| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 2:33 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ANd where do all of these carbon hydrogen molecules originate?
See, you can say organic chemistry deals with hydrocarbons and be correct, because hydrocarbons are produced by biological process. |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 2:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What do you think about his contention that the Bell Rocket Belt is not a rocket, and that voltage remains the same at all points in a series circuit? Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313713
Voltage at a selected point withen a series circuit does not equal measure voltage of that circuit. The total voltage in a series circuit is always equal to the power supply voltage without exception. Measuring voltage drop at a resistor is NOT measuring voltage of the series circuit or of the resistor itself, but of the voltage drop of the resistor. As you can see by now looking over the material you are acessing, nomatter how many resitors are in a series circuit or what there resistance is, voltage across them is always equal to the power supply voltage. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 2:47 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Asswipe. That's what I said ten pages ago. Only now are you starting to realize it.
Ten pages ago, you claimed it wasn't possible to string ten 12V lamps across a 120V power supply. Now, only now, you are grudgingly admitting that, yes indeed, as far as any one of those bulbs is concerned it is attached to a 12V power supply.
That's how basic electronics works. That's how series circuits work. No mysterious currents turning into heat inside resistors, no finangling about with a parallel element to a series element that is downstream of the power supply, or any of the other nonsense you've been spouting for all these pages. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 2:52 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Measuring voltage drop at a resistor is NOT measuring voltage of the series circuit or of the resistor itself, but of the voltage drop of the resistor. Quoting: IDW 313865
Meaningless. The voltage drop of a component is the potential across that component. That's what it means. Resistors don't generate electricity, but if they did, it would be exactly the same; voltage drop across a component is voltage across a component, regardless of the sign! If the component is a battery, you reverse the sign!
As you can see by now looking over the material you are acessing, Quoting: IDW 313865
I didn't look over shit. Unlike you, I studied electronics once, and I've been using it since.
nomatter how many resitors are in a series circuit or what there resistance is, voltage across them is always equal to the power supply voltage. Quoting: IDW 313865
Ah, good. I'm glad to see you are still obstinately wrong. It's more honest than you pretending you had the right answer all along but everyone else was too dense to understand the way you were putting it.
The TOTAL voltage is equal to the supply. The INDIVIDUAL voltages are not. |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 2:57 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Asswipe. That's what I said ten pages ago. Only now are you starting to realize it.
Ten pages ago, you claimed it wasn't possible to string ten 12V lamps across a 120V power supply.
{/quote]
NO, I didnt. Youre not that bright and you have no memory retention. I not only said it was possible, I explained why it was possible. By increasing resistance in a series circuit to ten times what the bulbs were designed for at twelve volts, wattage through each would be equal to as if one bulb was connected to 12 volts. The voltage through the circuit is still equal to 120 volts.
Now, only now, you are grudgingly admitting that, yes indeed, as far as any one of those bulbs is concerned it is attached to a 12V power supply.
{/quote]
WRONG Voltage drop at each bulb is not circuit voltage.Circuit voltage is constant at 120volts/ You are confused. It is WATTAGE that determines the power a resistor like a light bulb is consuming, and in the case of a light bulb whether it will burn out or not burn bright enough. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313713 |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 3:01 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ANd where do all of these carbon hydrogen molecules originate?
See, you can say organic chemistry deals with hydrocarbons and be correct, because hydrocarbons are produced by biological process. Quoting: IDW 313865
Most organic compound manufacture will derive some of its precursors from petroleum or similar because it is convenient and cheap, not because it is STRICTLY the only way it can be done. That STRICTLY bit is where you fall down.
For example, urea was the first organic compound to be sythesized from inorganic precursors, namely potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate. Both of those chemicals can themselves be manufactured without the input of any biologically-derived products at all. In fact, the discovery of this fact in the early 19th cetury was the death knell for vitalism, the notion that there was some quintessential property in organic compounds that meant that only living things could produce them. It would appear that you still believe that. |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 3:06 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Measuring voltage drop at a resistor is NOT measuring voltage of the series circuit or of the resistor itself, but of the voltage drop of the resistor. Quoting: IDW
Meaningless. The voltage drop of a component is the potential across that component. Quoting: NoUse
Like I told you many pages back! It IS NOT the "voltage of a series circuit" but the 'voltage drop' across a specific component. Thats how your 'voltage splitter' works. Never mind it is grossly inefficent.
