What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
68 Comments
- pln2bz, on 07/10/2009, -2/+53There's a lot more to this image than what Wired Magazine would have us believe.
This object is called Stephen's Quintet. Note that quintet means five; it's not a quartet. Also note that, despite what your eyes might suggest, the bottom blueish galaxy (NGC 7320) is not considered to be one of the four interacting galaxies. The reason is that it possesses a much lower redshift compared to the other four (which theory would place 8 times closer to us).
Calculating distances in space is a devlish process. Needless to say, there is plenty of room for error. What's important to realize is that, despite the blueish tinge that has been colored to 7320 in this image (some older images actually show all five objects with similar colors, btw), the HII component (ionized hydrogen) for all five objects are similar in both size and brightness. Some astronomers have pointed to this fact in claiming that all of these five objects are actually at the same distance.
In a paper that awaits publication (since its submission in 2004), researchers also note that the blue galaxy, ngc 7320, possesses a tail not shown here, and which trails off to the left of this image. In that paper, it was noted that the topleft galaxy with the tail (ngc 7319) interacts with 7320's tail, and the two of them appear to converge on a sixth galaxy, ngc 7319c. The image used to justify this conclusion can be viewed 2/3rds of the way down the following page. It appears that this is perhaps the only website which actually caries an image of this tail ...
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Interestingly, NASA routinely crops their images of Stephan's Quintet to exclude the area where this tail would be seen, and many professional scientists have claimed that they cannot actually see this tail. Obviously, from this image on Don Scott's website, it is there.
This is arguably one of the reasons why the paper has not yet been published: for these two galaxies to have interacting tails would essentially disprove that redshift ALWAYS equates to distance. If we assume, as most theorists do, that redshift can only be a function of distance, then it's just not possible for galaxies so far apart to be interacting.
But that's not the only problem that has been observed in this image. On October 3rd, 2003, a high redshift quasar was observed to be buried within the nucleus of ngc 7319 (the upper left galaxy). According to conventional theory, quasars are thought to be incredibly bright, unbelievably massive and extraordinarily fast-moving objects at the edge of space, because their redshift is strictly interpreted to be a function of distance (a foundational assumption within the Big Bang cosmology). If you look carefully, you can observe the quasar. Look at the center of the top left galaxy (7319); it's the nearest bright point source directly beneath that center which isn't actually touching the galaxy's core. Within the conventional view, not only must this object be shining through that galaxy, but THEORY PUTS THE QUASAR AT 90X THE DISTANCE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE QUINTET, literally billions of light years beyond it. For the redshift-distance relation to hold, this must be -- to put it mildly -- a very special object.
Other researchers have noted that the dust between the quasar and the center of the galaxy 7319 is energized and disturbed, with the only apparent cause the quasar itself.
This is merely one of many images that appear to show high redshift quasars in front of lower redshift galaxies -- an observation that, according to the Big Bang Theory, must be interpreted to mean that the quasar is peeking through a hole within the galaxy. Astrophysicists assure us that we can trust the theoretical distances for quasars. One famous astronomer, Halton Arp, whose namesake is attached to many galaxies to this day, actually had to move to Europe because he was investigating evidence suggesting that redshift is not equal to distance. His telescope time in the United States was yanked. He has published a book explaining evidence for nearby quasars titled Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science.
It's interesting that when the public is shown this image, that none of the controversy surrounding this image is presented -- as if it never happened. No mention of the quasar, the tail, the material between the quasar and the galaxy, anything about redshifts or anything about Halton Arp. This is actually far from abnormal. Many of the images that the public is shown have complex, oftentimes uncertain, debates associated with them. But, in nearly every single case, the public is only informed of the interpretation which suppots the conventional theories. Over time, this leaves the distinct impression that there exists no debate or any reason to even possess any doubt for conventional theory.
