Sorry your browser is not supported!

You are using an outdated browser that does not support modern web technologies, in order to use this site please update to a new browser.

Browsers supported include Chrome, FireFox, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer 10+ or Microsoft Edge.

Geek Culture / [LOCKED] Eureka finally a proof! (No proof provided in this thread, you all just misinterpreted the thread title)

Author
Message
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 12:32
This thread is just about the scientific method. No debates on science.

OK so last night I finally figured out a proof of my theory. It's easy to test, no setting up required. No expensive equipment. I went online, and you are expected to send manuscripts for peer review. So I will do that.

If anyone has any advice, or help post it in here. I don't actually know much about this part of science. I'm an artist, and don't know much about peer review.

I intend to write out a whole load of papers like Newton's Laws on Motion, and Light. I intend to finish the papers with a proof.

That's really all I wanted to say, because I didn't sleep much. I had this proof in my head all night, and needed somewhere to tell people that today is a good day.

mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 12:42


«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Kezzla
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 12:46
congratulations, I wish you success.

Sometimes I like to use words out of contents
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 12:52
Thanks! I wish I had somewhere to write these papers that was more in tune with science. If I was at Oxford I would be more inclined to keep working.

KickBack
14
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 28th Feb 2012
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 13:03
Here we go again does the proof this time still from from your own programmed simulator
Wolf
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Nov 2007
Location: Luxemburg
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 13:05
Its usually great to post threads like this after the test.

"This thread has been locked for the following reason: Too much EPIC" - Thraxas
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 13:23
posted in your WIP thread. my answer is: it will be 99.9999% by yourself because journals are so used to throwing out crackpot theories. Write a lot in a sensible and understandable format (ie not what you've been doing on these forums) and THEN get in contact with someone in a university who'll listen to you.

Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 13:46 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 13:51
Pretty much. If you want to be taken seriously you'll want to come off as being more credible. I think I mentioned it in the thread that was locked. I am sure if you state, "I have all the answers, your physics are wrong, I have the proof" it'll be hard for them to take it seriously, heck, it might go into the pile of crackpots because usually that's the kind of thing crackpots say.

Heck, maybe even think of it as a job interview and you have 0 years experience in the industry, but have have a few weeks of voluntary work experinece or do that sort of thing as a hobby, you can't sit there and tell them you're the best of the best and that you're simply awesome at this job and you'll bring a whole world of awesome to their business, because it tells them, you're just talking the talk because you can't walk the walk. In said interview, if you talk about what experience you have and talk about it in depth, then it'll be able to speak for itself. They can decide whether or not you've got enough experience or if you've got enough potential to develop further and therefore are suitable for the job. And sure you might have been great on those few weeks work experience, but it's merely a case of showing vs telling. I suppose to follow on from that analogy, it'd be me convincing an employer I'm a recruitment guru because those few weeks I did recruitment? I was really good at it.

Hopefully they do look at it (if they don't, persist with different groups of scientists - insist on feedback too (what would convince them to look at it?), in that respect treat it like you're trying to publish a novel), but as I said before, let the simulation speak for itself rather than you speak for it (basically avoid the discourse we had here as you know how that turned out).

Although I've never submitted something for peer review and don't know the actual process, but to my mind the above is obvious. I know coming off as a crackpot theorist is a turn off for most people and that presenting yourself in a credible way is better than over-presenting what you do have or even overcompensating. Just my thoughts and hope they'll help you with your peer review.

Congrats on getting the results you were looking for anyways. Good luck with the peer review.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 14:24
Quote: "Here we go again does the proof this time still from from your own programmed simulator "


No, the proof is a simple test of physics. It's easy to do. Once the test is done you have new energy to explore, and new research to make use of. It completes the theory of everything, and it's easy.

Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 14:27
I agree with Mr Handy.
Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 14:42 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 14:42
Quote: "No, the proof is a simple test of physics. It's easy to do. Once the test is done you have new energy to explore, and new research to make use of. It completes the theory of everything, and it's easy."

You'd better not tell anyone, lest they steal your theory

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 14:47
It's amazing. It answers every question that anyone ever wanted to ask about anything. I can't wait till everyone knows about it. I just have to get my Photoshop working it's broken at the moment. I need pictures.

Kezzla
17
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 21st Aug 2008
Location: Where beer does flow and men chunder
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:02
answer this question, How can you prove your theory wrong?

I remember once having a flawless understanding of the universe. It made complete sense and explained everything. I began discovering all sorts of bazaar hidden properties of the universe.

Then I was declared insane and put on medication. all the proof faded.

the philosophy is still sound, and there is no reason that I cannot describe reality the way I saw it. I just have to let it go when I think of it because its easy to be sucked into old malfunctioning neural pathways.

