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

Skip to comments.

Hubble telescope makes new discovery
AP on Yahoo ^ | 11/16/06 | Matt Crenson - ap

Posted on 11/16/2006 9:07:52 PM PST by NormsRevenge

NEW YORK - The Hubble Space Telescope has shown that a mysterious form of energy first conceived by Albert Einstein, then rejected by the famous physicist as his "greatest blunder," appears to have been fueling the expansion of the universe for most of its history.

This so-called "dark energy" has been pushing the universe outward for at least 9 billion years, astronomers said Thursday.

"This is the first time we have significant, discrete data from back then," said Adam Riess, a professor of astronomy at Johns Hopkins University and researcher at NASA's Space Telescope Science Institute.

He and several colleagues used the Hubble to observe 23 supernovae — exploding white dwarf stars — so distant that their light took more than half the history of the universe to reach the orbiting telescope. That means the supernovae existed when the universe was less than half its current age of approximately 13.7 billion years.

Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known, it is possible for the astronomers to gauge not just their distance, but how fast the universe was expanding at the time they went off.

"This finding continues to validate the use of these supernovae as cosmic probes," Riess said.

He and his colleagues describe their research in a paper that is scheduled for publication in the Feb. 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal.

The idea of dark energy was first proposed by Einstein as a means of explaining how the universe could resist collapsing under the pull of gravity. But then Edwin Hubble — the astronomer for whom the NASA telescope is named — demonstrated in 1929 that the universe is expanding, not a constant size. That led to the big-bang theory, and Einstein tossed his notion on science's scrap heap.

There it languished until 1998, when astronomers who were using supernova explosions to gauge the expansion of the universe made a shocking observation. It appeared that older supernovae, whose light had traveled a greater distance across space to reach the Hubble telescope, were receding from Earth more slowly than simple big-bang theory would predict. Nearby supernovae were receding more quickly than expected. That could only be true if some mysterious force were causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate over time.

Cosmologists dubbed the force "dark energy," and ever since they've been trying to figure out what it is.

"Dark energy makes us nervous," said Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology who was not involved in the supernova study. "It fits the data, but it's not what we really expected."

Answers may come once NASA upgrades the Hubble Space Telescope in a space shuttle mission scheduled for 2008. NASA and the Department of Energy are also planning to launch an orbiting observatory specifically designed to address the mystery in 2011.

Dark energy could be some property of space itself, which is what Einstein was thinking of when he proposed it. Or it could be something akin to an electromagnetic field pushing on the universe. And then there's the possibility that the whole thing is caused by some hitherto undiscovered wrinkle in the laws of gravity.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: breakthrough; darkenergy; einstein; haltonarp; hubble; nobigbang; steadystate; stringtheory; supernovas; telescope
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

These snapshots, taken by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, reveal five supernovae, or exploding stars, and their host galaxies in these images released November 16, 2006. The top row of images point to the supernovae. The bottom row shows the host galaxies before or after the stars exploded. The supernovae exploded between 3.5 and 10 billion years ago. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY (NASA, ESA, and A. Riess - STScI/Handout/Reuters)


1 posted on 11/16/2006 9:07:53 PM PST by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The Orion Nebula is seen in an image taken from the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes. FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY (NASA/Handout/Reuters)


2 posted on 11/16/2006 9:08:34 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... Cornyn / Kyl in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

My BS meter is full on this one.


3 posted on 11/16/2006 9:08:45 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

U.S. Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), ranking Democrat on the commerce, justice and science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, answers questions at a news conference at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, October 31, 2006. NASA announced earlier in the day that there will be a shuttle mission, planned for May 2008, to service the Hubble Telescope and keep it operational through 2013. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)


4 posted on 11/16/2006 9:09:17 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... Cornyn / Kyl in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

That picture explains why the repulsive force causing the universe to expand.