And it's easy to see, within this context, why more curious people might want to read against-the-mainstream astrophysical materials. Many people honestly want to hear out a second opinion, and not just accept as fact the assumption that redshift must ALWAYS represent a distance. Halton Arp's arguments are for many people quite convincing. His book has actually convinced a great number of people that the Big Bang never happened, and that the quasar in front of 7319 is actually a proto-galaxy -- an object that's been ejected from 7319 and which will eventually develop into a galaxy in its own right. There in fact exist a great number of observations which suggest this interpretation. Within this alternate view, we observe the universe recycling itself, and there is thus no need to postulate that it began at some point in the distant past.
We'd be wise to pay attention to both sides of the debate, so that as evidence pops up, we can make our own decision as to which side to take. - skissors, on 07/10/2009, -1/+28Dugg for information. Very interesting read.
- ace429k, on 07/10/2009, -0/+14That comment must have taken the better part of an hour. I salute you and your quest for knowledge! Very interesting.
- DarthVolta, on 07/10/2009, -1/+14Dugg for not devolving into a stupid tinfoil hat comment, like I was cynically expecting.
- freshgrease, on 07/10/2009, -0/+8I wouldn't want to be their insurance provider....
- Mnementh2230, on 07/11/2009, -0/+6Please see "Expelled Exposed"
Reduces Ben Stein's piece of crap documentary to what it deserves to be - a laughing stock.
"who believe that the scientific evidence points to life, an environment and a universe that has been designed by an intelligence."
...based on no objective evidence. Further, ID is an unfalsifiable "theory" and is therefore unscientific.
Evolution is falsifiable. Just find a lifeform where it doesn't belong in the geological strata, for the easiest way.
"the doctrine of Intelligent Design is strictly based and focused on empirical evidence"
No it isn't. It's based on people's opinions. "I think that looks designed" isn't empirical evidence. Every other argument I've ever seen for it has been shot down multiple times - Dr. Ken Miller, himself a christian, has done a bang-up job, and his lectures are available on YouTube. Look 'em up.
Further, the main ID book was a direct copy/paste from a religious book. They just took out the word "creator" and made it "designer".
"...the formation of a world government which is to be a strictly secular (and racist) entity."
...a proposition for which there is no empirical evidence, no objective evidence, and a lot of lies for. - MLGLies, on 07/10/2009, -0/+5It's crazy to think that this actually happened so long ago, but we're finally just able to see it.
- Hefelumpman, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4Whoa, I wonder what it looks like right now
- pln2bz, on 07/10/2009, -0/+4Re: "But on the off chance that you actually seek knowledge on the subject, read this, and the post. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift ...
Wikipedia's purpose is to act as a public encyclopedia. They could have decided to host controversial material in a fair manner, but that's not what they decided to do, and if they had, then they arguably wouldn't really be an encyclopedia anyways. More often than not, wikipedia cannot be counted on to accurately portray dissenting views. This has been covered extensively within the news media. Many people by now have actually been involved in their own wikipedia editing wars, and can speak from firsthand experience that it is not the proper place to look to when trying to get a balanced view of a controversy.
However, many advocates for conventional theories would like to have it both ways: they want to both deny against-the-mainstream views on wikipedia, and simultaneously declare that wikipedia can be authoritative on controversial subjects. In a philosophical sense, this makes no sense. For subjects that are controversial, the public must look elsewhere. It's the choice that the people who run wikipedia have made.
Re: "I'm not going to bother with a long explanation, since you obviously didn't bother to read the post (or follow the link) that you commented on - which accurately explained redshift and the problems in detail."
I must not understand Wired's website (quite possible), because I don't see any link to any material pertaining to the material I discussed.
Also, why do you sound mad? - pegothejerk, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3I guess someone ordered a super massive blackhole. Coming right up! (well, okay, so it already happened, we just ain't got the pics yet)
- doubledmateo, on 07/11/2009, -0/+3CrazedLeper,
You're either a shut in conspiracy theorist, or one of the most hardcore trolls I've ever known. There is a difference between looking at an opposing viewpoint because it offers a more reasonable explanation, and accepting any idea that differs from the mainstream based solely off of distrust for anything that is widely accepted. The above writing does the former. You constantly do the latter.
There is nothing courageous about ranting and frothing at the mouth over any widely accepted idea, which is what you do notoriously.
