Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Physicist suggests speed of light might be slower than thought
PHYS.ORG ^ | 07/01/2014 | Bob Yirka

Posted on 07/03/2014 11:28:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Physicist James Franson of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County has captured the attention of the physics community by posting an article to the peer-reviewed New Journal of Physics in which he claims to have found evidence that suggests the speed of light as described by the theory of general relativity, is actually slower than has been thought.

The theory of general relativity suggests that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum. It's the c in Einstein's famous equation after all, and virtually everything measured in the cosmos is based on it—in short, it's pretty important. But, what if it's wrong?

Franson's arguments are based on observations made of the supernova SN 1987A–it exploded in February 1987. Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours. Scientists at the time attributed it to a likelihood that the photons were actually from another source. But what if that wasn't what it was, Franson wonders, what if light slows down as it travels due to a property of photons known as vacuum polarization—where a photon splits into a positron and an electron, for a very short time before recombining back into a photon. That should create a gravitational differential, he notes, between the pair of particles, which, he theorizes, would have a tiny energy impact when they recombine—enough to cause a slight bit of a slowdown during travel. If such splitting and rejoining occurred many times with many photons on a journey of 168,000 light years, the distance between us and SN 1987A, it could easily add up to the 4.7 hour delay, he suggests.

If Franson's ideas turn out to be correct, virtually every measurement taken and used as a basis for cosmological theory, will be wrong. Light from the sun for example, would take longer to reach us than thought, and light coming from much more distant objects, such as from the Messier 81 galaxy, a distance of 12 million light years, would arrive noticeably later than has been calculated—about two weeks later. The implications are staggering—distances for celestial bodies would have to be recalculated and theories that were created to describe what has been observed would be thrown out. In some cases, astrophysicists would have to start all over from scratch.

Explore further: Does light experience time?

More information: Apparent correction to the speed of light in a gravitational potential, J D Franson 2014 New J. Phys. 16 065008 DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065008 . http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/16/6/065008/

Abstract

The effects of physical interactions are usually incorporated into the quantum theory by including the corresponding terms in the Hamiltonian. Here we consider the effects of including the gravitational potential energy of massive particles in the Hamiltonian of quantum electrodynamics. This results in a predicted correction to the speed of light that is proportional to the fine structure constant. The correction to the speed of light obtained in this way depends on the gravitational potential and not the gravitational field, which is not gauge invariant and presumably nonphysical. Nevertheless, the predicted results are in reasonable agreement with experimental observations from Supernova 1987a.


TOPICS: Astronomy; Science
KEYWORDS: cdecay; light; lightspeed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2014 11:28:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“I’m so fast that last night I turned off the light switch in my hotel room and was in bed before the room was dark.”

Muhammad Ali


2 posted on 07/03/2014 11:32:04 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Methinks the author makes it much more dramatic sounding than it really is. 4.5 hours over 164,000 light years? What is the percentage error?


3 posted on 07/03/2014 11:32:41 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Either that, or our propulsion systems have gotten a LOT faster…

4 posted on 07/03/2014 11:35:40 AM PDT by mikrofon (Happy Independence Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Franson's arguments are based on observations made of the supernova SN 1987A–it exploded in February 1987

If its 168,000 light years away, then doesn't that mean that it exploded 168,000 years before we became aware of it?

This is making my head hurt.

5 posted on 07/03/2014 11:39:10 AM PDT by thedrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Then again...
6 posted on 07/03/2014 11:40:05 AM PDT by mikrofon (Happy Independence Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Damned global warming.


7 posted on 07/03/2014 11:40:43 AM PDT by mbarker12474
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

This just goes to show that, “It’s later than you think.”.


8 posted on 07/03/2014 11:40:52 AM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thedrake

It’s worse than that: the 168,000 light years distance estimate is based on... yep: light.


9 posted on 07/03/2014 11:40:56 AM PDT by alancarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

That difference would be HUGE as it pertains to cosmological constants, the math behind so many theories.

We are talking vast distances here and just that much of a difference would cause many theories to be tossed out. It’s isn’t the fact that the percentage is small because on a grand scale small becomes large ... it is the fact that there is a difference at all.


10 posted on 07/03/2014 11:46:25 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
It’s worse than that: the 168,000 light years distance estimate is based on... yep: light.

You just blew my mind...

11 posted on 07/03/2014 11:52:19 AM PDT by thedrake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

I remember my physics teacher telling me there was an error factor in e=MC2. As I recall it was up to 5% that they couldn’t quite find.


12 posted on 07/03/2014 11:54:48 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

So if you could really slow light down you could just walk to the next galaxy.