5 posted on 11/16/2006 9:14:19 PM PST by Paleo Conservative (Karl Rove isn't magnificent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Based on what?
6 posted on 11/16/2006 9:15:20 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
Hubble ping.
7 posted on 11/16/2006 9:16:31 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

The cosmological constant was a fudge factor introduced by Einstein in an attempt to create a static Universe. Does this prove that the Universe is static?


8 posted on 11/16/2006 9:18:55 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

No - as I understand it, it means accelleration, with more rapid acccelleration over time, as objects get further apart. Truely anti gravity.


9 posted on 11/16/2006 9:34:33 PM PST by uscabjd ( a)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: uscabjd

It was an artificial mathematical quantity. Invented by Einstein to stabilize his world view. It made the equations work.


10 posted on 11/16/2006 9:36:29 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known

Yeah, right.

11 posted on 11/16/2006 9:38:50 PM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

News Release Number: STScI-2006-52
Hubble Finds Evidence for Dark Energy in the Young Universe

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/52/


12 posted on 11/16/2006 9:42:48 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... Cornyn / Kyl in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Whatever it is it is "dark" only to us, because we don't have the means to "see" it (to detect it) because we don't know exactly what it is. I think "dark" is an unfortunate label for it.


13 posted on 11/16/2006 9:43:11 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Background information useful for exploring this news release:

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/52/astrofile/

What Are HST's New Results on Dark Energy Telling Us?

1. Astronomers have greatly improved the accuracy in the measurements of the acceleration in the cosmic expansion. In 1998, astronomers discovered that the expansion of our universe is speeding up, propelled by the repulsive force of "dark energy." The nature of this dark energy remains a mystery.

2. Astronomers have strengthened the evidence that the early universe was decelerating, but that it gave way to acceleration by around 4 to 5 billion years ago.

3. Astronomers have obtained the first meaningful measurement of the strength of dark energy in the distant past. It appears to have roughly the same strength that it does today, with a value consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant but does not prove Einstein was right. Astronomers are trying in particular to determine how much pressure this dark energy exerts for a given energy density, and if the relation between pressure and density remains constant or changes with time.

4. The "pressure" exerted by dark energy far back in time was negative, as it remains today, resulting in a repulsive gravitational force.

5. The new results rule out any rapid changes of in the "strength" of the dark energy's pressure, and in so doing, they rule out certain models for the dark energy. By observing a larger sample of supernovae, the researches have been able to place tighter constraints both on this "strength" of the dark energy and on its constancy. One possibility is that the dark energy represents the energy of empty space (the physical vacuum). The physical vacuum has a peculiar property that its pressure is negative, resulting in a repulsive force of gravity. Other models for the nature of dark energy involve fields (a bit like the electromagnetic field) that decay with time.

6. There is strong evidence that the Supernovae Type Ia, the "standard candles" used to measure the rate of cosmic expansion, have not changed over the past 10 billions years, i.e., supernova evolution is not fooling astronomers into drawing false conclusions about dark energy. The new results yield the tightest constraints to date on both the "strength" of the dark energy pressure and on its constancy. The results are consistent with Einstein's cosmological constant. This means that at least some models that involve varying fields can be ruled out.


14 posted on 11/16/2006 9:44:23 PM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... Cornyn / Kyl in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Hmmm.... the "Cosmological 'Constant'" is not so 'constant' after all. 'Fudging' with equations to satisfy the data on the false premise of a static universe yields an expanding universe in observational fact, as we now understand. If the universe were to be slightly less homogenous than presently perceived, could the "Big Bang" itself be a more local universe phenomenon in a greater whole?


15 posted on 11/16/2006 9:48:40 PM PST by PageMarker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
The observation discovered no black energy. It discovered an apparent difference in velocity in the younger universe which would mean (if accurate) that something is causing the difference. They have zero idea what.

Further, because Einstein was trying to account for a static universe, his "dark energy" equation could not possibly be the explanation for this phenomenon.

This article is really saying that this data no longer supports the Big Bang theory.

16 posted on 11/16/2006 9:48:47 PM PST by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
The cosmological constant was a fudge factor introduced by Einstein in an attempt to create a static Universe. Does this prove that the Universe is static?

