This missive is an invitation to begin submitting scientific papers, letters or notes to the new website with the "working" name of APPLETREE. It will be renamed upon your input. Details are to be given in the on my sites (see below). 

The following essay is of the type of material that will be APPLETREE's bread and butter. But, APPLETREE is for the Skeptic, with a capitol "S". Submissions to APPLETREE are expected to be utterly shredded by unbelieving readers in a blog or forum style format. As an author, if your work can survive APPLETREE, it can survive anything. Your work will be torn apart by readers, not by editors with their own agendas. Papers must only hew to the usual professional literary standards of logical coherence, good grammar and syntax and good faith. No inflammatory material on the order of racism, nazi-ism & etc. If a section of the paper contains highly technical material, it must be accompanied by a plain English description, however brief. If one cannot visualize the math or logic well enough to provide a plain English auxiliary explanation, one cannot visualize it well enough to try to foist it on others. It does not matter how goofy an idea may be, how long or how short. From such craziness will sprout the seeds of greatness. For instance, we would welcome input from, say, Tony Smith aka “cosconsensus”. Our goal is to exploit the thin boundary between profound insight and insanity. (It’s a joke, Frank.) 

EASTER 2010

 Equations for Modern Cosmogony    or

Modern Scientific Quasi-Mythology of the

Multiverse, Branes, Quanta and

The Many Bright Shadows of Albert Einstein

The origin and evolution of the universe is Highest Myth in the Joseph Campbell sense and so represents, perhaps, the most important of our scientific philosophical tenets. Pope Joseph says, this is why we should care. See the philosophical discussion of the relationship between quasi-mythology and existentialism at the website at references (0 & 1).

 As a mere friar with a lowly MS degree, I have written a paper that I am publishing in the public domain entitled Graphical Model for Cosmogony or for The Origin and Evolution of the Universe. It is a short paper but contains several images as figures that make the file size too large for email or posting on a forum or blog. Instead, I have prepared The Package on CD with supplementary documents for snail mail. I have also posted the paper, with supplements, on the internet:

 Reference (0):

http://nuchristianrabbi.blogspot.com/2010/04/quasi-mythology-and-scientist-as-neo.html

 Reference (1): 

http://www.lonetree‑pictures.com/Graphical%20Model%20of%20the%20Universe.htm

 This website also contains material on a simple, if not simple minded, interpretation of the MOND effect, modified Newtonian dynamics.

 In The Graphical Model, I introduce an analytic equation for the growth of the universe from t(U) = 10 ^ -59 u, in natural units, which is about 10 ^ -43 second, to the present (at t = 1) and beyond to 2.5 u (universe lifetimes) which is over 34 gigayears. This initial time happens to be around the magnitude of one "Planck time" or a Planck second. I used this surrogate value for t = 0 because it is about the same as that used by Alan Guth in his initial landmark paper on the inflationary universe.

 I know that there have been many refinements to the initial Guth hypothesis, but the fundamental outline survives. So, my equation should be valid because it relies on Guth's theoretical ideas, which have been very well confirmed. In fact, though it is a phenomenological summary of the known type of behavior that we see, since it relies on theory as a starting place, I call it a semitheoretical description of the microscopic inflationary origin and subsequent macro expansion of the universe. The most important feature of the equation is the fact that it is written with reference to purely extensive variables. This is a critical point that leads to some uncomfortable conclusions because it makes no assumptions whatsoever other than Guth’s exponential beginning. The model makes no reference to any particular presumptive metric nor does it assume a set of interpretive relativistic forms like the Friedmann equations. 

 The fact is, the equations do indeed have a firm theoretical basis, that is, a rigorous theological foundation. This has incredibly important ramifications, I think, and I mention them in my paper.    

 I would like to mail to you The Package, if you wish. Email garyakent@aol.com . Please quote from it ad libidum. An earlier version is also available online at

 http://www.neocosmology.blogspot.com

 and

 http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/41510.aspx .

 Recently, there has been an inexplicable reversal in the usual recitation of facts that scientists have been giving regarding the evidence for dark energy. Here is a quote from a current article on dark energy and dark matter that appears on a NASA website: "Then came 1998 and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations of very distant supernovae (SNe 1a) that showed that, a long time ago, the Universe was actually expanding more slowly than it is today."