13 posted on 07/03/2014 11:56:05 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
Name one theory that is 'tossed out' because C changed by 4.5/1,437,624,000? The mere fact that I used 164,000 light years instead of the actual figure is a larger error than the 4.5 hour difference cited in this article.

Is it important to know? Absolutely. Is the reason for the photon delay important to know? Sure is. Will it destroy all known human knowledge of the universe to date? Hardly.

14 posted on 07/03/2014 11:58:51 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

So if the Sun blows up, we’ll know about it in 8 minutes and 22 seconds, rather than 8 minutes and 20 seconds. Phew...I feel much better now. The extra two seconds will really make a difference in my ability to make it to my shelter. /s


15 posted on 07/03/2014 12:01:02 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Corrections:

The theory of general relativity suggests that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

That would be the Special Theory of Relativity NOT General Theory of Relativity.

If such splitting and rejoining occurred many times with many photons on a journey of 168,000 light years,

There's no IF. Quantum Field Theory unequivocally says this happens.

the distance between us and SN 1987A, it could easily add up to the 4.7 hour delay, he suggests.

And, although the journalist is breathlessly reporting this as an earth-shattering cataclysm, this represents a relative error of about 3 x 10-9. The error in the length of the meter is on the order of 10-10 so this is not that far from the error in absolute measurement. And as for consequences? Well, just for example, it would mean that the universe is potentially about 10 c-yr smaller than believed, which is ~45 bn c-yr in diameter. That number itself has only two significant digits, so an error in parts per billion represents NO CHANGE whatsoever.

Nearer at hand, the Sun is about 500 c-sec away. This order of correction would cause light to reach us all of 1.5 microseconds later [in vacuum.] Since the intervening space is not vacuum and is not even uniform, nor is the distance to the earth's surface, we could not measure this change in any meaningful way.

Finally, I'm a tad confused about the claim that this is "related" to the fine structure constant: on the one hand, of course it is, as are all relativistic electromagnetic corrections. On the other hand, the FSC [α] is ~1/137, which is many orders of magnitude larger than the error actually claimed...

16 posted on 07/03/2014 12:02:56 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Nope. It wouldn’t.


17 posted on 07/03/2014 12:04:44 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sergio
Actually, the Sun is around 500 light second away [as you say] and this correction amounts to about 1.5 μ-sec, significantly less than the error in measurement already caused by the inhomogeneity of intervening material in space.
18 posted on 07/03/2014 12:07:32 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

1987a has been thoroughly studied and the difference in time between the arrival of neutrinos and photons is understood. It should be noted that the author of this new theory is not an astrophysicist.


19 posted on 07/03/2014 12:07:38 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Measurements here on Earth picked up the arrival of both photons and neutrinos from the blast but there was a problem—the arrival of the photons was later than expected, by 4.7 hours.

Yeah, well there was construction near Mars that had everything merging into one lane.

20 posted on 07/03/2014 12:08:43 PM PDT by GreenHornet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Ever since Obama slapped that tax on tanning beds, light has lost a step.


21 posted on 07/03/2014 12:09:04 PM PDT by Hoodat (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
speed of light might be slower than we thought

I dunno. It gets here pretty early in the morning.

22 posted on 07/03/2014 12:09:33 PM PDT by Fido969 (What's sad is most)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thedrake

Not only that, but how do they know the exact moment, where time = 0, that the explosion occurred? Saying that it took place in February 1987 doesn’t cut it.


23 posted on 07/03/2014 12:12:40 PM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Now it will take even longer to get to Cape Cod.


24 posted on 07/03/2014 12:13:52 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

That story was first told by or about Cool Papa Bell:

Numerous stories are told of his feats on the basepaths. Many no doubt are true, such as consistently hitting two hoppers to the infield and beating the throw to first for a hit, going from first to third on a bunt, scoring from second on a sacrifice fly, stealing two bases on one pitch, and once scoring from first base on a bunt against Bob Lemon and a team of major league all stars. Other stories are simply colorful exaggerations. Such accounts have Bell hitting a single up the middle and being declared out when hit by his own batted ball as he slid into second base; and, of course, the most repeated story of how he could switch off the light and get into bed before the room was dark.


25 posted on 07/03/2014 12:23:46 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I believe that this finally explains why when you need your flashlight, it never works. All those photons have decayed.


26 posted on 07/03/2014 12:26:30 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If this is happening, then it will happen multiple times to some photons and not at all to others unless it happens so many times over the 168,000 light years that it causes a very tight bell curve. That means there should be some smearing of the wave front as the photons which didn't split into electron/positron pairs get in front of those which did split. Also, lower energy photons like radio waves should be far less likely (or even zero chance) to split and thus travel full speed all the way, while gamma rays with more energy would be more likely to split. Is there a frequency distribution with the radio waves getting here before the visible light, x-rays and gamma rays from the supernova?

Or is it possible that our theories about how light emerges from the last gasp of fusion from the supernova is wrong and it takes hours longer to make it through the star's outer shell?

27 posted on 07/03/2014 12:40:57 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (The IRS: either criminally irresponsible in backup procedures or criminally responsible of coverup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
Methinks the author makes it much more dramatic sounding than it really is. 4.5 hours over 164,000 light years? What is the percentage error?

That's a discrepancy of one part in 3.13 billion - an incredibly huge discrepancy, considering the precision to which this important fundamental constant has been measured.

Having said that: I suspect that there is a logical explanation.

Regards,

28 posted on 07/03/2014 12:43:06 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The photons were stuck in traffic.


29 posted on 07/03/2014 12:44:48 PM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Where’s the picture of Hillary Clinton exclaiming, “What difference does it make?”


30 posted on 07/03/2014 12:45:20 PM PDT by Lake Living
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
It should be noted that the author of this new theory is not an astrophysicist.

Nor was the author of my post, at one time a condensed matter theorist who makes no pretenses to expertness in cosmology. My comment did not deal with the origins of the discrepancy so much as the claims made that -- whatever their provenance -- these were potentially earth shattering discoveries.

Nope. Not.

As for the well-understoodness, is the delay accounted for entirely by the fact that it takes light from the core substantially longer to propagate to the surface than the weakly interacting neutrinos?

31 posted on 07/03/2014 12:48:41 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Probably just speedometer error from running the wrong tire size.


32 posted on 07/03/2014 12:49:41 PM PDT by CrazyIvan (I lost my phased plasma rifle in a tragic hovercraft accident.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lake Living
Where’s the picture of Hillary Clinton exclaiming, “What difference does it make?”

33 posted on 07/03/2014 12:57:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
He's not postulating the existence of real position-electron pairs, which would require either two γ's or a γ and a nucleus in order to conserve momentum; he's talking about virtual p-e pairs. Virtual pair production happens to all photons, all the time, regardless of energy. You don't need to conserve energy and momentum because the virtual particles don't exist long enough to have measurable physical effects. Essentially it's a quantum fluctuation in the electromagnetic field. It has to "exist" or the path integral doesn't work, and there are [presumably an infinite number of] Feynman diagrams describing it.

See, among many places, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle.

34 posted on 07/03/2014 1:06:11 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Lake Living

35 posted on 07/03/2014 1:06:54 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: alexander_busek
Not incredibly huge.

The speed of light and second are now DEFINED, so you can no longer correctly say the "error in measuring the speed of light." But what amounts to the same thing is the length of a meter, which has been measured with an error of about 1/10 of this error. So larger than we would expect, but not incredibly large. And whether it would have cosmological significance, where most numbers [which are not just SWAG] range from order of magnitude estimates to no better than two significant figures is very doubtful.

36 posted on 07/03/2014 1:11:17 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Does the special theory actually cite a number like that, or does it leave everything in terms of c?


37 posted on 07/03/2014 1:14:45 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: scrabblehack
No, the actual value is one which would have been of little or no interest to Einstein [or any other theoretician] except to the extent that it's being "very large" [in some sense] explains why we were unaware of relativity for so long.

Here's one of the very first serious physicists' take on the matter:

"The speed of light, if not instantaneous, is extraordinarily rapid." -- Galileo

The symbol "c" itself was not used in Einstein's paper on Special Relativity. He used the symbol "v."

38 posted on 07/03/2014 1:20:45 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
Question - c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I recall reading somewhere the the hardest vacuum in interstellar space has something like one atom per cubic meter, the article refers to the fact that space is not a “perfect” vacuum, but it's pretty darn close to one. On the other end of the scale, barionic matter is 99.99% empty space, the old analogy being an atomic nucleus being the size of a baseball, the electron (back in the days they were considered physical objects instead of probability clouds) would be the size of a grain of sand several hundred feet away from the nucleus and the next closest atom would be found a few miles away. This being the case, the space inside a glass lens at the scale of a photon would be as empty as the interstellar medium, to the photon it would be a vacuum, but it travels much slower through the glass than through “space”. Why do you suppose this is?
39 posted on 07/03/2014 1:33:13 PM PDT by ADemocratNoMore (Jeepers, Freepers, where'd 'ya get those sleepers?. Pj people, exposing old media's lies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scrabblehack
The speed of light is actually dependent on two other constants which describe the behavior of electricity and magnetism in a vacuum. The speed of light and most of the concepts of relativity were already known when Einstein wrote his paper. His great genius was due to two postulates:
From Wiki.