Do you honestly believe there are ultra powerful organizations that all work together (even though they have different apparent motives) to try and control the world's information, or is this merely a teenage rebellion thing that you never grew out of. - pln2bz, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4That's technically true, and a valid point, but it's also worth noting that these velocities are routinely converted into distances by astronomers.
The meat of this controversy pertains to the possibility that there could be additional causes for redshift. Halton Arp's observations suggest that there also exists an inherent component to redshift as well that pertains to an object's age, and that this inherent component changes in a predictable sequential, quantized fashion.
There's actually no real good scientific reason to think that it's not possible (critical ionization velocities, for instance, are known within the lab to also influence Doppler shift data). But, what you will see within the astrophysical community is a realization of the implications for Arp's explanation (if true, it casts great doubt upon the theoretical expansion of the universe, and therefore, the Big Bang itself), and hence an eagerness to accept arguments that cast doubt upon Arp's data. If you look at evidence for the CMB and nucleosynthesis (the two remaining pillars upon which the Big Bang is largely founded), you can actually see the same thing happening: on all fronts, there are reasons to doubt the dominant views in cosmology which are not being explained to the public, in serious-minded manner similar to how investigative journalists in other fields (like politics) now routinely analyze and report. My guess is that most people have noticed that most space-based press releases are forwarded through the various news channels verbatim, in the absence of any additional commentary.
It doesn't take long for these arguments about spectroscopy and astronomy to become really arcane really fast. I'll be the first to admit that. But, the debate over Arp's data continues to this day, and he does possess some support amongst theorists. By not informing people that there even is a debate going on, the public is left with the impression of great certainty amongst theorists with this type of image, and more importantly, with the Big Bang cosmology. In a philosophical sense, if the reporting consistently supports conventional wisdom to the detriment of enigmatic observations, then the public will not be a part of the feedback loop which can act to move science forward in great leaps. I don't believe that this is very smart. - inactive, on 07/10/2009, -6/+9Wow, that's some hot galaxy-on-galaxy action. If I don't turn my eyes away, I might eject some stellar matter myself.
- doubledmateo, on 07/11/2009, -0/+3We get it CrazedLeper. You think 'they' are out to get you and control you. Please note that your paranoid delusions do not equate to reality. ID is completely idiotic. It fails, not because there is a conspiracy against it, but because the ideas are nowhere near being scientific. It is merely a group of fundamentalist Christians that feel threatened by knowledge. A poorly executed attempt at forcing religious dogma to be taught in the educational system. As the above post notes, ID is just creationism with a new name. It's an attempt to find a loophole and just says designer instead of God. The idea is the same and it is still not based on any empirical evidence.
- pln2bz, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3By the way, I just checked out wikipedia's entry on cosmological redshift, and it says nothing about the Halton Arp controversy either. I'm still not getting how people are supposed to make an informed opinion on the Arp controversy without first learning about it.
- rbarnes, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4Buried for not realizing he wasn't referring to the dead actor, genius.
- ultraseamus, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Interesting read. But I can kind of understand why they might hold back some information. The general public cannot crunch the numbers to really form their own opinions, they pretty much have to believe what they are told. Yet, it is the general public that pays for people to collect this data. People do not want to hear that their tax dollars have ended in a couple failed theories, and have only lead to a greater understanding of how little we understand. They want to hear that we can look at little specs of light and know that they are really massive galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away crashing into each other. I do not really support holding back information, but I certainly do think if they are going to release an idea that contradicts years of research to the public, they have an obligation and right to be as sure as possible. Or at least have a good back up explanation that nullifies the loss.
While I do think they hold back some information, I want to be on the record saying that I do not think they are holding back proof of intelligent design. Questioning everything is fine, but there is a limit. And the idea of natural selection is somethign that makes sense to me. - ace429k, on 07/10/2009, -1/+4sick dude! how big were those guys?
- Ascus, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3So if you believe there is other life in the universe, that is a picture of millions of civilizations being snuffed out in various states of development. If you don't believe there is other life in the universe, its just some rocks banging together in vastness of space. Either is very scary, the Milkyway is destined for the same fate, just long after our sun goes dim.
- themastersb, on 07/10/2009, -0/+3Just think that this picture is from 280 million years ago. Imagine what it looks like now.
