future events that exists. The frames that put you simultaneous with those future events are simply wrong about their designation of simultaneity.

So the 3D model is not necessarily deterministic, and perhaps a bias against determinism is why the 3D belief persists. I think ken is correct at least about that part. There is bias in the scientific community, at least concerning interpretational differences such as this one. This I suppose is acceptable since lacking an empirical difference, it isn't really science that is biased.

davidm
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

I'm going to email Petkov and see if he will get involved in this suddenly interesting discussion I've actually exchanged emails with him before, so stand by ...

davidm
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

I have some questions about your latest posts but since you brought up hard determinism I wanted to segue briefly into that.

Soft determinism is a species of determinism also known as compatiblism (free will is not just consistent with determinism, it actually requires it).

Hard determinism, roughly, is the thesis that compatibilism fails.

Libertarianism is the thesis that decisions are agent-causal or self-caused — entirely outside of determinism.

In my opinion, if the eternalist view of reality is true — also known as the block universe — nothing about this implies hard determinism or invalidates free will.

To say that the future is “set in stone” or “fixed” is not the same thing as saying that it is pre-determined or that our choices don’t matter. What it means is that I can’t change the future. But — note —I also can’t change the past or the present. If anyone thinks he or she can change even the present, try it and let me know what you find.

Having free will does not require changing the past, present or future, but merely making, in some small part by our own acts, the past, present and future be what they were, are, and will be. On this account, the block world is perfectly in accord with free will since what “fixes” the future, in the same way that the past and present are fixed, are in part free choices that we make (or more precisely that our past, present and future temporal parts make).

davidm
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Notice further that if the 3D picture of reality is correct and the future is open, I still can't change the future.

So with respect to free will, 4D block universe and 3D evolving-in-time universe are indistinguishable.

davidm
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote:
Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:13 am
Under the 3D model, two events are not ambiguously ordered. If one frame orders them differently, that frame is not the preferred one and it orders events incorrectly. Two events simultaneous in that frame are not in fact simultaneous, and thus there are no future events that exists. The frames that put you simultaneous with those future events are simply wrong about their designation of simultaneity.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying here seems to be perfectly aligned with Petkov's argument: That if 3D is true relativity is false and if relativity is true 3D is false. Have I misunderstood?

ken
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

Noax wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:20 am
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:52 am
A mob is not necessarily correct in their judgment, as all of humanity could equally be limited. Remember that once the majority believed the earth was flat, they were the authority. Do you really want me to start talking about religious dogma now? Galileo's, Copernicus's and others opposition of the past, that was considered the authority in their time. It would seem you haven't learned the lessons of history and mans selfishness very well.
The findings of all these people are still taught in schools. F=MA still works today, and doesn't even require an asterisk. Their work laid the foundations which have been refined ever since. Don't think anybody is claiming the refinements are done, but I am claiming that any future models will be relativistic. The Earth will never be flat again. Sun going around Earth is still a valid interpretation. It's just a rotating reference frame with all the mathematical overhead that comes with that system.
To Me, it appears that you have missed the point, again.
Noax wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:20 am
The premises claim that speed and gravity affect the rate at which events occur, and every test has produced results that support those hypotheses.
Without isolation from other variables. Like I said years ago, the experiment won't be even partially complete in my mind, unless conducted far from planet earth, like on the way to and on the surface of Mars.
Must disagree. The variables are all accounted for.
Are you absolutely positively 100% sure that ALL the variables have been accounted for?
Noax wrote:
Thu Dec 14, 2017 3:20 am
For the first time, they were able to compute planetary motion without fudge factors. Nothing would be learned halfway out to Mars which still is heavily in the significant gravitational fields of the Sun, galactic core, and finally the great attractor. GPS was not useful until they worked all the variables into the computations done in your personal device. Now they're as accurate as their ability to measure signal timings down to the 10-nanosecond level.
To Me, this has not much really to do with the point that was being conveyed.

ken
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 am
Copying and repeating what others have said and/or written more accurately is what sadly some people think is learning, and the more accuracy one person just repeats or copies what others before have already said and/or written, then it is perceived by some, very depressingly, that that person has learned more.
I don't know what sort of school you went to, but in all the ones I went to, we were shown and performed experiments so that we didn't have to take the teacher's word for it, we could see for ourselves.
The motto of The Royal Society (who all great British scientists get elected to: Isaac Newton. Michael Faraday. Charles Darwin. James Clark Maxwell. Stephen Hawking are some you might have heard of) is Nullius in verba-take no ones word for it.
But that 'not taking others words for some thing' is the very thing I do, and what I have been pointing out that you are actually doing when you keep saying that others have demonstrated ... such and such .... What I have been pointing out is that what you are exactly doing is just taking others words for it. You accept things, without actual first hand experience of them. Because some things are written down or said BY OTHERS, you blindly accept that as being true. This is obviously depended upon who is doing the talking. By repeating what others have said you are accepting AND taking another's word for it. It does NOT matter who says it. If it is said by ANOTHER, then, as the motto of that place is, and as I have been repeatedly suggesting, take no ones word for it. The better thing to do, I found, is to just remain completely OPEN. But NO one is going to accept that because NO follows nor believes Me.
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
One of the few philosophers of science that scientists actually listened to was Karl Popper.
Sounds like those scientists could be taking another's word for some thing?