I'm not saying your nuts, and I think writing a paper will help you clarify your thoughts so you may better express them.

I have just seen that same absolute certainty and manic conviction to a cause before... and It got really dark before the end.

I just hope you have family or friends looking out for your well being while you pursue this.

good luck


Sometimes I like to use words out of contents
Seppuku Arts
Moderator
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 18th Aug 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, England
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:03
Quote: "It answers every question that anyone ever wanted to ask about anything."


Please, please, PLEASE tell me it's 42. I won't high-five you otherwise.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:22
Quote: "I remember once having a flawless understanding of the universe. It made complete sense and explained everything. I began discovering all sorts of bazaar hidden properties of the universe."


Yes, I understand. Up till today I had 3 choices...

1/ God did it.
2/ The Big Bang did it.
3/ My theory did it.

I am not going into a Flamebait, so I will not say why I disregarded the other two options. I had my reasons. So I went with my theory as the option I felt best with. I worked on it for many years, improved it, and it was still just the most comfortable choice.

But today I have proof that I was right. Physical hard proof. Proof in our environment, and not in my head. Something that nobody has asked about, but have noticed.

Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:42
Quote: "Yes, I understand."

and missed the moral?

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:45 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 15:46
Quote: "and missed the moral?"


No I answered the moral. I have physical proof, that is the answer.

bitJericho
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 15:47 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 15:48
Pincho, I'm concerned about you. I read both your threads and it does sound to me like you are not thinking rationally.

That said, maybe you're right and you are onto something (I'm curious about your test), but it doesn't seem that way to most of us here. Any old joe can come up with something brilliant and new truth about the universe, but you have said things that are not correct and you've had to go back and change it. That's great! That's how it's supposed to work! But the fact that you're getting some things very wrong is extremely concerning. For example, black holes in the middle of the planets. This just is not true at all. You're saying that mass does not cause gravity, just that matter is pulled towards holes in the universe if I understand right. But we know the center of planets does not contain holes. We know this because there's a minimum size of a black hole. We also know all matter attracts eachother due to gravity at some minimal level. When that matter is clumped together into a planet, it makes really strong gravity.

You should talk this over with a someone you know to help you figure out if you should continue with what you're doing or if you are just not thinking right.

Best of luck to you!

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:16
Quote: "
That said, maybe you're right and you are onto something (I'm curious about your test), but it doesn't seem that way to most of us here. Any old joe can come up with something brilliant and new truth about the universe, but you have said things that are not correct and you've had to go back and change it. That's great! That's how it's supposed to work! But the fact that you're getting some things very wrong is extremely concerning. For example, black holes in the middle of the planets. This just is not true at all. You're saying that mass does not cause gravity, just that matter is pulled towards holes in the universe if I understand right. But we know the center of planets does not contain holes. We know this because there's a minimum size of a black hole. We also know all matter attracts eachother due to gravity at some minimal level. When that matter is clumped together into a planet, it makes really strong gravity.

You should talk this over with a someone you know to help you figure out if you should continue with what you're doing or if you are just not thinking right."


You are using the standard model to say it is right against another model as proof. You aren't allowed to do that even in science.

Neuro Fuzzy
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 11th Jun 2007
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:19
Quote: "You are using the standard model to say it is right against another model as proof. You aren't allowed to do that even in science."

When one model seems to be an almost complete theory which succeeds in modeling existing data and predicting future data, the fact that two models don't match is very suggestive that the other is wrong...

greenlig
22
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Aug 2003
Location: Melbourne
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:19
Until your model gets some sunlight, there's not much use defending it!

Your signature has been erased by a mod as it is far too big.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:22
Quote: "When one model seems to be an almost complete theory which succeeds in modeling existing data and predicting future data, the fact that two models don't match is very suggestive that the other is wrong..."


It is the standard model that doesn't match my theory... see how that works?

bitJericho
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 9th Oct 2002
Location: United States
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:25
Quote: "You are using the standard model to say it is right against another model as proof. You aren't allowed to do that even in science."


I'm not a physicist nor a scientist by trade, nor am I a mental doctor. I make no authoritative claim in anything I say. I'm just concerned is all. I'm content to read from here on out.

Best of luck.

Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 16:42
SHOW US MAGICAL PROOF THEN.

caps.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 17:04 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 17:04
It may help


«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Green Gandalf
VIP Member
21
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 3rd Jan 2005
Playing: Malevolence:Sword of Ahkranox, Skyrim, Civ6.
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 17:27
I doubt it.
mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:07
Why not? We already have this, so...