Oh, I see. The article wasn't very clear. Here's how it works.

Einstein's equations without the cosmological constant provide for essentially three solutions: a universe that collapses back upon itself, or a universe that expands forever, slowing down somewhat as it goes, or a universe that expands forever, but whose expansion eventually slows to a crawl. You can think of these as being akin to ballistic trajectories: the parabolic arc of an artillery shell, the escape trajectory of a deep space probe, or the orbital launch of a space shuttle.

Einstein assumed that the universe would neither expand nor contract, so he added in the cosmological constant. This parameter, depending on its value, can fine-tune the fate of the universe: the universe can collapse like the spiking of a volleyball, or it can accelerate outwards ever faster, like a rocket, or it can just hover in place, which is what Einstein wanted it to do.

Some time later, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe was indeed expanding. It wasn't what Einstein expected, but it did seem to fit with the expanding cosmologies predicted if the constant were zero. So everyone assumed the constant was simply zero.

In recent years, however, it was discovered that the universal expansion isn't slowing down as required. In fact, it's speeding up! This most recent measurement confirms it by using Type 1a supernovae, which all have the same brightness. This allows us to measure how far away they are by how dim they appear. Also, we can measure how fast they are moving away from us by their redshift, and by how slowly they appear to cool off. That gives us all we need to see how the expansion has changed over time, if we can find enough Type 1a supernovae at a wide variety of distances.

If the expansion of the universe is speeding up, that means it can't be following one of the "ballistic" trajectories described by a zero cosmological constant. The constant must have a nonzero value very different from what Einstein originally wanted--opposite sign, in fact--but it must be nonzero nevertheless.

17 posted on 11/16/2006 9:51:25 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

YEC INTREP


18 posted on 11/16/2006 9:54:15 PM PST by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
That is why QED and Relativity don't mix actually. Which side are you on out of curiosity?
19 posted on 11/16/2006 9:54:24 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Williams
Further, because Einstein was trying to account for a static universe, his "dark energy" equation could not possibly be the explanation for this phenomenon.

Wrong! It all depends on the value of the parameter. Read reply #17.

20 posted on 11/16/2006 9:55:34 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

BTW no more rants please. I may know more than you think.


21 posted on 11/16/2006 10:00:08 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
That is why QED and Relativity don't mix actually.

Er, no. Quantum field theory and General Relativity don't appear to mix because a quantized spin-2 (read: gravitational) field can't be renormalizable (read: finite) in four dimensions. That's a mathematical fact that's independent of the value of the cosmological constant.

Which side are you on out of curiosity?

Extra dimensions. I believe QFT and GR are both correct. There is experimental evidence of the quantized nature of the gravitational field. If all that is the case, it implies that there are more dimensions than the four we measure.

22 posted on 11/16/2006 10:02:08 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative; Dad yer funny; RaceBannon
"That picture explains why the repulsive force causing the universe to expand."

Here's a more recent picture of ultra-repulsive dark energy, accelerating away from fron imploding dark-star #2004, aka Kerranus...


23 posted on 11/16/2006 10:03:04 PM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I may know more than you think.

Maybe, but there are others reading the thread who don't.

24 posted on 11/16/2006 10:03:52 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Have you seen any realistic results out of string theory? The answer is no. How about M theory? Maybe. I don't believe in making things up. The extra dimensional concepts don't currently work. At all.
25 posted on 11/16/2006 10:06:29 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Re post #24. Yes, you are absolutely right.


26 posted on 11/16/2006 10:07:19 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
. Astronomers have strengthened the evidence that the early universe was decelerating, but that it gave way to acceleration by around 4 to 5 billion years ago.

Maybe that's when the first advanced civilization in the Universe decided it was time to reverse the collapse.

27 posted on 11/16/2006 10:09:32 PM PST by Fitzcarraldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

Quantum physics has yet to offer us gravitational equations, does it not?