And, by saying that those labelled as "scientists" ACTUALLY LISTENED to that person are you then suggesting that that person should be given more credibility, because "scientists" actually listened to that one?

Are so called "scientists" the best ones to listen to or use for making judgments upon?

Again this sounds like those ones that you follow and believe in, namely "scientists", the rest of us SHOULD listen to and follow also.

Are we going back to having to highlight how some people follow and believe in others, while other people follow and believe in other people?

What just happen to 'take no ones word for it'?

Seems like we are back to 'take no ones word for it' but if a "scientist" says it, then accept it and BELIEVE it, wholeheartedly.

Human beings are taught, again through, what is generally known as an "education" system, that when a "scientist" says some thing, then that word should be accepted and taken. For example, if a human being labeled "painter" writes "wet paint" on a piece of paper on some thing, then that is more than not NOT ACCEPTED as being the truth, and a first hand touch test is done to verify its validity, BUT, if a human being labeled "scientist" writes 'the wind speed on jupiter is 384 miles per hour', then that is more than not ACCEPTED as being the truth. And, when that message is relayed as news through television or through print and is expressed as "scientists say, the wind speed on jupiter is (whatever), then more than not, it is ACCEPTED as being the truth. When, and if, the validity of this gets questioned what is usually repeated back is "the empirical data", as though that is some how magical proof. THEN, if the so called "empirical data" is questioned, then what is usually repeated back is some thing like, "you are denying the evidence", which may NOT actually be happening at all. But, if people do NOT want to have a full and open discussion about some thing, then there is not much that I can do about that at all. The fact that the instruments used to make measurements could be faulty or giving wrong readings for a multitude of reasons, and/or the fact that the reasons WHY those measurements are being recorded never seem to be allowed to be questioned. What is usually proposed is that is the empirical data, and the reason for that data is what we say it is, and therefore if you are going to question this, then you are just denying the "evidence".
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
He came up with falsificationism, the idea that hypotheses and theories can never be proven true.
If, and when, every thing is found to be true in hypotheses and theories, then what are they then known by?

Is 'earth spherical', a theory? If not, then what is it?

Is 'earth revolving around the sun', a theory? If not, then what is it?

Is 'evolution' a theory', a theory? If not, then what is it?

If we can rule out absolutely every thing as being false, and so are left with only a spherical earth, that revolves around the sun, which has evolved this way, then are they proven, or are, true, or, do they forever more remain just theories?
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
They can, however, be proved wrong, so an important part of science is to test theories on the assumption that it will break; at which point, you can see were the cracks occurred and rebuild the theory to make it stronger, or start from scratch.
WHY assume that they will break? WHY NOT just remain completely OPEN?
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
You don't get a Noble Prize for proving something we already know.
What is it with human beings and 'prizes'?
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
I could go on, but one of the problems identified by Popper is that some theories are unfalsifiable.
Again, are you taking another's word for it?

If some theories are unfalsifiable, then what are they?

And, HOW is that a problem?

No matter how many times adherents are proved wrong, they will just reshape their theory to accommodate the evidence, or they will simply ignore it. And that, ken, is exactly what you do. Which is ironic, because you have persuaded yourself that it's the other way round:[/quote]

What exactly do you think I am ignoring?

Is that ONLY what I have persuaded myself, as you call it, or COULD THAT 'other way round' BE exactly what IS happening?

COULD it be the fact that you are being proved wrong?

COULD you, and others before you, be "finding and continuing to be finding evidence" that supports what it is that you already BELIEVE is true?
uwot wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:50 am
ken wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:43 am
Being as closed as you are, you unable to obtain My true and real view of things.
But then, we could see it a mile off. This was over a month ago:
uwot wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am
ken wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 2:07 pm
Time does NOT dilate, nor does length contract just because a human being observer is traveling. The "scientific" evidence for this, which you are probably looking for and seeking, will come soon enough.
You might as well get it over with. I suspect it will be chewed up and spat out by four or five of us in under two paragraphs. After which, you will sulk and accuse us of not being open-minded, or indoctrinated by some quasi-religious cabal of scientific conspirators.
But then, perhaps you are the exception. Whaddya got, ken?
If you are the exception, it's about time you showed it, rather than trot out the same old bollocks that cranks everywhere trade in.
WHAT makes you think I HAVE TO do any thing?