I didn't look over shit. Unlike you, I studied electronics once, and I've been using it since. Quoting: NoUse
Then you wasted your daddys money.
Ah, good. I'm glad to see you are still obstinately wrong. It's more honest than you pretending you had the right answer all along but everyone else was too dense to understand the way you were putting it. Quoting: NoUse
NoUse, I dont have to pretend your dense, its self evident.
The TOTAL voltage is equal to the supply. The INDIVIDUAL voltages are not.
Like in with batteries in series, the sum of the voltage drop of all resistors in such a series circuit are ALWAYS equal to the power supply voltage. Voltage drop across a resistor in a series circuit DOES NOT mean voltage flowing THROUGH the total circuit.Youre a fucking dense sonofabitch. |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 3:09 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ANd where do all of these carbon hydrogen molecules originate?
See, you can say organic chemistry deals with hydrocarbons and be correct, because hydrocarbons are produced by biological process.
Most organic compound manufacture will derive some of its precursors from petroleum or similar because it is convenient and cheap, not because it is STRICTLY the only way it can be done. That STRICTLY bit is where you fall down.
For example, urea was the first organic compound to be sythesized from inorganic precursors, namely potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate. Both of those chemicals can themselves be manufactured without the input of any biologically-derived products at all. In fact, the discovery of this fact in the early 19th cetury was the death knell for vitalism, the notion that there was some quintessential property in organic compounds that meant that only living things could produce them. It would appear that you still believe that. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Synthisis of diamonds or rubies is possible, that doesnt make it geology. Calling something organic chemistry that involves artificial synthesis is oxymoronic. It may be possible to synthesise organic hydrocarbons, but is is artificial synthesis and not organic in origin. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 3:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Like in with batteries in series, the sum of the voltage drop of all resistors in such a series circuit are ALWAYS equal to the power supply voltage. Voltage drop across a resistor in a series circuit DOES NOT mean voltage flowing THROUGH the total circuit.Youre a fucking dense sonofabitch. Quoting: IDW 313865
No, you're an obstinate blowhard who always has to be right, even if you have to contradict yourself.
I've never said anything different, not from page one of this particular sideline. The total voltage drops equalize. The individual circuit elements (née "nodes") are not identical.
There is no such animal as voltage "flow," "through" a circuit element. There is only a potential across. Voltage is potential. Current is what "moves."
And you are still wrong on the lights. Close, in a ass-backwards way, to stumbling on it, but still wrong. Each 12V bulb has 12V across it. The current in each bulb is identical. The current in all parts of that circuit (a circuit of only series elements) is the same.
If current is the same in all places, and yet there is more than one resistive element, you must, by a simple application of Ohm's Law, discover that the voltage is different across each of these elements.
That's how you get so close. You know the current. You know how the resistance and the amperage interact. But you can't take that last step to see the resulting voltage. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/18/2007 3:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Lets get to the point of the thread, which isnt about water.
Nasa cannot send men to the moon.
Not now.
Not 40 years ago. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 3:23 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
And to take it one step further;
There is no lost efficiency. My ten individual bulbs in series are lit with exactly the same efficiency as they would be if wired in parallel across a 12V supply.
Again, there's no mysterious "burning off" of voltage. Voltage is potential.
Ye gads, I'd hate to see the fireworks if you attempted to understand Phantom Power! Or the zener diode, for that matter. I'm amazed you can understand a transformer. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 3:26 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ANd where do all of these carbon hydrogen molecules originate?
See, you can say organic chemistry deals with hydrocarbons and be correct, because hydrocarbons are produced by biological process.
