Science Fare

By Phil Plait | May 9, 2005 10:12 pm

In April, I was asked to give a short speech to a group of local students who participated in a science fair. I wasn’t sure what to say to them, until I saw a newscast the night before the fair. The story was some typically inaccurate fluff piece giving antiscience boneheads “equal time” with science, as if any ridiculous theory should have equal time against the truth.

I sat down with a pad of paper and a pencil and scribbled down this speech. I gave it almost exactly as I wrote it.

I know a place where the Sun never sets.

It’s a mountain, and it’s on the Moon. It sticks up so high that even as the Moon spins, it’s in perpetual daylight. Radiation from the Sun pours down on there day and night, 24 hours a day — well, the Moon’s day is actually about 4 weeks long, so the sunlight pours down there 708 hours a day.

I know a place where the Sun never shines. It’s at the bottom of the ocean. A crack in the crust there exudes nasty chemicals and heats the water to the boiling point. This would kill a human instantly, but there are creatures there, bacteria, that thrive. They eat the sulfur from the vent, and excrete sulfuric acid.

I know a place where the temperature is 15 million degrees, and the pressure would crush you to a microscopic dot. That place is the core of the Sun.

I know a place where the magnetic fields would rip you apart, atom by atom: the surface of a neutron star, a magnetar.

I know a place where life began billions of years ago. That place is here, the Earth.

I know these places because I’m a scientist.

Science is a way of finding things out. It’s a way of testing what’s real. It’s what Richard Feynman called "A way of not fooling ourselves."

No astrologer ever predicted the existence of Uranus, Neptune, or Pluto. No modern astrologer had a clue about Sedna, a ball of ice half the size of Pluto that orbits even farther out. No astrologer predicted the more than 150 planets now known to orbit other suns.

But scientists did.

No psychic, despite their claims, has ever helped the police solve a crime. But forensic scientists have, all the time.

It wasn’t someone who practices homeopathy who found a cure for smallpox, or polio. Scientists did, medical scientists.

No creationist ever cracked the genetic code. Chemists did. Molecular biologists did.

They used physics. They used math. They used chemistry, biology, astronomy, engineering.

They used science.

These are all the things you discovered doing your projects. All the things that brought you here today.

Computers? Cell phones? Rockets to Saturn, probes to the ocean floor, PSP, gamecubes, gameboys, X-boxes? All by scientists.

Those places I talked about before? You can get to know them too. You can experience the wonder of seeing them for the first time, the thrill of discovery, the incredible, visceral feeling of doing something no one has ever done before, seen things no one has seen before, know something no one else has ever known.

No crystal balls, no tarot cards, no horoscopes. Just you, your brain, and your ability to think.

Welcome to science. You’re gonna like it here.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Antiscience, Cool stuff, Piece of mind

Comments (93)

  1. Per Sjunnesson

    So great, so good, so …. RIGHT.


  2. If by Science you mean a process for evaluating empirical knowledge and/or the organized body of knowledge gained trough this very process, then sure.

    But I thought you liked confronting ‘antiscience boneheads’, and that was the whole point (and appeal) of the site. :)

  3. good speech! with your permission I’d like to translate it into Spanish to publish it in my blog.

  4. Dana

    Your blog entry was very interesting, as always. I would like to add only one comment: I do not think that you can place homeopathy in the same category of anti-science as astrology etc. To me, homeopathy is a science, a traditional one, even if a not very well known or used one. Just because, especially recently, some people have misused it or used it to justify some unfounded claims, that does not mean that in itself, it is wrong.

  5. Matt

    Good speech. I was raised in a house where this was the attitude, and hearing speeches like this would not have affected me, because I took it for granted. It wasn’t until I became an adult that I learned some people take this “antiscience” seriously.

  6. That’s something I’ve always wanted to write. Great job, Phil. Science is a tool that can’t be beat. I’ve always tried to appeal to people’s more practical instincts, since people use critical thinking every day when it comes to stuff that’s important to them. When self-preservation, in one form or another, is invoked, it’s amazing how clearly people can think.

    “If your car was broken, took it to the garage, and some guy waved his hand over the hood and said it was fixed — would you believe him?”

  7. Karnalis

    Bravo, Dr. Plait. I commend you for a speech well-written (as are most, if not all, of your reports, articles, and exposés on your site). Keep it up! We need more of that kind of talk delivered to the young people of this country.

  8. Chet Twarog

    Dear Phil,
    I’ll copy it and give it to my wife, a 6th grade science educator, to, maybe, read it to her students for their science fair.
    Of course, all the credit goes to such a fine scientist, YOU.

  9. Wow, thanks for the supportive replies! Romrod, yes, please, feel free to translate it. I’m flattered you’d want to do so.

  10. Nigel Depledge

    Nice one, BA! Clear, succinct, to the point and accurate. I’m sure you have expressed what many of your readers feel. Well done, and please keep up the good work.

  11. Michelle Rochon

    Very good! I’m impressed. Straight to the point and effective. 😛 I’m sure they loved it.

    You’re an awesome astronomer! But you’re not a gamer. The PSP2 does not exist. 😛 PSP stands for Playstation Portable. You probably meant PS2. Playstation 2…

  12. The Black Cat

    Wow, very well written. Excellent job, as always! I think this deserves a more prominent place on your website, it would make a very good introduction to the site as a whole.

  13. Nuts. PSP2 was… a typo! Yes, that’s it. :-) I fixed it, thanks.

  14. MattusMaximus

    Wow, I almost cried when I read this… very compelling stuff BA. It goes right to the core of why we do science, and why all the other pseudo-scientific crap just can’t hold a candle to the real thing.

    I’ve already passed this on to my fellow science faculty, and they’ve eaten it up — I plan on passing it on to many others tomorrow. I even made a post on the Penn & Teller MOFO message board, and it is already getting rave reviews!

    I will probably even read it to my own students some time before they graduate, it’s just plain good.

    Again, thank you.

  15. Dominic

    Dana – homeopathy a “traditional” science – whatever do you mean? There’s only science and non-science. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news but homeopathy well and truly falls into the latter category. Perhaps for a critical look at homeopathy you could visit

  16. This is the first time I have written here – I am really impressed with your post – it is just amazingly great! And I am not a scientist or anything – I gave up on science after I got through my O Levels. I like you to know – for a while, I was quite taken with the whole holistic living and astrology and what not, despite having loved reading about astronomy etc since I am a girl – you kinda brought me back, and reminded me that the universe is a wonderful thing in itself, and there is no need to try to make up stuff about it using “bad” science.

    Lastly – can I please put this article on my blog? I have already got a link to your website but I really like to share this post with my friends. Thanks!

  17. hehe made same mistake with my translation… you may want to read it here:

  18. As profoundly and beautifully put as Sagan would have. :) A wonderful tribute to science. Thank you for that. Please forgive me but I had to quote it on my blog with full credit to you (if you’re uncomfy with that, please let me know I’ll remove it) just for the 2 people who actually read my blog. 😀 I hope to pass it on.

  19. As profoundly and beautifully put as Sagan would have. :) A wonderful and inspiring tribute to science. Thank you for that. Please forgive me but I had to quote it on my blog with full credit to you (if you’re uncomfy with that, please let me know I’ll remove it) just for the 2 people who actually read my blog. 😀

  20. sophie morandi

    On the astrology point: I have many friends (dancers, artists etc) who are pretty intelligent (I think) and but they believe in astrology. So far, nothing convinces them that it’s silly–no matter what anyone can say, they “believe.” They just do: because there’s “energy”—that they can “feel.”

    Now one of them claims it makes as much sense for jupiter (my example) to have some “energy” that would affect us, from the moment of our birth (what difference does that make? is the womb like some sort of fall-out shelter?) as for there to be neurotransmitters in our brain and some hard-wired reactions to say smiles or vocalizations–(I’m not a sciencie, so I don’t know the exact science, so I maybe horribly misstating–but this was my general off-the-top-of-my-head explanation for the “energy” one feels when entering a room, eg). So energy from Jupiter seems equally probable to neurotransmitters etc.

    So: so what if astrologers didn’t discover the planets????

    According to my friend they discovered that the planets transmit energy to earth and influence our lives in the most patterned and predictable ways (although the details are a bit sketchy).

    Isn’t that simply a question of what field they’re in–not of whether they’re right?

    Any ideas on how to convince my friends (without alienating them by saying they’re nuts)?

    Thanks, Sophie

  21. Sophie– try reading this page, and sending your friends here:

  22. Irishman

    Dana, one of the foundational principles of homeopathy runs counter to the basic determinations of chemistry – the idea that the more dilute a solution becomes, the more potent it becomes. That is exactly the opposite of the findings of chemistry, where potency is a factor of concentration. The only way homeopaths can get around this gigantic flaw is to propose that the act of shaking the solution in “the proper way” causes the solution to retain a memory of the significant trait from the key ingredient. There is nothing scientific about that premise.