Also, are you really that stupid or ignorant enough NOT to be able to recognize that I am NOT yet able to communicate properly? I am the least educated one, 'educated' from your definition of 'educate', and I obviously NOT worthy of being listened to. If you could notice some things over a month ago, then WHY can you NOT notice every thing? Are you, ONCE AGAIN, only finding, and only looking for, the so called "evidence" of what you BELIEVE is already true?

You already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.

I have already tried to find some one who is able to look at ALL things, and NOT just some things. But no one here in this thread has been able to do that, yet? The people here ONLY want to see that what fits in with their already small and narrow view of things. People here do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths, that is because from what they propose, they already KNOW what the truth is. To some people an object traveling at a fraction below the speed of light takes roughly 70 days to travel a distance of over four light years, and THAT IS TRUE, they propose.

ken
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:53 am
Can absolute truth be known by some but doubted by others
Yes.

Standing on a spherical earth was known by some but doubted by others.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:53 am
What is absolute truth anyway and can you give an example of a statement that you know is absolute truth
An absolute truth is that even if every thing is accepting of and in agreement on some thing, which is the closest to knowing the Truth (or Universal Truth), then it is still better to NOT believe that as being true, because if you were doing that, then you are NOT open to being able to see, and thus find, the real and absolute Truth.

For now that is the best example of a statement that I know is absolute truth.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 11:53 am
How do you know that statement is absolute truth because it could only be what you think is absolute truth

But the whole point of knowing what is absolute truth is KNOWING that every thing could be in agreement. ONLY if, and when, every thing is in agreement, then THAT is what could possibly be an absolute truth. It is 'absolute' in the sense that if there is NO one disagreeing, then absolutely every thing is in agreement, which is what makes it the truth.

Because of ambiguity what did you mean when you wrote, "because IT COULD ONLY BE what you THINK is absolute truth"?

1. It could ONLY BE that way? Or,
2. It COULD only be that way?

Can you spot the ambiguity?

The very FACT that absolute every thing has to be in agreement MAKES what I said absolutely NOT, ONLY WHAT I THINK. BUT, you could also be absolutely true in the fact that, at the moment, ONLY I think that way, and others have NOT yet come to think that way.

The very fact that that statement I wrote is based on the premise of WHAT EVERY THING AGREES WITH means that that is NOT only what I think. For now, that statement could be well and truly NOT be a truth at all, let alone an absolute truth, but the very fact that that statement says ONLY what EVERY thing agrees with, is what IS an absolute truth MEANS that ONLY what every thing agrees with is the absolute truth. Therefore, if, and when, what IT IS that every thing could agree with, then, and ONLY THEN, that is the absolute truth.

By the way, another element to this, of which there is many, is, knowing what people could agree with may not be the same as what people do agree with. In other words what people CAN agree with is not necessarily what people WILL agree with. Some people, will, just for the sake of it, disagree.

ken
Posts: 2032
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

### Re: Relativity?

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:09 pm
We cannot know is an absolute knowing statement is an absolute statement too.
Yes it is, or, it could be seen that way.

Can you show how some things can not ever be known?

I would suggest that we ALL can agree that some things are not YET known. Do you disagree with this?

But, how do you KNOW "we cannot know" some things forever more?

I am puzzled about how any one person could KNOW that "we cannot know" some thing forever more. If you can show Me how this is possible, then great. I would love to see it, and know it.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Dec 15, 2017 12:09 pm
But I never said We cannot absolutely know but We cannot know so it is a provisional statement not an absolute one. For it to be absolute I would have to be omniscient and in possession of all future knowledge
Well what does We cannot know actually mean, to you?

If that is a provisional statement, then it helps others, especially Me, to understand what the actual provisos are, if, and when, you provide them. Otherwise, because of My very slow and simple persona, I can only read and see (understand) what is written. I do NOT know what you meant if you do NOT write it down. I can ONLY 'take a person's word for it, from what they have actually written down and/or said.

So, what does 'We cannot know' really mean?

To Me, it is an absolute statement because there is NO provisions. And, as I have continually said, if, and when, absolute statements are proposed, then I will either ask multiple clarifying questions and/or challenge those statements.

Maybe it is just what I see as being an absolute statement is NOT what you, and/or others, see as being an absolute statement. To Me, statements like, "We cannot know [some thing]" is about as absolute as one can get. If you did NOT mean 'We cannot know', then what did you mean?

surreptitious57
Posts: 1575
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
Can you show how some things can not ever be known

Knowledge can only be acquired in life as nothing can be known after death
because that is the specific point at which consciousness ceases to function

Well what does We cannot know actually mean to you

From a provisional perspective it means that what is unknown now could possibly be known at some future point in time
Only that which is forever unknowable such as knowledge that can only be known after death can be said to be absolute

Belinda
Posts: 1553
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

### Re: Relativity?

Ken wrote:
An absolute truth is that even if every thing is accepting of and in agreement on some thing, which is the closest to knowing the Truth (or Universal Truth), then it is still better to NOT believe that as being true, because if you were doing that, then you are NOT open to being able to see, and thus find, the real and absolute Truth.