First, he applies the principle of relativity, which states that the laws of physics remain the same for any non-accelerating frame of reference (called an inertial reference frame), to the laws of electrodynamics and optics as well as mechanics. In the second postulate, Einstein proposes that the speed of light has the same value in all inertial frames of reference, independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.


40 posted on 07/03/2014 1:33:55 PM PDT by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

I knew that....(must save face, must save face) LOL! I had no idea the time difference was that small. Thanks for the education my friend.


41 posted on 07/03/2014 1:47:40 PM PDT by Sergio (An object at rest cannot be stopped! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I just want to see his proof.


42 posted on 07/03/2014 2:03:21 PM PDT by maxwellsmart_agent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
History of the Light-Speed Debate

43 posted on 07/03/2014 2:13:18 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your teaching is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
I remember my physics teacher telling me there was an error factor in e=MC2. As I recall it was up to 5% that they couldn’t quite find.

I suspect that you are not remembering entirely correctly. In any reaction, there is an "error factor" in that some of the mass goes missing. No one can find that missing mass.

Then Einstein came along, and in 1906 said that the missing mass no longer existed, it was converted into a burst of pure energy, by E=mc2.

By the way, very little mass goes missing in most reactions, but it is significant in nuclear reactions. More missing mass means more energy is produced.

44 posted on 07/03/2014 2:16:00 PM PDT by Leaning Right (Why am I holding this lantern? I am looking for the next Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Leaning Right; driftdiver
In any reaction, there is an "error factor" in that some of the mass goes missing. No one can find that missing mass.

Nobody could find it because until we had nuclear weapons nobody could measure it. Einstein predicted it, but in a typical chemical reaction it's so small it would never have been missed. For example, the binding energy of a water molecule is about 6 eV, whereas every nucleon has a mass of around 1 GeV [I'm going to do some rounding to make the math very simple.] For H2O, the molecule has a mass of (2 x 1 protons Hydrogen + 8 x 1 protons, Oxygen + 8 x 1 neutrons Oxygen) GeV + 10 * 0.5 MeV [for all the electrons]. Throwing away the electron mass of 5 MeV as insignificant to the calculation, the "missing" mass of bound hydrogen and oxygen in water is 6 / (18 * 10 9) or about 3 * 10-10 less than hydrogen and oxygen constituents. We can't really measure three parts in ten billion of mass, especially when the isotope balance accounts for a lot more mass than that all by itself.

You can re-do the calculation for something like high explosive, or gasoline, which have much higher energy densities and therefore much more binding energy, but it doesn't change things by more than a factor of about 10.

So 5%? No. More like 300 millionths of a percent.

And incidentally, even for nuclear reactions, you don't get 5%. For a typical nuclear fission, say 235U, you have [to the same order of rounding] about 235 GeV [the actual number is around 218 GeV] in the bound nucleus. When it fissions, you get around 200 MeV. So that represents a binding energy of about 200/235000, or 0.085% of the mass would go "missing" as energy.

This entirely a function of how much stronger the strong nuclear force [which binds nucleons] is than the electromagnetic force, which binds molecules.

45 posted on 07/03/2014 2:53:40 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
he claims to have found evidence that suggests the speed of light as described by the theory of general relativity, is actually slower than has been thought.

I've been saying that all along but the guys in the bar simply laughed at me.........

46 posted on 07/03/2014 2:56:09 PM PDT by Hot Tabasco (By now, everyone should know that you shoot a zombie in the head. Don't try to reason with them...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Perhaps scientists are not accounting for a property that everything in the universe possess. Age.

The older something gets, the slower it gets. 168,000 light years will make anything age, and get slower, especially after such a long trek, which would make anything decay and slow down.
;)


47 posted on 07/03/2014 3:04:37 PM PDT by adorno (Y)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Thank you! That’s wonderful history that I had no idea about. I appreciate it.


48 posted on 07/03/2014 4:57:45 PM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle

So the stars are actually FARTHER away, not closer?


49 posted on 07/03/2014 4:59:51 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
Not incredibly huge.

True, that!

Just didn't want some "layman" (snark) to dismiss it as being entirely insignificant. But my hyperbole was admittedly inappropriate.

Regards,

50 posted on 07/03/2014 9:25:53 PM PDT by alexander_busek (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson