We have NOT broken the speed of light
We have broken the speed of light, the article's headline boldly proclaims.
No, we haven't. I absolutely guarantee it. First, let's look at what they did:
Well there's not really anything here. My first guess was that this was some issue about Quantum Entanglement, but it might not be (and that doesn't offer FTL communication anyway, that's just a sloppy interpretation of what's happening). If this is about entanglement then it's not news, this has been done dozens of times, and it doesn't break SR.
But if it's not about entanglement it doesn't matter, because there's no way light traveled faster than light. It reminds me of someone who asked me if humidity can be above 100%. My response was, "No, because can't hold more water than it can possibly hold."
Light always travels at the speed of light, and the speed of light varies based on the medium the light is in. This comes straight from Maxwell's Laws (see here if you're interested in why), and it's what inspired Einstein to think about what light would look like if you ran alongside it (of course, he figured out that no matter how fast you were running it would still go at the speed of light). Special relativity comes straight from Maxwell's laws, and if something is found to violate SR, then Maxwell's laws aren't correct.
Now, it's always possible that our current knowledge of the universe isn't correct, even something as old and well-established as the fundamental theory of electricity and magnetism. But the more established and well-tested the theory, the less likely this becomes. It's like evolution, sure it could be wrong, but it almost certainly isn't. The same is true of Maxwell's Laws, they've been so thoroughly tested to such insane limits that if they're wrong it would shake physics to its core (given that those four little equation form an entire section of physics, and form the foundation for relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics, the other being QM).
So while it's possible that these two researchers have broken the speed of light, I highly doubt it. Besides, if you look at their setup the have light traveling one meter, which happens in about 3 nanoseconds. I think it's more likely that they measured incorrectly (that there's some error in their experiment) than that half of modern physics is wrong. If I never hear about this monumental discovery again, I'll be pretty sure that I'm right.
Update: A different article has more information, this one attributes the FTL travel to quantum tunneling, which is a process by which a particle goes through an energy barrier that it classically shouldn't be able to go through. I'm not very experienced with this phenomenon, but my understanding is that this still doesn't violate SR since it's not actually moving that distance, the wavefunction has just spread over to the other detector. Since the wavefunction covered the whole distance anyway, the particle wasn't localized before measurement, so it can't be said to have traveled FTL in any real sense (keep in mind that could all be wrong). But it's so hard to say what's going on based on these news reports, they don't include reference information and I can't see it here anyway, so I can't check any actual paper for an idea of what's going on.
In any case, I still stand by my original assessment that this isn't revolutionary, but as always, I could be wrong.
UPDATE 2: Wow, I should have checked Eureka Alert a while ago. Here's a reasonable explanation of what happened. It was indeed tunneling, and it also does not violate SR. As is typical with science reporting, the reporter seized upon the most fantastic interpretation of the results, and not the sober analysis presented at the end. We did not break the speed of light, end of story.
No, we haven't. I absolutely guarantee it. First, let's look at what they did:
The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.
Well there's not really anything here. My first guess was that this was some issue about Quantum Entanglement, but it might not be (and that doesn't offer FTL communication anyway, that's just a sloppy interpretation of what's happening). If this is about entanglement then it's not news, this has been done dozens of times, and it doesn't break SR.
But if it's not about entanglement it doesn't matter, because there's no way light traveled faster than light. It reminds me of someone who asked me if humidity can be above 100%. My response was, "No, because can't hold more water than it can possibly hold."
Light always travels at the speed of light, and the speed of light varies based on the medium the light is in. This comes straight from Maxwell's Laws (see here if you're interested in why), and it's what inspired Einstein to think about what light would look like if you ran alongside it (of course, he figured out that no matter how fast you were running it would still go at the speed of light). Special relativity comes straight from Maxwell's laws, and if something is found to violate SR, then Maxwell's laws aren't correct.
Now, it's always possible that our current knowledge of the universe isn't correct, even something as old and well-established as the fundamental theory of electricity and magnetism. But the more established and well-tested the theory, the less likely this becomes. It's like evolution, sure it could be wrong, but it almost certainly isn't. The same is true of Maxwell's Laws, they've been so thoroughly tested to such insane limits that if they're wrong it would shake physics to its core (given that those four little equation form an entire section of physics, and form the foundation for relativity, one of the two pillars of modern physics, the other being QM).
So while it's possible that these two researchers have broken the speed of light, I highly doubt it. Besides, if you look at their setup the have light traveling one meter, which happens in about 3 nanoseconds. I think it's more likely that they measured incorrectly (that there's some error in their experiment) than that half of modern physics is wrong. If I never hear about this monumental discovery again, I'll be pretty sure that I'm right.
Update: A different article has more information, this one attributes the FTL travel to quantum tunneling, which is a process by which a particle goes through an energy barrier that it classically shouldn't be able to go through. I'm not very experienced with this phenomenon, but my understanding is that this still doesn't violate SR since it's not actually moving that distance, the wavefunction has just spread over to the other detector. Since the wavefunction covered the whole distance anyway, the particle wasn't localized before measurement, so it can't be said to have traveled FTL in any real sense (keep in mind that could all be wrong). But it's so hard to say what's going on based on these news reports, they don't include reference information and I can't see it here anyway, so I can't check any actual paper for an idea of what's going on.
In any case, I still stand by my original assessment that this isn't revolutionary, but as always, I could be wrong.
UPDATE 2: Wow, I should have checked Eureka Alert a while ago. Here's a reasonable explanation of what happened. It was indeed tunneling, and it also does not violate SR. As is typical with science reporting, the reporter seized upon the most fantastic interpretation of the results, and not the sober analysis presented at the end. We did not break the speed of light, end of story.
Labels: maxwell's equations, physics, relativity, science, science reporting, special relativity
posted at
8/16/2007 08:38:00 AM
Measured Against Reality Feed
42 Comments:
wow youre so smart and full of .. brains id like to lick you
By
Anonymous, at 11:04 AM, August 16, 2007
Your updates had more substance than the actual entry. Of course we have to be wary of over-exaggerated articles, but it is just as damaging to disregard it after a superficial investigation because you 'just know' it can't be done. That's not science, that's religion.
By
Anonymous, at 11:13 AM, August 16, 2007
and you are...? another scientist i presume, equally or more qualified than the other 2 scientists right?
By
Anonymous, at 11:14 AM, August 16, 2007
Sorry anonymous #2, but at that point I had essentially nothing to go on. I outlined why I'm inherently skeptical of any research that supposedly breaks the speed of light, it would be so revolutionary that it's not something to just be accepted at someone's word, and the research was certainly not worth the headline.
By
Stupac2, at 11:15 AM, August 16, 2007
anonymous #3, nope, I'm not (although I should be in a few years). But the beauty of science is that authority means nothing and evidence means everything. Their evidence is shoddy and doesn't meet the claim, and you don't have to have a PhD to see it.
By
Stupac2, at 11:17 AM, August 16, 2007
"Light always travels at the speed of light, and the speed of light varies based on the medium the light is in. This comes straight from Maxwell's Laws..."
Wow, it's so kind of light to take it's characteristics from Maxwell's "laws". BTW, they're referred to as Maxwell's Equations. Light is what it is regardless of whether Maxwell lived to tell the tale.
Not only is science possibly wrong, it almost certainly is. Considering your inability to communicate the obvious, I seriously doubt you're knowledgable or experienced enough to challenge the researchers who have made this claim. It doesn't matter that you intuition is justified. If researchers didn't understand the simple concepts you're unable to communicate effectively, they wouldn't have made it through undergraduate school.
Thanks for telling us how it is though. I'd like to know what evidence you've studied in order to conclude that it's "shoddy".
By
Anonymous, at 11:46 AM, August 16, 2007
Anonymous #4, I apologize for a momentary lapse in nomenclature. But it doesn't change the fact that Maxwell's equation "predicted" a wave that travels at speed c and this speed changes based on the medium the light is in. I'm not sure why you'd be challenging this by saying, "Wow, it's so kind of light to take it's characteristics from Maxwell's 'laws'." I'm well aware that it's the other way around, that Maxwell's Eq's describe the behavior of phenomena, but it doesn't change the fact that they would have to change if light were to move faster that the speed of light, and that would be utterly revolutionary. Given that revolutions are uncommon, when someone claims that one has happened skepticism is justified.
The "shoddy" evidence is their experiment. The two newspaper article suck, but the Eureka Alert one has a decent description, and even includes a scientist explaining why this isn't violating SR, (and justifying my explanation that it was just the smearing of the wavefunction). From the basic description of the experiment it's just immediately obvious that this is simple quantum tunneling, the same thing that causes many radioactive decays and other weird phenomena. It's an interesting experiment, but not revolutionary.
Also, you'll note that I said in the article that science is frequently wrong (although incomplete is a better description), this is just one of those instances where it's quite unlikely that it is. If it's ever conclusively demonstrated that anything can move faster than light, I would be quite shocked (as would every physicist alive).
By
Stupac2, at 12:02 PM, August 16, 2007
As far as I can tell, the only "theoretical" way to travel faster than light is to somehow fold space-time and thread from one spot to another, thus appearing to arrive at a location before light from your departure reached there. Am I way off base?
By
Sam B, at 12:04 PM, August 16, 2007
Sam B, you're essentially talking about wormholes, which are one way of "traveling" faster than light (even though you're really not, you're just beating the system), they're also one theoretical way for traveling through time. That is one way to accomplish these things, and I'm sure there are others. I just don't care for this stuff because it's mostly speculation since we can't actually do it yet, and I think it will turn out that we can't for some reason.
By
Stupac2, at 12:12 PM, August 16, 2007
Evanescent waves (like the ones that extend beyond prisms during total internal reflection, which would be used for tunneling) are subject to the same wave equations as the sinusoidal waves that propagate under normal circumstances. The tunneling they observed is a direct consequence of Maxwell's equations, without any recourse to QM or special relativity.
This experiment was performed as a demonstration in my 2nd-year undergrad physics class (albeit over shorter distances and with less-precise measurement of the results).
If you look at only the information that is transmitted correctly, it seems to have done so faster than light. However, the process gets unreliable very, very fast, and huge amounts of noise are introduced. To transmit the extra bits that would allow for error correction requires more time than it would take to wait for the light to propagate normally; therefore, the information travels at below-light-speed.
By
Joel, at 12:28 PM, August 16, 2007
Actually, humidity can be above 100%. It's called super saturation.
By
Thane, at 12:30 PM, August 16, 2007
i was reading fine up until the point you tried to convince me evolution was all but proven. the process of evolution, sure. no doubt things evolve to a certain extent.
but there is just enough evidence to DISprove the idea we came from monkeys and bacteria than there is to prove it.
By
Anonymous, at 12:31 PM, August 16, 2007
this has been done before in the late 90's. two photons were "observed" traveling along the same path. one had a metal barrier in its path (VERY VERY thin metal sheet). that one got to the detector before the other one did. it did not go faster than light, it just did not have to travel quite as far and thus got to the detector sooner. this was quantum tunneling. QT happens in circuits and in fusion, among other things. in the sun, two hydrogen atoms repel each other yet they still fuse. they do so by QT (my main source on all this is Brain Greene's "The Elegant Universe")
By
Anonymous, at 12:42 PM, August 16, 2007
"i was reading fine up until the point you tried to convince me evolution was all but proven."
Evolution IS "all but proven". If you have different theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence at hand, write it up and send it immediately to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Be sure to show your work.
If your theory stands up to scrutiny you will win the Nobel prize. I guarantee it.
By
Uncle Mike, at 1:04 PM, August 16, 2007
Thanks Uncle Mike, I didn't feel like handling that one. As far as I'm concerned, someone who's convinced that evolution is wrong isn't worth bothering with.
By
Stupac2, at 1:06 PM, August 16, 2007
"Light always travels at the speed of light, and the speed of light varies based on the medium the light is in."
To be more precise, what physicists refer to as the speed of light is the speed of light in a vacuum, denoted as "c" in equations.
The speed of light in matter is reduced by a factor known as the index of refraction, "n" such that v = c/n.
Thus it's easy to travel faster than light can travel in some medium when the index of refraction is high. I think some group was able to slow down light to around a few meters per second in some material, but this isn't breaking any postulates of special relativity. However, don't confuse the slowing of light propagation in some medium with any of this quantum tunneling that may have occurred. It's only exciting when you travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, not the speed of light in a medium.