- Aalenox, on 07/10/2009, -1/+3Grats on passing your highschool physics class. You are fundamentally right, but wrong on a major point. When dealing on a cosmological scale, red shift does, in fact, equate to distance.
I'm not going to bother with a long explanation, since you obviously didn't bother to read the post (or follow the link) that you commented on - which accurately explained redshift and the problems in detail. But on the off chance that you actually seek knowledge on the subject, read this, and the post.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift - sanosuke001, on 07/10/2009, -2/+4Red Shift = speed, not distance.
normally, if something is moving away from us very fast, then it would probably be further away. However, if it had only recently sped up (ie. a galaxy started pulling on it) then assuming it was far away because of being red shifted, you would be wrong.
red/blue shift happens because the speed of the object stretches the wavelength of light in a certain direction. longer and it looks more red, shorter, and it looks blue. pulling on the slinky can illustrate this concept. towards the red end of the spectrum, or away from you, wavelengths are longer so pulling a slinky so the rings are farther apart = moving away. doing the opposite means moving closer which looks more like blue wavelengths.
distance from you doesn't matter what the wavelengths look like when they reach you. - Amargosa, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2So all of God's children living in those galaxies are *****, right?
- scooterbaga, on 07/10/2009, -2/+4Sucks to be them... (~280k millennia ago)
- pln2bz, on 07/12/2009, -0/+2Re: "When it comes to all of this stuff I'm a total noob so I don't pretend to understand how the red shift is used by scientists to accurately predict distances. That said it has always seemed odd that they can find out the distance just using the redshift of the light coming from it. The description that Sanosuke gave while perhaps only containing part of the workings is the way I had previously understood it. Looks like I have something to read about for the afternoon."
Not everybody agrees with me, but I believe that it's possible to "know too much" about cosmology. In my own experience, laypeople tend to be more skeptical of claims with regards to cosmology and astrophysics. And I think that this is a very healthy thing.
Don't be fooled into thinking that these subjects are too complex. I'm currently working on a project to teach laypeople plasma physics and plasma cosmology (which is laboratory plasma physics applied to astronomical observations). This is possible because these subjects tend to have a strong empirical component to them. We can very effectively explain space in terms of nothing more than the behaviors of plasmas within the laboratory. And once we complete this project, it's going to take these discussions to a higher level. You'll be able to look at astronomical imagery and understand what's going on without recourse to things like dark matter, dark energy or black holes. And we'll be providing all of this referenced information for free on the web. People who think that plasma cosmology has become irrelevant will be very surprised by how simple and effective the model is, and how everything we see in space can be explained in terms of laboratory physics. The problem is that, to date, nobody's put the time into properly explaining it in layman's terms. We're making great progress.
Re: "Also, I have to say that I agree with you on Aalenox's comment. It had a very angry tone to it, that I don't understand. Seemed like a rather scathing rebuke that was totally unwarranted."
Many people take their cosmology very personally. I think it's because people have this erroneous belief that cosmology and astrophysics are stereotypical sciences. The truth is that many of the theories associated with the Big Bang cosmology and taken for granted as unassailable fact are actually quite speculative. Don L. Hotson's comments are especially applicable to cosmology and astrophysics ...
"Science frequently makes choices between alternatives. Once the choice is made, however, scientists tend to unify behind the accepted alternative to the extent of denying and eventually forgetting that there was any ‘real’ choice made. Subsequent textbooks gloss over any possible alternatives, depicting science as a straightforward march up the one correct path toward truth. Since it is forgotten and denied that such choices existed, the results of these choices are rarely reviewed. Not only is there no provision, or incentive, for such a review, there is positive, and powerful, peer pressure against any such questioning of basic premises."
Also, there is a tendency to interpret challenges to somebody's beliefs about space as personal attacks. And yet, in order to have rational discussions about controversial subjects, everybody benefits if we all try to get along even as we are disagreeing. Those kinds of discussions end up being, by far, the most productive exchanges of information.