For now that is the best example of a statement that I know is absolute truth.
An absolute truth is true even if nobody is thinking it or acting upon it. Absolute truth is unknowable.

The nearest we can approach absolute truth is mathematics or formal logic. However maths and formal logic are closed (deductive) systems. Inductive knowledge such as that the Earth going round the Sun is always probabilistic and inductive. Inductive explanations (including that gained from the most rigorous scientific experiments)always include the possibility of error (i.e. falsifiability).

uwot
Posts: 3250
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
...are you really that stupid or ignorant enough NOT to be able to recognize that I am NOT yet able to communicate properly?
I have noticed. It's not the communication that is an issue, it is that you are not able or willing to learn. You do not understand that there are different elements to a theory in physics. As a result, you keep mixing them up and making a fool of yourself. Here again are the different components:
1. The empirical data.
2. The mathematical analysis.
3. The metaphysical hypothesis.

A standard example is swans.
1. A bunch of scientists see a swan. It is white. They see another. It too is white. A third white swan is spotted and the scientists suspect there is a pattern. So:
2. They start counting white swans. A simple mathematical analysis shows that x swans are white; non-white swans=0. So:
3. The scientists hypothesise that all swans are white.

A standard explanation of which is:
1. The observations are just the observations. They are not 'true' beyond any doubt. As Descartes pointed out, we could be dreaming, hallucinating or being deceived by an evil daemon. Which is why large numbers of observations are needed, by different observers.
2. The mathematical analysis either is commensurate with the observations or it isn't.
3. The main objection is the 'problem of induction'. No amount of white swans will ever prove that all swans are white.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
I am the least educated one, 'educated' from your definition of 'educate', and I obviously NOT worthy of being listened to.
I don't personally like the term 'educated', because of the elitist connotations, but I have read, been taught and examined a lot and there's a bunch of letters I am entitled to put after my name. One thing an 'education' gives you is a sense of humility, because what you discover is that the ideas you have, which you are convinced could only occur to a genius, are old hat and have probably been soundly refuted; as Cicero said: "There is nothing so absurd that some philosopher has not already said it." The chances are that if we ever hear what your big idea is, one or other of us will be able to tell you who thought it first, and what the objections are.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
Are you, ONCE AGAIN, only finding, and only looking for, the so called "evidence" of what you BELIEVE is already true?
It's called confirmation bias. Not only am I not guilty of it now, there is nothing I have said in 65 pages that implies I ever have been. The irony is that by making such unfounded assertions, you are demonstrating your own confirmation bias.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
You already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.
QED.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
People here do NOT want to look for and find Universal Truths, that is because from what they propose, they already KNOW what the truth is.
No. They just know the difference between 1,2 and 3.
ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am
To some people an object traveling at a fraction below the speed of light takes roughly 70 days to travel a distance of over four light years, and THAT IS TRUE, they propose.
A day is simply the Earth spinning once on its axis. That period is divided up into hours, minutes and seconds; the last of which is defined as "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". To someone travelling 4 light years, "70 days" has no meaning, because they are not on a spinning planet. But if they happen to have a clock which had been synchronised with one on Earth when they left, they will discover on their return that there will have been fewer "periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom" recorded by their clock, than the one that remained on Earth. Physicists are confident of this because:
1. That is exactly what has been observed in clocks that are moving relative to the Earth.
2. The amount they do so is commensurate with the mathematical analysis.
3. Both the above are exactly what the hypothesis predicts.

davidm
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Relativity?

ken wrote:
Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:26 am

You already have your suspicions of what the actual facts and truths are, so you will naturally ONLY LOOK FOR that which will support your already held view of things.
Just more of your preposterous trolling, unless you have some kind of learning disability. It has been explained to you again and again that this is just what scientists DO NOT DO. They emphatically DO NOT look for that which will support their alleged "view of things"; they look for evidence that will FALSIFY what they believe to be true. How is it possible that after all this time you are unable to grasp this? Why do you think science is successful as opposed to the dogmatic assertions of some stupid holy book? How do you think that you, Ken, are able to use a computer to post your nonsense on a message board? Do you think it's because scientists blindly followed what other scientists said without checking for themselves? What is the matter with you?

thedoc
Posts: 6305
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

### Re: Relativity?

It is amusing that science deniers will use the products that science has provided to preach their message that science is wrong.

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests