Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Three cosmic enigmas, one audacious answer [bye-bye to black holes?]
New Scientist ^ | March 9, 2006 | Zeeya Merali

Posted on 03/09/2006 8:34:42 PM PST by snarks_when_bored

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 next last
To: longshadow
"In the meanwhile, I'll just drop this article in my Ipcress File for safe keeping....."

As Robin Leach might say: "My palms are bleeding and I don't know why!"

(Palms...Palmer...heh heh...)

51 posted on 03/10/2006 7:44:00 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

Thanks...and thanks for the links...


52 posted on 03/10/2006 7:45:57 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
So we will have wormhole warp drives in a few years?

I'll go out on a limb here and say...'Nope!'.

53 posted on 03/10/2006 7:48:01 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"It's like we are living inside a giant dark energy star," Chapline says. There is, of course, no explanation yet for how a universe-sized star could come into being.

Which could also explain why there seems to be a possiblity for multiple universes. Multiple giant (universe sized) dark energy stars, residing in yet another universe.

Well that's one way I imagine it could be. I'm not quantum physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday......

54 posted on 03/10/2006 7:51:16 AM PST by American_Centurion (Insert /sarcasm where appropriate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timer

Hydrinos, sure... right... yeah... okey-dokey....

Wow, this is like debating Ludwig Plutonium from the old Usenet threads.

Oh Great and Knowledgeable one...

Wouldst thou grace us mere mortals with the Schrodinger equations describing the orbitals of these 'hydrinos' so we can work out the binding energies and lifetimes for ourselves? Perhaps you could just give us a list of the constiuent particles of a 'hydrino', just for laughs.

Or do I have to send Dr. Mills a $10,000 contribution first?


55 posted on 03/10/2006 7:59:11 AM PST by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
There is, of course, no explanation yet for how a universe-sized star could come into being.

How about the concept that it has always been? Why must every observed thing have a beginning and an end?

56 posted on 03/10/2006 8:02:56 AM PST by TChris ("Wake up, America. This is serious." - Ben Stein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Of course, you will avoid the problems that beset Dr Radcliffe. (And his hapless bodyguard.)
57 posted on 03/10/2006 8:24:03 AM PST by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; snarks_when_bored; Physicist; Quark2005
It sounds to me that they're not actually *replacing* the idea of black holes with something else that's not a black hole, what they're really saying is that the physics of black holes might be different than previously thought, especially "inside" the black hole.

The article says:

The team's calculations show that the vacuum energy inside the shell has a powerful anti-gravity effect, just like the dark energy that appears to be causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. Chapline has dubbed the objects produced this way "dark energy stars".

Though this anti-gravity effect might be expected to blow the star's shell apart, calculations by Francisco Lobo of the University of Lisbon in Portugal have shown that stable dark energy stars can exist for a number of different models of vacuum energy. What's more, these stable stars would have shells that lie near the region where a black hole's event horizon would form ...

Presumably (I'm operating with very little info) this anti-gravity effect would prevent the singularity which is supposed to be at the center of black holes. Otherwise, they'd be similar objects, except for the subtle effects at the horizon, which might be observable.
58 posted on 03/10/2006 8:34:24 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Netheron
Ludwig Plutonium

Is this another name for Archimedes Plutonium?

59 posted on 03/10/2006 9:08:47 AM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American

Its his earlier one. He was Ludwig in his early posts before he changed it to Archimedes.


60 posted on 03/10/2006 9:12:07 AM PST by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Black holes are out of sight...
61 posted on 03/10/2006 9:14:24 AM PST by null and void (I nominate Sept 11th: "National Moderate Muslim Day of Tacit Approval". - Mr. Rational, paraphrased)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: null and void

So I guess this proves that the Big Bang never happened either. Never did believe in it anyway.

parsy, who feels he will someday be vindicated


62 posted on 03/10/2006 9:24:12 AM PST by parsifal ("Knock and ye shall receive!" (The Bible, somewhere.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
"It's like we are living inside a giant dark energy star," Chapline says. There is, of course, no explanation yet for how a universe-sized star could come into being.

Similar to some of the previous "our universe is a black hole" speculation. The nice part of this angle, though, is that it should be (ever-so-slightly) easier to envision a means of detection of what's outside, given that quarks could theoretically transition the quantum shell.

(Easier, assuming huge advances in means, methods, and resources, that is...)
63 posted on 03/10/2006 9:34:09 AM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


64 posted on 03/10/2006 11:25:26 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Netheron
Wouldst thou grace us mere mortals with the Schrodinger equations describing the orbitals of these 'hydrinos' so we can work out the binding energies and lifetimes for ourselves?

I guess they would be "suborbitals"....and I strongly suspect the binding energy would be equivalent to that which binds a booger to a finger...
65 posted on 03/10/2006 12:14:30 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

"Ummm, the writer says that information about the matter is lost, not the matter itself."

Do you believe it is possible to have information about all matter in the universe? Of course not because some matter is simply inaccessable. Same goes for matter that is within a black hole. The author simply doesn't know what he is talking about.


66 posted on 03/10/2006 12:31:44 PM PST by Kirkwood ("When the s*** hits the fan, there is enough for everyone.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

I read Motl's blog daily. It's a relief to finally find a physics blog that isn't by a leftist moonbat.


67 posted on 03/10/2006 1:12:58 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Creationism Is Not Conservative!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
Do you believe it is possible to have information about all matter in the universe?

Are you prepared to refute Hawking?
68 posted on 03/10/2006 1:23:04 PM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers; festus; snarks_when_bored
Now see what you've started...


69 posted on 03/10/2006 1:35:25 PM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Interesting Times

Thanks for the ping. There apparently are several holes in the theory of Quantum Mechanics. It predicts well at sub-atomic scale, but not so well at molecular scale and not well at all at cosmic scale.


70 posted on 03/10/2006 1:56:28 PM PST by zot (GWB -- four more years!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Chinese Arithmatic *ping*


71 posted on 03/10/2006 2:08:41 PM PST by Bean Counter ("Stout Hearts!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kirkwood
"Ummm, the writer says that information about the matter is lost, not the matter itself."

Do you believe it is possible to have information about all matter in the universe? Of course not because some matter is simply inaccessable. Same goes for matter that is within a black hole. The author simply doesn't know what he is talking about.

Nothing I said suggested that I do. I simply pointed out that you appeared to have mis-read what the author had written. He wasn't speaking of lost matter but rather of information about lost matter—for example, whether it was a '57 Chevy before it fell into the black hole.

A black hole (should such there be) reduces all matter that falls into it to mass, charge and momentum. If a '57 Chevy falls into it, that Chevy is crushed by the singularity and only the mass of its former constituent particles, their collective charge and their collective momenta remain available for measurement (in principle). Hence the information carried by the particulate make-up of the Chevy is (allegedly) lost (unless Hawking is right, or somebody else comes up with a way of 'saving the information').

Of course, the New Scientist writer, Merali, was simply recording the views of George Chapline and his collaborators, so I suppose you're criticizing them. It's unlikely that you know as much physics as, say, Chapline or the Nobel laureate, Robert Laughlin; I know I don't. Do you remain confident that your criticism is justified?

72 posted on 03/10/2006 2:24:08 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

I took a glance earlier today at Chapline's "Dark Energy Star" paper and I found nothing in it to suggest that he thought the vacuum energy was causally responsible for the absence of a singularity. But I could've missed it, or he just might not have said it, PH.


73 posted on 03/10/2006 2:27:58 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: chimera; grey_whiskers; festus
Now see what you've started...

And it's a very good thing...

74 posted on 03/10/2006 2:30:46 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; Allegra; peacebaby; Millee
Re: Chapline: black holes don't exist

Hey man! There will always be black hos...

What about us black and white hos?

I for one, like fuzzy yellow and pink hos...

With my luck, they'll outlaw us park bench hos!

Never, my dear! Never! Want to see my bippy?

We fembot hos will always be around... And, NO! I don't want to see your bippy at any price!

Not even for... a case of zee finest German oil?

No! Well... Maybe for two cases...

Well... I was a total ho for Michael Douglas... And what did it get me?

75 posted on 03/10/2006 2:39:36 PM PST by Bender2 (Redid my FR Homepage just for ya'll... Now, Vote Republican and vote often)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Placemarker
76 posted on 03/10/2006 2:43:39 PM PST by PatrickHenry (Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: parsifal
parsy, who feels he will someday be vindicated

Keep the faith brother!

77 posted on 03/10/2006 3:11:52 PM PST by edsheppa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Bender2

You've defined the word 'pastiche' for me, Bender2! (laugh)


78 posted on 03/10/2006 3:14:03 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Man, I dunno. Do you really think that a physicist of the stature of Ernest Borgnine would have starred in a movie about black holes if they didn't exist?

Another (sniff!) idol overthrown...

79 posted on 03/10/2006 3:15:46 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill

Well, he'll always be 'Cabbie' to me...


80 posted on 03/10/2006 3:27:15 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Re: You've defined the word 'pastiche' for me...

Then you mean I employing a generally light-hearted tongue-in-cheek imitation of another's style; although jocular, it is usually respectful...

Wrong again, #2! snarks is saying your are Pastiche... A Tucson, Arizona, restaurant that celebrate your holidays with American cuisine with world influences - fabulous appetizers, salads, sandwiches, pastas, large entrees, and desserts. Gad! Everyone knows that!

81 posted on 03/10/2006 3:31:05 PM PST by Bender2 (Redid my FR Homepage just for ya'll... Now, Vote Republican and vote often)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
I guess they would be "suborbitals"....and I strongly suspect the binding energy would be equivalent to that which binds a booger to a finger...

Is that binding energy measured in units of flick-strength?

82 posted on 03/10/2006 3:33:17 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Bender2

"By the time I get to Tucson, I'll be hungry..."


83 posted on 03/10/2006 3:38:35 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Re: "By the time I get to Tucson, I'll be hungry..."

Thank you, snarks. And next on "American Idol" we have... Old Bones McCoy singing the Gerber Brothers' latest hit...

"My baby's dead..."

84 posted on 03/10/2006 3:48:15 PM PST by Bender2 (Redid my FR Homepage just for ya'll... Now, Vote Republican and vote often)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Bender2

Bender2, you're too much!


85 posted on 03/10/2006 3:53:04 PM PST by peacebaby (what's so funny about it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Interesting. The interior of a dark energy star seen from inside might look like there had been a Big Bang 14.5 billion years ago.


86 posted on 03/10/2006 3:55:11 PM PST by RightWhale (pas de lieu, Rhone que nous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chimera
Anyone else besides me see any resemblance?

Mostly in the eyes, forehead, and cheekbones...

Lisa Randall

Sarah Michelle Gellar

I mean, hey, as long as we're discussing heavenly bodies...

87 posted on 03/10/2006 4:20:41 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored; Physicist
All right, if I recall my reading of Kip Thorne correctly, there was controversy over whether black holes could have angular momentum (and attendant frame dragging, right?)

Didn't see that mentioned in this post of yours, snarks.

On other notes, two questions:

1) Wasn't it Chandrasekar who first predicted the necessary multiples of solar mass to lead to black holes vs. other fates? With that in mind, what is the proposed mechanism for one of these alternatives to black holes? Does this theory's requirements for the original stellar mass agree with conventional theory? (Complementarity principle on the one hand, another tool to differentiate between the theories on the other.)

2) Hate to ask this, since it's over my head. (Not that accomplishing that takes much...)

But we're always talking about reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity. Can anyone point me to a concise description of where the contradictions occur?