By
Anonymous, at 1:28 PM, August 16, 2007
Q: Is it possible for relative humidity to be higher than 100%?
A: Yes, it is possible. In Elements of Meteorology the authors Albert Miller and Jack C. Thompson explain that in extremely clean air which contains no "foreign" particles, water droplets, or ice crystals it is extremely difficult for condensation to occur even when supersaturated conditions are present. Supersaturated conditions refer to relative humidities much greater than 100%. C.T.R. Wilson invented an instrument called a cloud chamber in which clouds can be manually made. He discovered that in pure, clean air the relative humidity must reach 800% before water drops form. Realistically, air is not pure and clean. There are many particles that are small enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere such as salt particles from sea water, combustion products, meteoritic dust, volcanic material, and soil. These particles, prominent as they are, act as nuclei for water to condense upon and, hence, are an easier means of condensation. This means that condensation in real air can usually produce humidities just barely over 100%.
By
Ray, at 1:32 PM, August 16, 2007
You mentioned that the speed of light varies, depending on what medium if flows through.
The same is true of sound, I think. And if there is no sound in space (because space is a vacuum? -- in space, no one can hear you scream), then is the nature of sound only the vibrations of the the molecules / atoms / atomic particles of the substance through with the sound is traveling? (vibrations which eventually transfer to the electrical field of the atoms of the molecules of the nerve cells of the auditory nerves in your eardrum?
So sound isn't "made" of anything, whereas light is "made" of photons.
By
Curious, at 1:36 PM, August 16, 2007
Ray, thanks for that clarification, I know essentially nothing about meteorology. But I think we should redefine humidity, (or perhaps I just know a bad definition) so that it actually is the maximum water vapor that air can hold.
By
Stupac2, at 1:37 PM, August 16, 2007
Curious, that's right. Sound is pressure waves traveling through some medium, whereas light is an actual particle. While they're both "waves", light is fundamentally different since it's actually a manifestation of an electromagnetic field. I suppose sound is too, since the particles in the pressure wave interact through electric and magnetic fields, but it's quite different since that's just the main way particles can interact.
Sound isn't really the vibration of individual particles, but the waves of pressure that travel through the medium made up of those particles. There's probably a way to look at it as the individual motions of the particle, but you really need a group for sound to propagate.
But yes, there is no fundamental "sound" particle, while there is one for light.
By
Stupac2, at 1:43 PM, August 16, 2007
Hello friends,
For scientists, to hold the view that "evolution IS all but proven," and not being flexible that evolution is indeed a theory to which there are counter-arguments to---well that makes you not very good scientists, if I may say so.
I might suggest you read the article at the link at the bottom of this post, and particularly watch the video at the bottom. I am not saying these people have all the answers, but they do present some very valid arguments worth considering. Please give it an honest appraisal. Also, recent research shows that 'evolution,' at least as conceived by Darwin, was off the mark on a number of fronts. I'd go into more detail, but I am at work and don't have all day to make the counter arguments to 'evolution' as conceived by Darwin, who did make some very valid observations and presented those in his theory.
Putting it another way, a 'scientist' who is inflexible in their views, and not willing to hear opposing arguments are not by definition real scientists, and are perpetuating the same ignorance that they are supposedly trying to dispel.
Kind regards,
Geoffrey
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/08/15/-atheists-vs-
agnostics-vs-religionists-or-are-they-all-the-same/?url=http%3A
%2F%2Fdulyconsider.com%2F2007%2F08%2Fatheists-vs-agno
stics-vs-religionists.html&frame=true
By
electricblanket, at 2:20 PM, August 16, 2007
Scientists who are interested in giving an honest appraisal of opposing views to the theory of evolution as presented by Darwin may wish to watch the video at the bottom of this article.
There are many holes in the theory Darwin presented, though he did make many valid observations. Scientific theories are allowed to evolve and change as new research contradicts tenants of previous theories.
Kind Regards,
Geoffrey
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/08/15/-atheists-vs-
agnostics-vs-religionists-or-are-they-all-the-same/?url=http%3A
%2F%2Fdulyconsider.com%2F2007%2F08%2Fatheists-vs-agno
stics-vs-religionists.html&frame=true
By
geoffrey richards, at 2:25 PM, August 16, 2007
sorry, didn't realize that my comment needed approval. sorry about the 'double,' and now 'triple' post.