This is grossly untrue!

If this is what Saul Perlmutter et al. and Adam Riess et al. have been saying to the media, then it is a deliberate naked distortion, an intellectually dishonest and historically inaccurate gargantuan singularity – a Black A-Hole. I am disappointed almost to tears. I might convert. I may become a Wiccan and put my faith in Magick.

I have been tracking measurements of the Hubble constant for many years. The Hubble Space Telescope has measured H₀ for the deep space SNe 1a as the highest yet recorded with the telescope. H₀ determined for the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is even more "distant" and vastly older, is even higher. As one carefully graphs H₀ measurements against the average distances from Earth to the midpoints of the ranges of objects used in the H₀ observations, one obtains a very precise straight line in this scatter diagram (see reference 1). This linear regression line has a very high correlation coefficient (0.98) and a NEGATIVE slope from the origin at t = 0 to now at t = 1.

Given that H₀ is not really a constant, older well accepted data along with current measurements of H₀ show that H₀ for very distant and old objects is much larger than for nearer and younger objects. In neither the peer reviewed publications of S. Perlmutter nor A. Riess are there explicit arguments for acceleration or dark energy that do not subtly assume what is to be proven. They never explain exactly how the reversal of common sense occurs that says the universe expansion rate is accelerating in the present era, not decelerating, nor do they even acknowledge that this grave logical reversal is being made.

Commonly accepted established facts have to be rewritten to accommodate the conclusion of acceleration. History has to be revised. Well received perfectly good H₀ data clearly show that the expansion rate is decelerating but, these have been utterly ignored.

The scatter diagrams that the Perlmutter and Riess groups present might be mistaken for a stupid jokes if the publication records and institutional affiliations of the principle investigators weren’t so impressive. The curve fits that they have programmed computers to generate have obvious abysmally low least squares correlation coefficients on their face, which are unworthy of the social sciences much less of a hard science like physics. These authors actually believe the artificially generated statistics that attribute these “connect-the-dot” jumbled messes with the label of “good fit”. It is as if they were blind. The error bars alone in their data are at least kilometer wide. If the fitting process took into account the wide error bars explicitly, and obviously they did not, the correlation statistics would be as bad as they appear. But, remember the meaning of the wise computer aphorism, GIGO.

Laborious “teasing” of conclusions from the data is not the word. The word is “conjuring”. Why does the physics community jump in order to regard acceleration as a “discovery”? After all, there are plenty of very plausible alternatives that do not show acceleration nor require supernatural dark energy.

The WMAP and other cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation measurements show exceedingly small thermal variations that can be analyzed statistically to show the imprint of probabilistic quantum deviations and acoustic fluctuations.

Quantum variations had their roots in the original wave form collapse or decay of the putative ultra high energy state inflaton wave/particle. Then, acoustic fluctuations arose during the period of hot plasma expansion just before “recombination” to form a transparent medium through which light could pass. Recombination occurred 271,231 years, 7 months and 3 days [2] after inception of the universe or “The Big Bang”. This sudden release of light upon recombination is the origin of the CMB.

 Then, the hypothetical Wolfe-Sachs (WS) effect is called upon to pull additional parameters from the CMB raw data that are more likely just artifacts and noise. The CMB raw data from numerous sources is so full of artifacts and utter noise that whole papers have been written to explain them away. Many serious unproven but very “reasonable” assumptions must be made to infer “corrections” to this data. Yet, oblivious to the risk of imputing high reliability to this extensive logical chain of approximate “fixes” to the data, this putative weak 6^th order effect is touted as “proof” of acceleration and dark energy. Certainly the WS effect, if it occurs, would result in a conclusion that the universe is expanding as expected. It is unconscionable to stretch statistical methods so very far beyond their limits that one might suppose that they could distinguish accelerating expansion in the modern epoch.

The WS effect supposedly occurs when a cosmic void or concentration of galaxies between Earth and the emission point of the CMB causes additional redshift or blueshift to light. For instance, when a void is encountered by a photon, it might be redshifted slightly because it has had to climb up a gravitational potential to a place where there is less matter. Because the whole universe is expanding, perhaps the void is expanding too, and such voids never contract and all concentrated regions of the universe expand perfectly uniformly and never contract, even slightly. If so, when the photon exits the void, it must fall into a gravitational potential well and become blueshifted. But the universe is supposed to have been expanding since the time the photon entered the void. So, it is conjectured that this possible blueshift cannot fully compensate for the supposed redshift. Presumably then, we observe an additional redshift on top of the redshift that we observe that originated first, from quantum fluctuations and then, from acoustic resonances, the “virgin” CMB. The reverse process happens, it is thought, if the photon enters a zone of concentration whereupon a hyper‑enhanced blueshift is claimed to be observed.