«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
BatVink
Moderator
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 4th Apr 2003
Location: Gods own County, UK
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:17
I have just one question. Given that every atom in the universe is essentially a point of gravity around which subatomic particles try in vain to escape (an atom doesn't exist if it doesn't have its own gravity to hold it together, and this is observable physics), then why under your new theory hasn't everything - including the earth - collapsed?

Surely under this new theory, an inflationary universe cannot exist?

mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:31
I have my own old theory which I just like and don't want to proof in any way:

Every atom has subatomic particles, and subatomic have sub-subatomic particles, and so goes on downwards infinitely.
And our planet is some kind of subatomic particle for upper system, and so goes on upward systems infinitely. So there is a chance, that our solar system and stars are just particles of bread crumb in upper universe, which one is particle for upper universe and so on.

So we can eternally divide subatomic particles while some upper creatures are trying to divide our world to find planets.

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:36 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 18:43
Quote: "I have just one question. Given that every atom in the universe is essentially a point of gravity around which subatomic particles try in vain to escape (an atom doesn't exist if it doesn't have its own gravity to hold it together, and this is observable physics), then why under your new theory hasn't everything - including the earth - collapsed?

Surely under this new theory, an inflationary universe cannot exist?"


Everything is held together by infinity as the infinite spacing gets smaller, and smaller. You see how a caterpillar moves by scaling parts of its skin around. Well atoms are like the inside of the caterpillar without the skin attached. The skin is spacetime. So each atom is inside a skin that is it's complimentary partner... it's membrane. Gravity plumps the skin up to make a sphere, and the plumping of energy holds the central particles in place. That's a bucket full of water. The water is gravity, and mass inside a skin which is spacetime. Each atom either has a neighbour which is full of gravity, and energy. Or a neighbour with cancelling out properties of visibility 1 + -1 = 0. One layer of energy with an empty skin = invisible. So spacetime is too full to fly apart. Each atom can only have its energy transmitted to a neighbouring empty energy hole. This means that the Earth is orbiting through energy holes, and plumping them up to make them visible to us. Blackpool lights.

Quote: "Surely under this new theory, an inflationary universe cannot exist?""


You have that backwards. Einstein said that the universe stays the same or contracts. My physics are the reverse so it would have to expand, or stay the same.

Norion
16
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 14th Jun 2010
Location: The Netherlands.
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 18:54
@ Pincho

Hi,

I have read your previous thread and I found it very interisting. But I have one question. Where are those particles coming from ? I know you said that you can have infinite particles but they have to come from somewhere. Or did I misunderstood you ?

Greetings,

Martin

mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 19:05 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 19:05
@Pincho Paxton
My theory is funnier than yours.

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 19:09 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 19:39
Quote: "I have read your previous thread and I found it very interisting. But I have one question. Where are those particles coming from ? I know you said that you can have infinite particles but they have to come from somewhere. Or did I misunderstood you ?"


The particles all cancel each other out, so two particles 1, -1 are like a hole with a membrane. Imagine an igloo, the hole is complimentary to the igloo. You can't have the igloo without the hole, and you get the hole to make the igloo with.

Complimentary like this is Black And white. If white is on white, it's not there, and if black is on black it is not there.

With a hole, and a hill you need both to be there.

This is no ordinary hole however -1 is a 3D hole. It makes a 3D sphere, and the sphere makes the hole. With the sphere in the hole neither exist.

When you can make something like this that equals nothing combined, as a pair 1 + -1 = 0.

When we look towards both particles the energy level is cancelled out. The photon grabs -1 energy, and +1 energy as it flies towards us. It does this repeatedly. So it maintains a constant energy level for a colour which it is also carrying, and it goes up/down due to it's switching mass through a structure which isn't straight anyway.

The particles therefore not only equal nothing, but are infinitely nothing. 10000000000 + -10000000000 is still zero.

The two particles are nothing, and humans have invented their own version of nothing using no particles at all. There is no nothing. There is no nothing without two particles.

mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 19:47 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 09:18
edit: image deleted fgj

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 19:48
Quote: "The particles all cancel each other out, so two particles 1, -1"


What are you smoking?

This is an imbalance of matter and antimatter in our universe, so your 'theory' is now invalidated because clearly - and + don't equal 0!


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 19:50 Edited at: 13th Jul 2012 09:19
edit: another image deleted fgj

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:03 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 20:07
Quote: "This is an imbalance of matter and antimatter in our universe, so your 'theory' is now invalidated because clearly - and + don't equal 0!"


Do you need a calculator? 1 + -1 = 0

The physics are the particle goes in a hole of the same size.