-geoff
By
geoffrey, at 2:26 PM, August 16, 2007
Arright smarty-pants, if evolution is "all but proven", reproduce it. Apply the scientific method to it. Test it like you test light theory. Seems to me that anyone who holds up evolution as the most obvious example of unassailable science should perhaps instead be counted among our most piously faithful.
By
Anonymous, at 2:32 PM, August 16, 2007
omg guys, everyone who has taken high school physics knows that science journalism is shit. How the hell do you feel like you can get away with calling data "shoddy" that you haven't seen? EVERYONE KNOWS THAT TRAVELLING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS AGAINST THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. And if they don't, it's written in the article. The whole point was that something amazing happened. When the Wright brothers flew and there was a headline in the papers saying "Humans can fly," would you have written an editorial to the paper explaining newtons laws of gravity? because that's basically what you just did. I hope this successfully ruined the hard-on you got when you hit the front page of reddit and wasted my time. And how arrogant have you to be to say that you'll be a scientist in a few years? Don't you realize that you have to be a major twat to go around saying that? I'm going to assume you're in high school, in which case, you also lied about how long it's going to be. Being a scientist and being a researcher are two different things. And who the fuck calls himself a scientist anyway?!?! Nobody deserving of professional respect, that's for sure.
By
Anonymous, at 2:52 PM, August 16, 2007
I remember reading somewhere (or it might have been from talking with some physicist friends) that the speed of light is constant even in a refractive material.
(I'm quite sure that most people will know the following paragraph already so please skip ahead!)
The apparent reduction in speed is caused by the electric field of the incident light making the atoms of the medium oscillate and re-radiate light. This causes interference; we see the effect of this process as the refraction of the light ray. I think this can be derived from using the light speed equal to c.
Yes, I agree that the mathematics is equivalent to assuming the speed is slowing down in a refractive medium but physically I don't think this is the case. It's quite a important distinction.
I'm not an expert in this, what do you think?
By
boyfarrell, at 3:18 PM, August 16, 2007
"No, we haven't. I absolutely guarantee it."
"So while it's possible that these two researchers have broken the speed of light, I highly doubt it."
Do you work in politics?
By
Anonymous, at 4:05 PM, August 16, 2007
Hi, here is another couple of articles you might consider:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/14tier.html?ei=5090&en=22bfff4070a81187&ex=1344744000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism
Kind regards,
Geoffrey
P.S. I have reason to believe that the end of the 'simulation' we are living in will be on Dec. 21, 2012. May you all find peace.
By
Geoffrey Richards, at 6:03 PM, August 16, 2007
"Seems to me that anyone who holds up evolution as the most obvious example of unassailable science should perhaps instead be counted among our most piously faithful."
No scientific theory is unassailable. That includes evolution. But no other scientific theory comes even close to matching up with the data. There is a mountain of evidence to support natural selection as the driving mechanism for macroevolution.
Again, if you have a better theory, what are you doing hanging around here? You shouldn't be wasting your talent in the comment section of some idiot's blog!
Write an academic paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If your theory does a better job of explaining the fossil record, the diversity of life on Earth, and the DNA evidence, you will quickly become the most famous person in the world.
But remember: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
By
Uncle Mike, at 6:59 PM, August 16, 2007
Uncle Mike, I agree with everything you said (assuming you mean that no other theory offered fits the evidence as well as the modern theory of evolution, not that evolution fits its evidence better than any other theory fits its respective evidence, then I'd say Quantum Mechanics). I even agree with the assessment of me as an idiot, I'm definitely an idiot! We're all idiots! I wish we'd just realize it.
By
Stupac2, at 7:04 PM, August 16, 2007
Yes, sorry I wasn't clear.
I meant that no other scientific theory explains how life began and how it changes over time as eloquently and completely as what is commonly referred to as the theory of evolution. I can think of a number of discoveries that would really punch a hole in the underpinnings of evolution, but given all the evidence it seems wildly improbable. But I agree that it would be harder to upend quantum mechanics.
I feel strongly that kids should be taught a little about the scientific method before they are taught about actual scientific discoveries in any detail. If you don't know what science is or how it works, it's easy to believe that all scientific theories are just guesses, just a lot of puffery dressed up with big words.