So, the author insists that this WS phenomenon is a 6^th order effect [3] that is so weak, on top of signals that are initially so very weak, that it cannot be distinguished from noise or systematic bias and known or unknown artifacts. This is so that, no matter how well correlations may be found between red and blueshifted zones in the image of the CMB, no amount of inference or deduction can fix inevitable fundamental limits. These fundamental limits are vaguely similar to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty and are just as concrete.

Such differential zones in the CMB are said to be correlated with sky surveys that identify concentrations and voids and ascribe to them particular distances (and thus, times) from Earth. But, the voids and concentrations also are said to correlate with the background quantum variability and acoustic turbulence that is imputed to the virgin ripples on the CMB. There is a strict limit to the statistical information that can be extracted from what is essentially two dimensional (topographical), weak noisy data. The idea that this is possible must itself be rigorously proven. Then, it has to be proven to be probable. It is beyond plausibility that it can be done at all.      

There is lots of evidence against dark energy and acceleration. Recent well prepared papers casting doubt on the Cosmological Principle should be taken seriously because they are authored by credible investigators and they impact how redshifts should be interpreted. If we should be prepared to accept the many patches and ad hoc band-aids that acceleration and dark energy require, why can we not entertain some patches in order to explain away the so-called "evidence" for them and help save the Scientific Method?

The problem boils down to the insistence on using a metric that has loopholes. Any definition that allows itself to be internally contradicted is defective. Any good definition must be self-consistent. Adjusting parameters by fiat or by interpretive observation so that spacetime appears flat cannot logically permit acceleration and dark energy because they require a subtle oxymoronic logical loophole that would permit them, since they both imply a kind of curvature.

Blake Temple and Joel Smollen have developed a rigorous solution to the equations of general relativity based on a different metric (definition of spacetime) beyond the Friedmann LeMaitre Robertson Walker approach, for instance. Their derivation of a new model of cosmogony is logically incontestable and it allows for acceleration, deceleration or constant growth depending on the value of a single adjustable parameter (just like the Graphical Model). Their model is perfectly testable or falsifiable and does not violate the Cosmological Principle any more than does dark energy. These authors favor the acceleration scenario but the model does not invoke dark energy or any such patches, fixes or band-aids.

Reginald T. Cahill of Flinders University in Australia has formulated a version of quantum cosmology that also dismisses the usual treatment of the FLRW metric within general relativity by means of the Friedmann equations. This is another perfectly logical treatment that is 100% testable and does not require acceleration or dark energy.    

Lee Smolin and Roberto Unger remark that physics should refrain from spinning theories or hypotheses that require the existence of things that could never be disproven such as multiverses and dark energy. Einstein eschewed “hidden constants” and invisible laws. Dark energy is one of those hidden constants that must be fine tuned to give a universe that is relativistically “flat”. Acceleration and dark energy raise more questions than they answer and really explain nothing while creating more problems.

One does not validate a scientific principle by accumulating circumstantial evidence in its favor. Such are just anecdotes. One must formulate an antithesis; an opposite or negative hypothesis, and attempt to perform a critical or crucial experiment that would confirm or deny it. If this “null hypothesis” is confirmed, the original hypothesis is falsified or nullified. Dark energy is incapable of falsification and is thus as ineligible as a scientific hypothesis as the Theory of Santa Claus or the God Hypothesis. To hold otherwise is to open the gate to superstition.

I am a believer. But, I am also a scientist. Acceleration and dark energy are assaults on Science itself and it is a disgrace that the media have accepted them on their face. Then, they will be the first to laugh when we have to reverse ourselves (again).

PART 2

The paper referred to herein is intended for all readers as FYI. Its purpose is merely to point out some facts regarding the developing new standard model of cosmogony wherein Allan Guth’s cosmic inflation and supposed “dark energy” play a role. I think investigators everywhere should be aware of these facts before they prepare new manuscripts for publication. 