Most organic compound manufacture will derive some of its precursors from petroleum or similar because it is convenient and cheap, not because it is STRICTLY the only way it can be done. That STRICTLY bit is where you fall down.
For example, urea was the first organic compound to be sythesized from inorganic precursors, namely potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate. Both of those chemicals can themselves be manufactured without the input of any biologically-derived products at all. In fact, the discovery of this fact in the early 19th cetury was the death knell for vitalism, the notion that there was some quintessential property in organic compounds that meant that only living things could produce them. It would appear that you still believe that.
Synthisis of diamonds or rubies is possible, that doesnt make it geology. Calling something organic chemistry that involves artificial synthesis is oxymoronic. It may be possible to synthesise organic hydrocarbons, but is is artificial synthesis and not organic in origin. Quoting: IDW 313865
IDW isn't wrong. The rest of the world is. Pretty soon chemists will get smart and switch to his definition, which makes so much more sense.
I have to ask; is there any question you won't slither out of by claiming that even though your answer doesn't agree with the textbook, your answer is so much better you have to be marked "correct" anyhow? No wonder you got that high score you keep talking about. You probably brow-beat the poor teacher until they gave you full points for wrong answers, just to get you to shut up. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 3:32 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Calling something organic chemistry that involves artificial synthesis is oxymoronic. It may be possible to synthesise organic hydrocarbons, but is is artificial synthesis and not organic in origin. Quoting: IDW 313865
Definitions of "organic chemistry":
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
the chemistry of compounds containing carbon (originally defined as the chemistry of substances produced by living organisms but now extended to substances synthesized artificially) Quoting: Princeton University
[link to chemed.chem.purdue.edu]
If the difference between organic and inorganic compounds isn't the presence of some mysterious vital force required for their synthesis, what is the basis for distinguishing between these classes of compounds? Most compounds extracted from living organisms contain carbon. It is therefore tempting to identify organic chemistry as the chemistry of carbon. But this definition would include compounds such as calcium carbonate (CaCO3), as well as the elemental forms of carbon diamond and graphite that are clearly inorganic. We will therefore define organic chemistry as the chemistry of compounds that contain both carbon and hydrogen. Quoting: Purdue University
[link to www.madsci.org]
What is organic chemistry?
I ask because I found out that compounds are being created synthetically in labs, with properties similar to organic compounds. If these compounds aren't necessarily organic, but in organic chemistry, how does that change the definition of organic chemistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are confusing two or three different definitions of "organic." One definition is in common use: "Using or produced with fertilizers of only animal or vegetable matter." Another is the one used by scientists until about 1850, from which the first is derived: "Of or derived from living organisms." But the one we use in chemistry is this: "Of or designating carbon compounds."
Actually, not all carbon-containing compounds are considered organic; for example, carbon dioxide and carbonate salts are both considered "inorganic carbon."
The compounds "being created synthetically in labs" not only have "properties similar to organic compounds;" they are organic compounds. In fact there is no difference whatsoever between the synthetic compound and the one extracted by brutally destroying or exploiting living organisms Quoting: Madsci Network
I'm guessing that any time now IDW will declare, as with his electron/photon 'theory', that he is right and everybody else is wrong. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 3:41 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Lets get to the point of the thread, which isnt about water.
Nasa cannot send men to the moon.
Not now.
Not 40 years ago. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
NASA did send people to the Moon.
They're going to do it again.
They did it 38 years ago.
There ya go. Do you have anything more specific to say? |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 3:51 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Calling something organic chemistry that involves artificial synthesis is oxymoronic. It may be possible to synthesise organic hydrocarbons, but is is artificial synthesis and not organic in origin.
Definitions of "organic chemistry":
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
the chemistry of compounds containing carbon (originally defined as the chemistry of substances produced by living organisms but now extended to substances synthesized artificially)
[ link to chemed.chem.purdue.edu]
If the difference between organic and inorganic compounds isn't the presence of some mysterious vital force required for their synthesis, what is the basis for distinguishing between these classes of compounds? Most compounds extracted from living organisms contain carbon. It is therefore tempting to identify organic chemistry as the chemistry of carbon. But this definition would include compounds such as calcium carbonate (CaCO3), as well as the elemental forms of carbon diamond and graphite that are clearly inorganic. We will therefore define organic chemistry as the chemistry of compounds that contain both carbon and hydrogen.