Finally, I want to say that when I called you an idiot, I meant in only the gentlest sense of the word. :-) As you suggested, we're all idiots, just fumbling around in the dark.
By
Uncle Mike, at 9:13 AM, August 17, 2007
Yeah, I pretty much knew that's what you meant, but wanted to clarify just in case it wasn't.
I agree, and they do sort of. But they give the scientific method as some kind of rigid "Problem-hypothesis-experiment-refine-conclusion" system that it's just not. It's something fluid, and is more of a mindset than a systematic process. What we really need to teach is skepticism, that would go a long way in helping the youth of this country.
By
Stupac2, at 9:17 AM, August 17, 2007
There are some interesting theories out there about how 'c' could vary in different regions of space and time. Grew out of an alternative cosmological theory to explain 'inflation' after the Big Bang. Joao Magueijo (spelled from memory, may be wrong) wrote a good book about it that's worth reading
So I don't believe anything can travel faster than 'c', it may be that 'c' is a local parameter, not a constant. If it gets me a star drive, I don't care what we call it!
By
Stephen Fleming, at 9:34 AM, August 17, 2007
I Don't really understand why light always has to travel at the speed of light. Wouldnt that be like saying an apple falling to the ground always falls at the same speed? It does unless you force it to fall faster. Why couldnt we force light to travel faster?
By
Chris, at 12:59 PM, August 17, 2007
I say its possible to approach light speed travel.
T = (2 c / g) cosh–1 (1 + 0.5 g X / c2)
http://nlspropulsion.net
By
Anonymous, at 3:57 PM, August 18, 2007
So much of this is just...tachy.
By
Anonymous, at 10:22 PM, August 19, 2007
Your post is on the whole correct, but I must make two small objections. In a saturated atmosphere when a cold front comes through the atmosphere it can become super-saturated and have humidities over 100% (102%-103%)before the rain starts. If you are ever caught in such a rainstorm you are overwhelmed as rain just pops out of everywhere. I also think (ie not sure), that supersaturation can happen in tropical climes. I was in a wild rain storm in Peurto Rico that I beleve involved a super-saturated atmosphere.
Secondly no information can travel faster than the speed of light. However photon wave guides can and do, but they contain no information.
By
David, at 10:49 AM, August 20, 2007
noobs.
By
Anonymous, at 4:09 PM, August 21, 2007
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence/proofs." So who says so - God? Oh no, it was only that demi-god, Carl Sagan, wasn't it? Like the other demi-god worshipped by those afraid of any threat to their comfortable world-view, William of Ockham (of, well, you know what, fame), he was never required to submit any proof or philosophical justification for his pontification - it was just too convenient a weapon for the perpetual defenders of orthodoxy against true sceptical science.
By
Arcesilaus, at 6:48 AM, August 23, 2007
You beat me to it Thane. Super saturation is when RELATIVE humidity exceds 100%, not absolute humidity exceding 100%.
I don't know shit about any thing else you guys are talking about... so I make comments on weather ;)
By
Bmpwe, at 9:23 AM, August 23, 2007
What we call the speed of light is what we have observed the speed of light to be, thus far. In a sense, your analogy to 100% humidity is correct in that light cannot travel faster than light can possibly travel. That however, does not mean that light could not travel faster than what we have OBSERVED the speed of light to be. 100% humidity means simply that there could be no more water vapor in the air. Whereas 299,792,458 m/s is an observed speed which we claim cannot be broken. When we use the term "speed of light" we are referring to this observed speed. Do you see the difference?
By
Brad Garrison, at 1:08 AM, July 31, 2009
Oh the ignorant comments of uninformed and downright stupid people. c isn't constant because that's what we've observed - it's a constant because it BEING constant eloquently and perfectly explains how gravity is shown to behave. It can't be forced higher because it would require unlimited energy, time would crawl to a halt, and space would spread out into infinity. In other words - it ain't gonna happen. And anyone who thinks otherwise is as ignorant as someone who thinks the earth is flat. After all, it's just a THEORY that the earth is round...
And don't get me started on evolution deniers!
By
Anonymous, at 9:05 PM, August 14, 2009
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home