I think that the putative conclusion of dark energy is a misinterpretation of those facts. The paper is supposed to explain exactly why I think so. I have expunged all blatantly opinionated statements because I can reserve frank comments for this cover letter, which I could not include if I published it in a refereed journal. But the more objectively phrased main paper can stand alone if you may wish to pass it on to your professional friends and acquaintances.

Again, see

http://www.lonetree-pictures.com/Graphical%20Model%20of%20the%20Universe.htm

Again, an early version of this paper can also be viewed in the Astronomy Magazine forums under the heading “cosmology”:

http://cs.astronomy.com/asycs/forums/t/41510.aspx

and in

http://neocosmology.blogspot.com/ .

I hope that this paper can generate some discussion. I raise some important questions such as

1)            How can dark energy’s accelerating expansion of the universe be consistent with the curvature of any reasonable Hubble parameter equation’s trace in a graph showing this and a linear regression line obtained from several representative good values of H₀?   

Extrapolation of observed H₀ values obtained for distant objects corresponding to times long past to an H₀ that would be obtained for near zero distance and for the present time (if the local gravitational field and proper motion of neighboring objects could be eliminated) must be identical with the computed value of the Hubble parameter at time = the present if the computed value is any good.  But, there is no way that accelerating expansion could give an equation for the Hubble parameter, H, that comes anywhere near H₀ at t = 1. Due to the required shape of the graph of the accelerating equation and its derivatives (see the paper), the accelerating scenario cannot ever give an equation for H that intersects the time = present boundary at a reasonable point. This point is explicitly depicted in the paper. 

2)            Is it not momentous enough that the SN 1a supernova discoveries depicting a concordant brightness and redshift H₀ that is larger than expected based on H₀ determinations alone demonstrate mostly that brightness is not degraded by intergalactic “grey dust’ at these very large distances? It also debunks claims that redshifts are caused by intergalactic “plasma”.                                                                      

A larger H₀ at great distance is an H₀ for “way over there” and “way back then”. It has been implied that H₀ determined from SN 1a redshifts should apply equally to “here and now” as well as “there and then” in a bow toward relativity.  But, what do we do with the many H₀ determinations that have been made that show a smaller H₀ at intermediate distances and times? What do we do with the fact that H₀ is not constant? Whether expansion is accelerating or decelerating, H₀ must vary, by definition. Only for linear expansion at a steady rate would H₀ actually be constant.

     Extrapolation into the future is not the same as interpolation between points running backward into the past. That is, running time in reverse toward the deep past does not necessarily imply how the universe must behave moving forward in time. If H₀ had increased in the ancient SN 1a epoch in such a way that it applies to the present, the middle determinations for H₀ would begin show this. But, the plot of empirical H₀s belies this notion (see the paper).

3)           If relativity is invoked to deduce acceleration in the present era how does this conclusion respect Einstein’s own assertion that general relativity will almost certainly not pertain to the universe as a whole?  

To hold that it does so pertain generates a form of Russell’s Paradox (RP). The solution of this occurrence of RP is, briefly, that the universe, as a set of relativistic tensors, cannot contain itself since this is illogical for all sets. A set is never of the right “type” to contain itself:  http://www.iep.utm.edu/par-russ/ .

4)            When we entertain the premise that there existed an “inflaton” as a Higgs-like super particle representing a sort of mega Higgs field, do we not begin to pile assumption upon assumption?                                             

We do not even know if the Higgs field itself exists, much less the Higgs boson. It is dangerous to try to support a hypothesis this way.

5)            Is it not clear that Physics is not ready to accept all the implications of a purely quantum universe?        

We cannot have had a quantum universe that is not really always of this nature, in the deep past as well as in the very present. If there was a hyper excited ultra massive inflaton point-particle and an inflationary Guth field, the universe must still be showing overall quantum effects like a “Many Worlds” superposition that accounts for dark matter and MOND theory without disturbing general relativity. Indeed, the universe may be folded over onto itself according to the boundaries of our light horizon such that Many Worlds is effectively produced by our observational limitations themselves. So, gravity may be leaking into our parcel of the universe from parcels outside our range of observation, and vice versa, magnifying or modifying the effect of the universe as being rather larger than was supposed. This is the obvious suggestion derived from quantum mechanics, not from the author’s neurons.