As for General Relativity, the gravitational equations will not hold up under higher values, will they?


28 posted on 11/16/2006 10:12:49 PM PST by PageMarker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Ah, an "agenda". I see.

So what's your angle? Over-unity energy generation? Faster-than-light relativity skeptic? 6,000-year-old universe? New-age quantum consciousness...stuff? Just curious.

29 posted on 11/16/2006 10:13:43 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; cornelis; Whosoever
Can this concept be metaphorically displayed as....

Chimps considering a Rolex Watch as to what it is?, where it came from?, what it's good for?, and is it good to eat?...

And since no chimp ever yet thought of God.. will never find out..

30 posted on 11/16/2006 10:17:54 PM PST by hosepipe (CAUTION: This propaganda is laced with hyperbole)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I believe that these are definable anomalies in space time itself.
31 posted on 11/16/2006 10:18:50 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
I don't need to make up magical dimensions.
;)
32 posted on 11/16/2006 10:19:34 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
Here's a more recent picture of ultra-repulsive dark energy, accelerating away from fron imploding dark-star #2004, aka Kerranus...

If ever there was a group that needed to be on the wrong side of an event horizon, it's this bunch.

33 posted on 11/16/2006 10:22:26 PM PST by The Cajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known Yeah, right.

They should have said "relatively extremely well-known."
34 posted on 11/16/2006 10:25:57 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Could you elaborate more on those two statements? I know I am in way over my head here, but I love trying to figure this stuff out:) Specifically is a field or a wave quantized?

Quantum field theory and General Relativity don't appear to mix because a quantized spin-2 (read: gravitational) field can't be renormalizable (read: finite) in four dimensions.

There is experimental evidence of the quantized nature of the gravitational field.

35 posted on 11/16/2006 10:26:18 PM PST by LeGrande
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Spell it out for me. Are you saying that the acceleration (or apparent acceleration) is caused by vacuum flaws like cosmic strings or domain walls? Or are you saying that you think general relativity itself is simply wrong, preferring instead something like MOND? Steady state theory? Autodynamics? Superluminal gravity? Orgone?
36 posted on 11/16/2006 10:29:35 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Yehuda
Ugh...Kerranus...the garbage star...
37 posted on 11/16/2006 10:33:59 PM PST by Dallas59 (Muslims Are Only Guests In Western Countries)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Spell it out for me. Are you saying that the acceleration (or apparent acceleration) is caused by vacuum flaws like cosmic strings or domain walls? Or are you saying that you think general relativity itself is simply wrong, preferring instead something like MOND? Steady state theory? Autodynamics? Superluminal gravity? Orgone?

The apparent acceleration cannot be verified regardless of what either of us believe at this point. I think relativity is mostly right. I think this article is bunk.
38 posted on 11/16/2006 10:37:14 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

my uninformed spectulation is as follows.

Most everything in the universe seems to be in discrete packets or quanta.

I speculate that even time comes in discret packets and it ticks like an old fashioned clock.

The acceleration in the expansion, may simply be a result of a "clock" that is "ticking" faster across the universe.


39 posted on 11/16/2006 10:37:59 PM PST by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
Could you elaborate more on those two statements?

The first would require a treatise. I'll see if I can search up a cogent link tomorrow.

As for the second, here's an old FR thread about an underappreciated demonstration of the quantum nature of gravity.

Specifically is a field or a wave quantized?

I don't really understand the question "is a wave quantized"; I might recommend that you read up on "particle/wave duality". As for fields, we know that the electromagnetic field, the weak nuclear field, and the strong nuclear field are all quantized, meaning that they can be modelled as the exchange of "force particles". We don't know mathematically how to do that with gravity, yet.

40 posted on 11/16/2006 10:38:03 PM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher
" Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known " .... until the newest future discovery proves them all wrong.
41 posted on 11/16/2006 10:53:40 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM 53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart , There is no GOD .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

First of all, if "dark energy" is accelerating universal expansion, why don't we see a uniform acceleration? Second, why don't we see this impact on a micro level?

Third, what do the equations and data say? We know, for instance, that Gravity is inversely proportional to distance.

Well, if Gravity has anything to do with universal expansion, then that inverse proportionality will be evident in the modeling equations and research data.

Is it?!


42 posted on 11/16/2006 11:00:03 PM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi; Physicist
[I think relativity is mostly right. I think this article is bunk.]


This article was written by a scientifically illiterate journalist in an attempt to take an inherently complicated and difficult to understand paper and present it to the public in a watered down and dumbed down version, no matter how many irrelevant Einstein anecdotes need to be introduced or how many misleading, but interesting, metaphors have to be invented.

This is typical of the MSM (in this case the AP) and the only way to fairly judge this is to wait until the paper comes out in February and read it, assuming one already has a thorough understanding of the relevant physics and the topic of cosmology itself (and very few people do). I majored in physics in college and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have the knowledge required to check the validity of the arguments put forth.
43 posted on 11/16/2006 11:46:19 PM PST by spinestein (DOING THE JOB THE OLD MEDIA USED TO DO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

Okay...


44 posted on 11/16/2006 11:49:12 PM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness
["Because the physics of supernova explosions is extremely well-known " .... until the newest future discovery proves them all wrong.]


This is a common misunderstanding of how the process of science works to advance knowledge, and it's an error based on the assumption that an established theory which is refined in order to improve its compliance with observed phenomena must have been fundamentally wrong to begin with. An example of this is the established theory of Newtonian mechanics describing how objects move through space, modified by relativity theory so as to explain small anomalies of Newtonian theory observed under unusual conditions, such as near the speed of light. Newtonian theory is here being refined, not replaced, and few would criticize that the Newtonian laws of motion which millions of people find useful everyday, are now invalid.
45 posted on 11/17/2006 12:02:49 AM PST by spinestein (DOING THE JOB THE OLD MEDIA USED TO DO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

Newtonian theory is replaced in your assessment.


46 posted on 11/17/2006 12:05:11 AM PST by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Physicist

Very fascinating. Thanks, Physicist.


47 posted on 11/17/2006 12:07:07 AM PST by MonicaG (Enjoying all the Freedom very much every day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Cajun

Kerry: worm hole...


48 posted on 11/17/2006 12:10:41 AM PST by Yehuda ("Land of the free, THANKS TO THE BRAVE!" (Choke on it, pinkos!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
And since no chimp ever yet thought of God.. will never find out..

If there were no minds to think of God would God exist?

49 posted on 11/17/2006 12:18:12 AM PST by TigersEye (Ego chatters endlessly on. Mind speaks in great silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
I clearly came to the opposite conclusion in my post when I said that Newtonian theory was refined, not replaced, by relativity theory and I would risk becoming blatantly pedantic to try to elaborate further. But that's never stopped me before, so....

Use this analogy: Someone invents the wheel and axle and a grand concept in transportation is born. Then someone else later attaches a horse to the front and this improves the concept allowing people to move about faster that humans can run. An internal combustion engine is then installed in place of the horse and this also is seen as an improvement (unless your name is AlGore) allowing travel to and from jobs at great distances and permitting goods to be transported thousands of miles in a few days. Currently, the wheel and axle concept of transportation is undergoing many additions and refinements such as hybrid electric motors and GPS navigation, yet at no time past or present was the underlying theory determined to be invalid or flawed. Even when the horse was replaced by an engine this didn't have anything to do with the validity of the underlying theory, just a change in practical application.

This relates to the article because some critics are asserting that expanding universe theory must be wholly invalid if the observed and measured expansion of the universe deviates even a tiny amount from the value predicted by the currently incomplete theories. This is fallacious, as if a small, as yet unexplained deviation in the observed rate of expansion means that the universe isn't really expanding at all.
50 posted on 11/17/2006 12:34:51 AM PST by spinestein (DOING THE JOB THE OLD MEDIA USED TO DO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 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