I'm not going anywhere for the foreseeable future. I'll be posting here on Digg when a submission relates to the Electric Universe (a subset of plasma cosmology). I realize that people think that EU Theory is ridiculous, and I'm fine with that for now. The problem is that people have not really done their homework sufficient to formulate that opinion. A lot of people believe that they can evaluate EU Theory with just a partial understanding of the theory. It's just not true. Even professional astrophysicists think that they can ignore many foundational concepts within plasma physics (like Birkeland Currents and z-pinches). This oftentimes leads to comical situations. For instance, astrophysicists puzzle over the ‘rocket motors’ they have found in active galactic nuclei, while across the campus plasma physicists announce their discovery of an electrically powered plasma double layer rocket motor. This widespread notion that IEEE, the world's largest scientific institution, can be ignored when it comes to astrophysics is nonsense, and the very reason why space is filled with invisible, exotic, mysterious objects. - AmazingA, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2So true. Usually stars are just sitting there doing nothing, so they probably look close to the same now as how they appear to us. But these galaxies were crashing through each other at millions of miles per hour- 280 Million years ago! Makes you wonder what's actually going on there now.
- CrackyJSquirrel, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Testing to see if Digg has a comment limit?
- bigpappapunk, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I can help but imagine what that would be like to live through...assuming there's life on other planets and experiencing something like that. Wild.
- banski, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Galaxy Zoo is in the process of classifying thousands of previously unclassified (and possibly never seen before) galaxies, anyone interested in this stuff should sign up and do their bit for science and help with the classifications, you might find something that makes you famous
http://www.galaxyzoo.org/ - Ascus, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2Many Famous Scientist's have egos often make Rock-stars and Actors seem tame. Character assassination is not below them.
- nurbsenvi, on 07/10/2009, -0/+2I don't know sounds like conspiracy theory to me.
- masgaster, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1help them
- elitedw, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1Hey its a Galactic Orgy
- latrosicarius, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1I only see 3 galaxies. And one of them, apparently, is not one of the 4 that are colliding.
I wonder if there is a tagged image of this on flickr or APOD that highlights each galaxy. - buzaman, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1This is old news, it happened back when the dinosaurs were digging up stories on the internets.
- staystilljason, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1Rule 34
- doubledmateo, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1While I'd agree that alternate theories on the Red Shift issue are extremely important and should be examined. I can't really blame Wired for not going into detail about it. Being a watered down science/tech magazine it's appealing to lowest common denominators. While this may be seen as unfair, it's just how things go. If the red shift theory that was discussed gains more acceptance among the scientific community then we can expect to see the pop culture understanding of it represent the newly agreed upon theories.
If peer reviewed papers are leaving this opinion out (which they may be, I don't pretend to know) then I see a lot of reason for frustration, but not seeing it in Wired is rather unsurprising. I love Wired, but I generally take what it says with a grain of salt. I'm interested in knowing more about this controversy though because the points brought up against using the red shift as bulletproof evidence for the distance of a stellar body seem (to me any ways) valid. - AnotherDiggGuy, on 07/10/2009, -3/+4My guess is global warming got a little out of control on one of the planets in that mess
- TalenGTP, on 07/10/2009, -0/+1Imagine the insurance bill on that one
- IAMRaven, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1What are the odds we'd catch that, and see it right when it is happening, millions of years ago.
- pln2bz, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1I've not personally investigated the evolution debate, so I'm intentionally abstaining from taking any view on it until I do. I can however say that one of the things that tends to happen when a theory appears to be under-performing is that it creates an opening for all sorts of competing theories within the minds of skeptics. Some of these competing ideas can turn out to be good, and some will almost certainly turn out to be bad. But, it's important to realize that this is a natural part of the scientific process.
To people who are not closely following the arguments on all sides, they may notice that the advocates for competing ideas (Electric Universe or Intelligent Design, for instance) might actually point to the same arguments, when explaining why the conventional theories are failing to properly explain observations. This can lead to Intelligent Design advocates actually agreeing to certain degrees with the evidence presented by Electric Universe advocates.