6)            Might not the conclusion of acceleration be due to a sort of illusion stemming from a naïve interpretation of general relativity?

    Certainly this would be a more salutary result than the necessity to throw away the standards of the scientific method as some have suggested.

7)            What is the implication of George Ellis’ suggestion that the cosmological principle might not be exactly true? Why should we NEVER be at or near the center of ANYTHING? Is not this also a violation of the Cosmological Principle in reverse?

     If the overall shape of the universe or if the shape of the cosmic void in which we may be embedded is not exactly spherical, we need not be at or near the center anyway for the effect of the Ellis distortion to be observed as it may. There is a very strong bias in the CMB signal distribution due to our actual motion through space. The plane of our galaxy is also in the way. What if any innate asymmetry might be obscured by these effects? What if the approximate corrections that are inferred to fix the CMB data for these effects are inaccurate and imprecise? What if the universe rotates as a whole in a hyperspace beyond Einstein’s spacetime with little or no visible evidence in the CMB? In such a hyperspacetime, which is implicit in Guthian, superstring or supersymmetry paradigms, surely it could rotate independently on more than one “perpendicular” axis at a time, obscuring any CMB influence. Nonetheless, would this not potentially give an effect on redshifts, especially at the largest distances? 

8)           Can there really be more than one effective value for H₀ in the present instant applying to nearby objects, an indirectly massively inferred one that indicates acceleration, and simultaneously a much lower value for H₀ for now, at t = 1, that is obtained by short extrapolation from direct observation?                                            

The exact logical device that reverses the intuitive conclusion from hard data that Hubble expansion is slowing down must be explicitly stated. This logical reversal is an unstated bias, a silent assumption or a hidden postulate that needs to be proven by uncomplicated straightforward argument and evidence. This putative reversal of common sense needs to be explained in a common sense manner, immune from mathematical or theoretical obfuscation. If relativistic argument is invoked, it must be mathematically proven by reference to the equations of relativity (NOT with the Friedmann equations).

9)                      Is it not an enormous logical jump to deduce intrinsic properties of the whole universe based on the approximation that is in force when the universe is treated “like” an ideal gas?                       

Even Einstein had to use the hydrodynamic simplification of an ideal or perfect fluid, with properties very different from the so-called aether, that he called a “continuum” of infinitesimally small entities having no affinity. Our super-fluid dynamical metaphor and concordant approximations dictate the final forms of our theories and facilitate the computations necessary to make sense of them. But, they are still just approximations. Neither words nor numbers can fully capture reality. To hold otherwise requires proof. Analyze Goedel’s Theorem.

10)          If the universe’s expansion rate is accelerating in the present era and has been doing so for many billions of years, then the rate must have already exceeded the speed of light, since H₀ based on distant, old cosmological objects had by then already reached a large percentage of c.                                                           

If we have exceeded the speed of light, then we are catching up to light that had been emitted in the past. But, this light would be detectable only at very low frequencies at this time and would look like a large bunch of very crowded, overlapping emission lines that had been redshifted. The range of detectability would probably be in the microwave region of the spectrum. Therefore, the CMB would not really represent the phenomenon that it is purported to do and conclusions based on this “erroneous” deduction could be all wrong. The number of unsettling new questions raised, versus the number of questions answered by acceleration and dark energy is unfavorable to dark energy. That there have to be ad hoc patches applied in order to admit dark energy is disturbing.

11)          What is the business of science?                                                                                          

We need to show that we know that we are not employed to complicate matters. Our mandate, according to Professor Einstein, is to simplify them. There will be serious PR and political consequences if we have to reverse ourselves again on such a matter.

I hope that I have not overstated my case. But, at least a few of my questions should be valid whether my suggested answers may not.

Thank you,

Gary A Kent MS

(Gary Kentgen)

P.S.   I use a pseudonym because folks find it difficult to spell my name from the pronunciation and pronounce it correctly from the spelling even though it is so simple. Clark Kent generates Superman - or Kent gen. Actually, it means “of the tribe of Kent” or “of the people from Kent” or “little Kenter”. Kent was a province-like district or principality in southern greater Germany in ancient times. Some Aryans from Kent migrated to England and established a region there that is still called Kent.