I am wondering about the description of the interior of a black hole--if you reach a "singularity" then wouldn't tidal forces eventually become significant even over q.m. scales --e.g. what would that do in terms of commutation of q.m. operators, etc. etc.

No flames, please, it's Friday night and I'll just pour beer on them anyway :-)

Cheers!

88 posted on 03/10/2006 4:30:18 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
there was controversy over whether black holes could have angular momentum

There's no room for controversy, there. Angular momentum is conserved, and has to be, because we observe space to be isotropic. And that has to apply to a black hole. Observe: suppose we had a huge collection of dust particles, and that the collection had some amount of angular momentum. Suppose further that it was allowed to collapse, and that its mass was so large that by the time it achieved black hole density, it was still rather rarefied.

[Geek alert: The density of a black hole is inversely proportional to the square of its mass, so very large black holes can have very low density.]

To any observer inside the cloud--and thus inside the black hole, although he doesn't know it--the cloud still has its angular momentum. To any observer outside, all they see is an event horizon, but since the whole arrangement was generally isotropic (except for some flattening of the cloud during its collapse), and certainly space itself was, the angular momentum still has to be there. The observer will find it easier to measure this if the cloud had some charge, but it's still there either way, by symmetry.

But we're always talking about reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity. Can anyone point me to a concise description of where the contradictions occur?

Consider the electron and its electrical field. As far as we can measure--and we can measure to incredibly small scales--the electron is pointlike. This poses a problem for classical electromagnetism: when you calculate the energy of the field, it's infinite. So in classical E&M, they cut the calculation off by assigning a radius to the electron, which can be calculated from the electron's mass.

Quantum field theory has the same infinite quantity, but because of symmetry, something miraculous occurs. The quantum field is represented by both real and virtual particles (photons). It turns out that both the real and the virtual contributions cancel each other, term by term, leaving a calculable residue that agrees with experiments to ten or twelve decimal places! The fundamental quantities are truly infinite, but the calculations of measurable observables yield finite quantities. This property is known as renormalizability.

A gravitational field carries two units of angular momentum for every unit of momentum. This means that any quantum field theory of gravity will be quantized into spin-2 particles, unlike photons, gluons, or the W and Z bosons of the weak interaction, all of which are spin-1 particles. The conflict is that no spin-2 field can be renormalized in four dimensions. Any possible 4-dimensional theory of quantum gravity necessarily yields infinite quantities from its calculations. So either the universe is very different from what Einstein envisioned, or the gravitational force cannot be described by quantum mechanics.

As it turns out, there are only two spaces that permit spin-2 fields to be renormalized: one space has 26 dimensions, the other has 11. That's certainly different from what Einstein envisioned, and that's why the various string theories use one or the other of these spaces.

89 posted on 03/10/2006 5:10:22 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Oh, yes, almost forgot Calista.

Calista Flockheart

Lisa Randall

Something waif-like about both of them (in appearance, that is). Some sadness to the eyes.

Branes and beauty...

Cheers!

90 posted on 03/10/2006 5:32:55 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored

Dark matter is what my wife buys but I never see around the house...


91 posted on 03/10/2006 5:34:21 PM PST by Doohickey (If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; snarks_when_bored
Thanks, that's exactly the level I was looking for.

Snarks, I now have the introduction to the readings on renormalization you gave me... :-)

Cheers!

Physicist, the "controversy" was in some reading from (oh, say) 25 or 30 years ago--and it was casual, not professional reading for me. Thanks for helping out !

92 posted on 03/10/2006 5:36:00 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert; snarks_when_bored; RightWingAtheist
So we will have wormhole warp drives in a few years?

From Motl's blog, the 2 billion K generator...

Starship Enterprise.

Any questions?

Yes, ...Scotty?

Cap'n, I dinna if the thread, she canna talk much more 'o this

Cheers!

93 posted on 03/10/2006 7:52:28 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop

Hmmm.. black holes......crystals?...