[ link to www.madsci.org]
What is organic chemistry?
I ask because I found out that compounds are being created synthetically in labs, with properties similar to organic compounds. If these compounds aren't necessarily organic, but in organic chemistry, how does that change the definition of organic chemistry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are confusing two or three different definitions of "organic." One definition is in common use: "Using or produced with fertilizers of only animal or vegetable matter." Another is the one used by scientists until about 1850, from which the first is derived: "Of or derived from living organisms." But the one we use in chemistry is this: "Of or designating carbon compounds."
Actually, not all carbon-containing compounds are considered organic; for example, carbon dioxide and carbonate salts are both considered "inorganic carbon."
The compounds "being created synthetically in labs" not only have "properties similar to organic compounds;" they are organic compounds. In fact there is no difference whatsoever between the synthetic compound and the one extracted by brutally destroying or exploiting living organisms
I'm guessing that any time now IDW will declare, as with his electron/photon 'theory', that he is right and everybody else is wrong.
Well, yeah, I think calling an artificially synthesised compound an organic compound is oxymoronic. It is a an artififically synthesised analog, but IT IS NOT organic in origin. Maybe the reason so few of you understand science is because you were never meant to. |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 3:54 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Let me remind you that throughout history 'science' has been the origin of some of the most rediculous ideas ever to be concocted withen the minds of men.
I know that organic chemistry deals with hydrcarbons, but I do not believe that definition alone is accurate given the title. WHile synthetic analogs are chemically identical to organic compounds, they are not.. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 4:00 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What did I say? If in danger of losing, change the rules.
So IDW can't give the textbook definition of organic chemistry? That just means the textbook is wrong, and all the chemists are wrong, and all the chemistry students are wrong... |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 4:04 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
I'm guessing that any time now IDW will declare, as with his electron/photon 'theory', that he is right and everybody else is wrong.
Well, yeah, I think calling an artificially synthesised compound an organic compound is oxymoronic. It is a an artififically synthesised analog, but IT IS NOT organic in origin. Maybe the reason so few of you understand science is because you were never meant to. Quoting: IDW 313865
Told ya.
IDW, I gave you quotes from Purdue and Princeton universities. I could come up with literally hundreds more. A molecule can be 'organic' in the chemical sense without being biological in origin.
Nobody else cares if you and you alone think this is wrong. This is the way chemists have been describing substances since before you were born. Get over it. |
| SpaceCadet
User ID: 16644
10/18/2007 4:05 AM
 | | Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 4:05 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Dammit! You are stong in the ways of the ninja today, nomuse. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 4:06 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Well, Barls.
Surely there must be something more interesting we can discuss.
I hate to let IDW wriggle out of it once again but I should be a realist. He might own up one in a blue moon, but he'll never apologize. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 4:10 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
He he.
Yeah, well, what do you expect SpaceCadet? Post a thread at GLP that has "Moon," "Apollo"....or "Einstein," or "Relativity" in the title, and you know sooner or later IDW will find it and sprawl all over it, turning it into another one of his "IDW versus the world" playgrounds.
Pity, that. But it isn't like that much interesting was going on without him. A few ideas here and there'd I'd love a chance to explore deeper. But mostly the old same ol', same ol'. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 4:18 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
At least we got IDW to move the goalposts from "your definition of organic is wrong" to "the definition itself is wrong". that's usually as tacit an admission of defeat as he is capable of.
I wish he wouldn't scare off all the other HBs, though. They may have even less of a grasp of the science that he does, but at least they tend to provide a bit of variety. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 305586
10/18/2007 4:20 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
damn you guys are such nerds......loook...of course we never went to the moon...it's not a moon |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 4:27 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
That's no moon...!
(Someone had to say it) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 4:32 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ANd where do all of these carbon hydrogen molecules originate?
See, you can say organic chemistry deals with hydrocarbons and be correct, because hydrocarbons are produced by biological process.
Most organic compound manufacture will derive some of its precursors from petroleum or similar because it is convenient and cheap, not because it is STRICTLY the only way it can be done. That STRICTLY bit is where you fall down.
For example, urea was the first organic compound to be sythesized from inorganic precursors, namely potassium cyanate and ammonium sulfate. Both of those chemicals can themselves be manufactured without the input of any biologically-derived products at all. In fact, the discovery of this fact in the early 19th cetury was the death knell for vitalism, the notion that there was some quintessential property in organic compounds that meant that only living things could produce them. It would appear that you still believe that.
Synthisis of diamonds or rubies is possible, that doesnt make it geology. Calling something organic chemistry that involves artificial synthesis is oxymoronic. It may be possible to synthesise organic hydrocarbons, but is is artificial synthesis and not organic in origin.
IDW isn't wrong. The rest of the world is. Pretty soon chemists will get smart and switch to his definition, which makes so much more sense.
I have to ask; is there any question you won't slither out of by claiming that even though your answer doesn't agree with the textbook, your answer is so much better you have to be marked "correct" anyhow? No wonder you got that high score you keep talking about. You probably brow-beat the poor teacher until they gave you full points for wrong answers, just to get you to shut up. Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313713
I dont place much faith in academia in general, and this is just one example why. Youve been dumbed down.It was intentional.
Saying you can artificially create or synthesize an organic compound is oxymoronic and illogical. You can create a synthesized compound that is chemically identical to an organic compound, but it is not organic, is it? |
| IDW
User ID: 313865
10/18/2007 4:36 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
At least we got IDW to move the goalposts from "your definition of organic is wrong" to "the definition itself is wrong". that's usually as tacit an admission of defeat as he is capable of.
I wish he wouldn't scare off all the other HBs, though. They may have even less of a grasp of the science that he does, but at least they tend to provide a bit of variety. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
The definition of organic is very clear. The majority of the people in this country are dumbed down intentionally. Think about it. WHy are you taught things that make no sense and forced to accept them as fact as you have. Think for yourself. You cannot call artififcal synthesis organic chemistry and be correct nommater how many people are doing it.
There hasnt been another debunker on either of these threads, either. You split me up on two threads thinking you could overtax my ability to respond.. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/18/2007 4:39 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
You forget there are compounds described by organic chemistry that never existed as biological products.
The term "organic chemistry" historically described compounds of biological origin, but it was later redefined as a useful container to hold carbon-hydrogen bonds, regardless of their origin.
About 95% of what organic chemistry deals with is either of biological origin or is similar to what was originally a biological extract. My guess is, though, with the new tools coming on line, that this proportion will change. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/18/2007 4:42 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
WOW! Iv got some good laughs from IDW previous posts.
I dont know about the rest of you, but to me that last debate was just beautiful. The way that IDW got his ass handed to him on biology 101. Not that Im surprised, it happens over and over on this thread...Then there was his economy deal,"just print the money and go to the moon", now that was just sad.
Cant wait to see what he comes up with next...
Mean wile, back on topic!!?
Many of these threads are populated by people who come forth with the foregone conclusion that the whole thing was a hoax, an untenable position, and they persist in arguing their case as fact without stopping to listen long enough to hear the truth.
They dont even want to learn.This is generally unfortunate and largely a waste of every ones time.
As long as they dont behave in the same manner as IDW and some of his friends I would welcome all hoax believers that want to debate the points. What I do hate to see are the "Its a hoax dumb ass, get over it" sort of posts which contribute absolutely nothing. |
| Barls Knarkley
User ID: 177477
10/18/2007 4:43 AM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nanotechnology! w00t!
The science communication degree I'll be starting next year will basically be a nanotech degree (lovely and multidisciplinary) with a few communications units stacked on top. |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
<---Barls
<---Hazzard
<---nomuse-hairgel(NIL)
<---IDW-with the hoax debunker groupies following him around
<---Me