Besides being a fine-art nature photographer, I am basically “only” a chemist but, I have had much training in university level physics and advanced mathematics. Due to financial constraints, that is, my fellowship fund dried up, I could not actually sit to write my PhD dissertation. But, my research was complete. I should sign my name with the title PhD (abd), "all but dissertation".

Research involved developing a mathematical model for the interaction of certain homologous series of platinum coordination compounds with neoplasm DNA. I used my experimental results to show that there was no correlation between the lengths of several types of alkyl amine substituent groups in the cis ligands of square planar platinum II compounds and their rates of substitution in a particular SN2 reaction. This reaction was supposed to be a surrogate for the reaction with DNA. I found that such rates could not correlate with clinical efficacy either.

However, I did find that there is a strong direct correlation between the substituent amine alkyl group absolute chain lengths and clinical efficacy. I used the model developed by H. Kubinyi based on differential solubility between aqueous and lipid phases, in resemblance to a living cell. This quantitative structure activity relation (QSAR) shows distinct maxima as chain lengths are increased in many disparate alkyl structural variants. These compounds have been studied so thoroughly that little could be gained by this information other than to succinctly describe results, I am sure. But, in other systems, perhaps for other diseases, it suggests that the Kubinyi model could be very valuable.

Prof. Kubinyi was unable to help me pursue this and my funding ran out before I could stand for my defense of thesis.  Needless to say, I remain interested in computational chemistry and mathematical physics, because my research involved intimate physical as well as chemical processes in a hydrodynamical milieu. This is how I got started in mathematical modeling.

Presently, I am without a chemical laboratory except for the Citizens’ Science Center lab in Fall Creek, Wisconsin and a water closet that I use to develop ink-jet printer inks. As a photographer, I do have a big studio but, to do much real science, I am working on these purely mathematical and graphical models, including one of the MOND effect. I show that the MOND constant, a₀, can be derived from the premise that all black-holes are surrounded by a hyperbolic gravitational field due to the fact that they are gravitational singularities having asymptotal limits to their gravitational potentials. This is not new. But, it is being ignored. Mine shall be one more voice helping to prevent it from being forgotten. I am trying to prevent common sense in regard to dark energy from being ignored and then utterly forgotten too. That is, until such time as a new “discovery” is made that overthrows this egregious error.

See my articles in GoArticles.com and WordPress.com plus the website, forum and blog mentioned above for a chance to comment on this or email me direct.

G A K

1ap10  9:00 am

[0]  http://nuchristianrabbi.blogspot.com/2010/04/quasi-mythology-and-scientist-as-neo.html

[1] http://www.lonetree‑pictures.com/Graphical%20Model%20of%20the%20Universe.htm

[2] By means of “Modern Precision Cosmology”

[3]    1^st order: the CMB itself. 2^nd order: detection of a degree of variability in the CMB and our ability to distinguish these differences from that due to our proper motion through space. 3^rd order: our ability to measure the absolute MAGNITUDE of the CMB variational effects. 4^th order: our ability to measure differences with enough precision to statistically analyze a two dimensional topological pattern projected upon a spherical sky in such a way that we can make any kind of sense of it at all, such as that it bespeaks a FLAT universe. 5^th order: Our ability to correlate this pattern to the pattern shown by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and simultaneously map it to quantum ripples and acoustic resonances in the virgin CMB. 6^th order: attribution of meaningful, indeed momentous, residual variation to – not merely an effect due to expansion of the universe, which we know occurs – but due to acceleration of that expansion rate at the present time.  Adding "at the present time" means that perhaps this should be termed a 7^th order effect. We claim ability to make crucial inferences from excruciatingly precise differences that we say we have measured that are between low level maxima less that 1,000 of 100,000,000 of the initial input signal strength. This is while we must acknowledge that this signal strength is so very weak in the first place and would not even have been detectable a few years ago. If this is not over-reaching, there is no such thing.

Send mail to KENTgen1@aol.com with deep questions or insightful wise comments about this tremendous Website or about my stupefying stupendous art or to volunteer to help the lovely and deserving LoneTree Pictures. Also, to give any additional details about picture and/or free premium requests or to commission original artwork,  use our amazingly sophisticated, incredible FEEDBACK page.

Last modified: 06/02/10

All content of this website are © copyright 2009, Gary Kent