    Sophie, you won’t be able to convince your friends. Their mindsets are not based upon logic and rationality, but upon faith and subjective perception.

    “Now one of them claims it makes as much sense for jupiter (my example) to have some “energyâ€? that would affect us, from the moment of our birth … as for there to be neurotransmitters in our brain and some hard-wired reactions to say smiles or vocalizations–”

    This is exactly the point. Phil has already demonstrated there is no measurable energy (of any scientifically viable definition of the word) for the planets to affect us. Whereas neurotransmitters and their effects, electrical stimulations of the brain, brain damage, drugs and medication, etc are highly empirically based and are documented, measurable, and repeatable – that is, anyone with the same set up can obtain the same results. That is definitely not the case for astrology. Anyone who thinks the two explanations make an equivalent amount of sense doesn’t understand either.

    “So: so what if astrologers didn’t discover the planets????

    According to my friend they discovered that the planets transmit energy to earth and influence our lives in the most patterned and predictable ways (although the details are a bit sketchy). ”

    That misses the point. If the planets do affect our lives in patterned and predictable ways (never mind how), then astrologers should have been able to detect influences to people’s lives that were not attributable to the known planets, and thereby detect there were unidentified influences – undiscovered planets. The fact that they did not predict there were missing planets, nevermind predict where to look for them, shows vividly that astrology has no real basis in the planets at all. It is merely psychological games the proponents may not even understand they are playing.

  23. Swift

    Wow BA, absolutely great piece!

  24. Moose

    Excellent speech. This is something all kids should hear.

  25. Edwardson

    Great speech! Simple and straightforward. This ought to be delivered to ALL kids. Heck, wish the leaders of the world would broadcast this to their citizens.

  26. The part about the creationist cracking the genetic code got me thinking on Mendel and Darwin. As trivia, did you know that it seems that they actually read each other’s work, but that the synthesis between evolution and genetics would not appear for many years? It’s remarkable how science is universal. The separate findings of a British agnostic and an Austrian catholic monk ended up solving different parts of the same problem and complementing each other.

  27. Chet Twarog

    We are unable to convince anyone of anything unless they are are open to the possibllity that they could be in “error”.
    Another problem with Astrology is, of course, the Zodiac Signs do not match the current astronomy. We are currently within the constellation of Aries (Apr 19-May 13th). Due to the precession of the constellations in the Zodiac the “signs” listed in all publications are over two thousand years out of date. And, there are, in fact, thirteen constellations in the ecliptic: everyone misses Ophiuchus (Nov 30-Dec 17). Pisces is the longest Mar 12 – Apr 18th, Scorpius (not Scorpio) the shortest Nov 23 – Nov 29th.

  28. Karnalis

    Delance –

    Just to let you know, Darwin never actually read Mendel’s work – in fact, very few people did, and it wasn’t until the early 1900s until someone “rediscovered” his research on heritable factors. It’s been an urban myth of sorts for a long time that Darwin had an unopened copy of Mendel’s publications on his desk when he died, but such a thing was never actually found in his study. It’s unfortunate that he didn’t read Mendel’s work too, as the problem of inherited traits plagued Darwin until his death, and he never quite figured out how to answer critics who attempted to catch him on that point. Fortunately for us, science is a self-correcting process, and that whole shebang was worked out later on (just another reason why science is chock full o’ goodness, in my opinion).

  29. You are right, while Mendel apparently had an opportunity to read Darwin’s work, the opposite didn’t happen. Wikipedia says Darwin had an unnopened copy, but who knows. The original point remains, I think, and another aspect is that one had to go on a journey, while the other was recluse on a monastery. Different language, culture, and even beliefs and expectations. And I agree what it would have been great if Mendel’s work could’ve been “discovered” sooner. Or if Darwin could’ve had this input while making his considetions.

  30. great speech. i really enjoy reading your blog; i learn a lot from it.

  31. C-H

    I found this funny. Not the speach itself but the timing in which I read it. Last night, I watched Southpark. I doubt that BA would be watching a show of this caliber so I’ll give the gist.

    The basics of the show started with Cartman (the fat kid) trying out his new flying machine, a couple of cardboard wings taped to his arms. It failed and he did too. He ended up with a concusion that the local law enforcement then translated into him being a psychic. Cartmen then proceeds to “solve” the crime along with five copy cat crimes in rapid succession. The whole time the other three kids are pointing to the man in the blood covered poncho with a pyscho look on his face saying “Hey what about this guy.” The law enforcement tells them to shut up so the “psychic” can work. Really funny show. They did a great job of how silly the whole psychic thing is. Just thought I would share with everyone.