Indicium
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 26th May 2008
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:15
Quote: "Do you need a calculator? 1 + -1 = 0"


Funny guy! I didn't have the number one
Quote: "ANYWHERE"
. There is more matter in the universe than antimatter. So your sum 0 thing here is wrong.


They see me coding, they hating. http://indi-indicium.blogspot.co.uk/
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:22 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 20:28
...According to the standard model. That's like saying God did it, it must be true. The standard model has some minus signs missing to get the anti-matter back. The minus signs that I use to reverse the physics.

Quote: "Funny guy! I didn't have the number one "


It works with any two numbers the same.

mr Handy
18
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Sep 2007
Location: out of TGC
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:28
I proclaim this thread
The Universe According To Pincho Paxton #2

@Pincho Paxton
Happy trolling. It's epic, dude.

I'm out.

«It's the Pony, pony me this, pony me that» — Bronies
«Socks are sexy. You should wear them!» — Bronies
«I sell apples and apple accessories» — Applejack
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:37
I'm too old to troll. That's a word that doesn't appeal to me.

DJ Almix
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 25th Feb 2006
Location: Freedom
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:53 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 22:33
Edit: nvm


rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:55 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 21:15
Quote: "you can't sit there and tell them you're the best of the best and that you're simply awesome at this job and you'll bring a whole world of awesome to their business"

Works for me....

Seriously though, I have always believed the answer to life, universe and everything is to be found here on the TGC forums, it just takes the right dude to stand up and say it.
You can argue this here for infinity, which to me proves you are right, but you really need to convince your peer group, its a pity that you despise and mistrust the scientific community as this will make it more difficult, nay impossible, to accept it if they tell you you are wrong.
It might be that you are right Pincho and if you are you need to realise that it wont prevent the villagers getting out the torches and pitchforks and hunting you down to stop you changing their comfortable lives and beliefs that the earth is indeed flat (its easier to plough a flat earth than a round one, especially one with a hole in it).

This is the reason you dont have journals full of ideas released as fact,you have to research and test over and over again till you bleed before you release your findings or its all simply tossed in the can. Get the backing of some authority before you take on the big guns.

Long live the revolution.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 20:59
Quote: "I'm pretty sure he is not using numbers, but actually saying the negative and the positive don't equate to zero, but cancel each other out."


Yes that's the same thing.

Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 21:02
Quote: "This is the reason you dont have journals full of ideas you have to research and test over and over again till you bleed before you release your findings or its all simply tossed in the can. Get the backing of some authority before you take on the big guns. "


Not much I can do apart from send a journal to Nature. I have to trust Nature then with their backwards maths. It's crazy how science depends on science for its own proofs. Let Christians be in charge of all the proofs of God. See how well that works.

fallen one
19
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 7th Aug 2006
Location: My imagination!
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 21:11 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 21:15
Quote: "Rolfy This is the reason you dont have journals full of ideas you have to research and test over and over again till you bleed before you release your findings or its all simply tossed in the can. Get the backing of some authority before you take on the big guns."

Rolfy, what kind of Bond villian are you?
Quote: "Get the backing of some authority"

Ill tell you what kind of Bond villian you are, this kind.

Now get out of my sight!


rolfy
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 23rd Jun 2006
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 21:13 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 21:41
I am sending over the poodles to lick ya to death.

Y'all be sorry when Pincho is proven right and your not his friend, I need all the friends I can get and will be glad I have esteemed/ostracized one in scientific community when we build our secret hideaway and go for global domination. With Pincho's reverse maths we gonna give y'all some serious wedgie.

Awesome! Its one of those threads.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 21:20 Edited at: 12th Jul 2012 21:23
All of these historic texts eh? My historic texts don't really look much like Newton's. More like Darwin's. Get the Troll, attack the Troll. Humans' from monkey's? It's sacrilege.

Libervurto
20
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 30th Jun 2006
Location: On Toast
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 22:12
Quote: "I'm pretty sure he is not using numbers, but actually saying the negative and the positive don't equate to zero, but cancel each other out."

That's what zero means.

Really guys, troll cartoons and incorrect maths/logic are not valid arguments.

It's always good to question accepted theories. We will always have a degree of error in every theory until we have a combined theory of everything.

Shh... you're pretty.
Pincho Paxton
23
Years of Service
User Offline
Joined: 8th Dec 2002
Location:
Posted: 12th Jul 2012 22:59
It's a shame my threads end up as me vs science. I only wanted to know how to write my thesis. I've never written one out, and I have to cover almost every topic.

Login to post a reply

Server time is: 2026-07-17 14:43:24
Your offset time is: 2026-07-17 14:43:24