94 posted on 03/10/2006 8:07:21 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe

Thanks for the ping!


95 posted on 03/10/2006 10:10:00 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; grey_whiskers

Very nice post, Physicist.


96 posted on 03/11/2006 6:38:00 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Could be. How does Sarah Michelle measure up on the IQ factor? Superintelligence-types who are easy on the eyes have a certain appeal...
97 posted on 03/13/2006 8:09:01 AM PST by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Netheron

No, not $10,000, just $50 for his book. His breakthrough work is based on the Rydberg Equation, fractional possibilities thereof. You've heard of fractals, yes? About the same basic idea here, plus the spectrum of hydrinos has been found in the UV part of the solar spectrum, the same way helium was first discovered. Dr Mills theory predicts those spectral lines to within .05% of actual. Throwing brick bats won't make hydrinos go away. And if you didn't know, Dr Mills' hydrino-compound patent was denied in federal court upon spurious Bohr Radius grounds(big oil/vested interests behind the curtain). If he had gotten his patent, electric batteries with 500 times the energy density of lead acid batteries(5000w-h/#)would now be on the shelf.


98 posted on 03/13/2006 3:12:53 PM PST by timer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: timer

Actually I went online and looked at hydrinos.org. On there I found several links which purport to point to mathematical derivations of the principles. There is nothing. There are some things cribbed from other sites to add 'fluff', but other than pretty pictures, there is nothing.

He does include a few pictures which seem to describe the n=1/2 orbital. This is Barbra Streisand. There is no such thing. It is flatly impossible, due to the Planck constant, the electron mass and quantum mechanics. There is no n=1/2 orbital in the free hydrogen atom. You can derive the spectrum for the hydrogen atom in any quantum mechanics text and show it for yourself.

Now, you may say that I am arrogantly dismissing him because he has come up with a new method of doing things that is revolutionary. This is also completely impossible, since I, myself, have revolutionized my own fields of research several times in my own career.

I have found far more efficient ways of inverting the Eikonal equation than existed in the past.

I have found techniques for improving the understanding of plasma chambers (note, ions, electrons and nuclei, hint hint).

I have significantly improved the rate and accuracy at which simulated radar displays can be performed.

Each of these were confusedly understood at first by others, but I had demonstratable results that I could put on the table, along with code and experiments that everyone could examine. They are now all accepted standard practice. Each also has had a significant economic impact.

Now, as far as 'big oil interests' Dr. Mills doesn't know the first thing about protecting his intellectual property, or actually he does, since his I.P. lawyer must have told him. You do it this way:

1) Build the battery FIRST, while notarizing your lab notebooks.

2) Then patent it, while submitting notarized copies of your lab notebooks.

Now the scientific community and 'big oil' have an operating object to cope with and a paper trail that demonstrates that he did it. Mills may now collect his royalties and Nobel Prize.

EVERY scientist who has ever patented knows this. Dr. Mills has not done this, therefore he is a LIAR.

Now that you have demonstrated your ignorance in both basic science and intellectual property law, would you like to show it in any other fields?


99 posted on 03/14/2006 4:11:02 AM PST by Netheron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: snarks_when_bored
Interesting!

While black holes supposedly swallow anything that gets past the event horizon, quantum critical shells are a two-way street, Chapline says. Matter crossing the shell decays, and the anti-gravity should spit some of the remnants back out again. Also, quark particles crossing the shell should decay by releasing positrons and gamma rays, which would pop out of the surface.

Now, consider that the "steady state" universe theories require only a small amount of matter (a few atoms per cubic meter) "re-appearing" in interstellar space to account for the expansion factors: It's interesting to question whether these atoms could come from such stars. Or from Hawking's black-hole quantum centers.

To me, it makes no logical sense to follow a "pure math" black hole where everything becomes a point source. That's merely a mathematical convenience, not realty.

100 posted on 03/14/2006 4:26:04 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-104 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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