It's important to realize that none of this can be used to evaluate either theory. Our only choice is to evaluate the models on their own terms. The Electric Universe, for instance, is based entirely upon laboratory plasma physics. When people complain that the EU is not as quantified as the Big Bang cosmology, they ignore the fact that the EU is far more empirical than the Big Bang cosmology. We know that these plasma physics processes are real and physical because we see ALL of them within the laboratory. By contrast, the Big Bang cosmology is filled with mathematical inferences that lack any empirical support whatsoever -- and even occasionally violate laboratory physics: for instance, magnetic reconnection, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc. Few people realize it, but not even the thermonuclear model for the Sun rests upon a solid foundation. Eddington deduced that model in the complete absence of any observation or laboratory experiment. Wal Thornhill discusses this at great length in his most recent holoscience piece ...
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=jdjcab ...
"The Mystery of the Shrinking Red Star"
And this is how people need to learn to evaluate cosmologies: by separating out the assumptions and speculations from the observations and experimentation. It's this specific process that is precisely what inspires people to question the conventional models. Although press releases are almost entirely written to suggest that we possess great confidence in our astrophysical models, the fact is that nucleosynthesis, the CMB and the inferred expansion of the universe are all deductions that rest upon shaky ground. That's because it was the very first cosmology that mankind ever fully quantified. The deductive approach was a response to a lack of significant observational data. But, we now have much more data to work with than we did back in the 50's. We now observe the sky across the entire electromagnetic spectrum; we now know that the dominant state of matter in space is plasma; and the discipline of plasma physics has come a long way since the 50's. To think that none of these things would have a serious impact upon cosmology -- as if our first deductive guess was perfect -- is giving humans more credit than we are due. - doubledmateo, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1pln2bz,
I may be totally wrong on this so forgive me if this is a, "duh, I already knew that" kind of comment. I think that Aalenox was referring to sanosuke reading the article that you linked to in your comment and the information that you wrote and not to the Wired article.
When it comes to all of this stuff I'm a total noob so I don't pretend to understand how the red shift is used by scientists to accurately predict distances. That said it has always seemed odd that they can find out the distance just using the redshift of the light coming from it. The description that Sanosuke gave while perhaps only containing part of the workings is the way I had previously understood it. Looks like I have something to read about for the afternoon.
Also, I have to say that I agree with you on Aalenox's comment. It had a very angry tone to it, that I don't understand. Seemed like a rather scathing rebuke that was totally unwarranted. - DAILYCROW, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1There must be more galaxies in the universe than there are molecules in our galaxy.
The old saying "more stars than grains of sand" is poetic but a gross underestimation of the vastness - inactive, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1This is a bit like the debate over plate tectonics and an expanding planet.
Both theories have merit and substantial evidence to support them but science can be political sometimes. Because of that even Tesla himself was rejected when the guy had a greater perception of what did work and what theoretically could be so much again, far ahead of his time. Most of his works since proven to be correct and it was his peers who were incorrect, stubborn and obtuse.
The growing Earth is a fairly simple argument. It grew to get this big, at what point does one assume it stopped. The theory covers the need to accumulate water, it covers the converged plates not as an imbalanced island drifting in a vast ocean but as one single mass, on a smaller planet.
That also explains the ancient oceans and snowball Earth. Iron and mineral belts, salts and salt rocks. Material is still being accumulated to this day but mainstream academia refuse to even investigate the theory even though it is highly plausible simply because it happened. How did the planet even get here if it did not initiate a means of accumulating matter. Even though this argument is strong and well supported science continues to support a theory. I guess the embarrassment of otherwise re-writing all of geology and natural history would somehow degrade opinion in sciences.
When sciences are overrun by politics it becomes a bit like theologies. Interpretation of information is only for those who have the power of veto or influence.
One being money, the other being rejection as what happened with Telsa. - inactive, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1would be a financial black hole. (Like GS)
- DisruptionFL, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1Life is out there.
- ChiaGod, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1"Makes you wonder what's actually going on there now."
A: Billions of insurance adjusters assessing the damage. - MMusick, on 07/10/2009, -4/+4Intergalactic flash mob.
- CrankMyBlueSax, on 07/10/2009, -3/+3Having been involved in many galactic four-ways myself, I am amused by these comments.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is