  32. Joe Heafner

    May I use this in the presentation I use at the beginning of my introductory astronomy courses? The presentation introduces the definition of science and how it differs from pseudoscience.


  33. Joe– sure, use it! I am overwhelmed with the positive responses this entry has gotten. Check this out:

    Oh, and C-H– I love South Park. :-)

  34. A good paper all-in-all, but I’m curious as whereabouts of the lunar mountain of perpetual daylight. How exactly is this possible?

  35. Joe Heafner

    Phil, you should consider submitting this passage for publication in Night Sky. It would make a great Focal Point for S&T too. BTW, I’m really glad they signed you as a contributing editor for NS. If you’re like me, writing for either of these magazines is the fulfillment of a boyhood dream (even though NS is only a year old).

  36. Hi Joe- thanks! I actually doubt it’s the kind of thing either would run, though you never know. I do know all the editors there, so maybe I’ll run it past them. Good idea!

    I enjoy writing for Night Sky, and I do have an S&T article in the works right now, I haven’t written a single word yet, so it’s a bit preliminary. :-)

  37. Joe Heafner

    What’s the S&T article about (if you can say at this point)? I’ve been writing software reviews for them for almost 5 yrs now and they let me do a book review for the next issue (?). BTW, if you ever want to come to North Carolina, email me and we’ll work something out.

    I’ll be giving my What Is Science? talk at Green Bank Star Quest in July. It’ll be the first time I’ve given that talk to a group other than my classes and a wonderful “unveiling” of your speech.

  38. Irishman

    Emory, the lunar mountain in perpetual sunlight: the mountain is at a lunar pole (north or south, not sure which he means).

  39. Natalie Jaran

    I am coming late to the party. My first time at your blog. Love your site, been here many times, but not as often as I would like, had to come and comment after Randi posted this in his commentary for this week. Ok, Phil, how do we get this to be read by every student in the world. WOW, no better statement to get students excited about science and help them understand why science is important to everyone. 😀

  40. I wish I have heard this speech before I entered highschool: my life would have been much, much different.

    Ever since I could remember I wanted to contribute as much as I could in any scientific field (astronomy being one of them). It only changed when I entered Grade 7 that I finally decided to take up Fine Arts.

    I would like to have your permission to translate the speech into Filipino and publish it in my blog.

    I have also read this article: I would also like to have your permission to link into this article.


  41. Paul Hill

    Well, it’s actually XBox (without the hyphen) – Erm, apart from that it’s an elegant piece of writing that should be in poster form inside every science lab in every school in the world.

  42. Margarita– sure, be my guest! Let me know what the link is when you get it translated. So far it’s been translated into Spanish and Portugese. I’m amazed at the attention it’s gotten. Thanks!

  43. John Lasley

    In all fairness, there are creationists who contribute to Biology, across many disciplines. And law enforcement officials have claimed psychics have helped them, despite whether you believe it or not.

    I agree with the spirit of what you say, but science is first and foremost a methodolgy. Not everything that is ‘science’, and certainly not everyone who claims they are ‘scientists’, follow this. And whatever and whomever you label as anti-science isn’t necessarily against true science.

  44. Florian Kren

    Great stuff,
    but for correctness:
    Without being an expert i do not think water of boiling temperature or slightly above kills instantly, at least many people with damage from burning survive a few minutes.
    The pressure on the often floor would also kill much faster, i’d guess for seconds.

  45. Hi

    I’ve translated it to Danish and will publish it on a website for atheists, which I am affiliated with , if that is OK by you?

    All credit and a link back to BA will of course be given.


  46. Well put. I know it’s all been said before, but it’s nice to occasionally see it wrapped up in a nice fluffy angry ball like that.
    And it’s sad to see people reading this and agreeing with it, with their exception of homeopathy – or any other point, for that matter.
    Some people can be taught, some can teach themselves, and some have their own personal reasons for wanting to believe in fairies!

  47. Patricio

    Do you “Know”?
    Our eyes had blind zones. Thomb story ..
    are the instruments “blind”?
    do you “know” the precise adjustment between instruments and mind (your mind read rigth instrument outputs)?
    do you capture real things with instruments when you see 1.000 times smaller than you, or bigger ? maybe 10.000.000
    do you believe that scale aspect is just a numeric question?
    I’m really intrested in this kind of questions
    The force be with you (nothing to lose, life is lovely)
    anyway if science is used to stop us then it is useful
    like Nike “Just do it” no science just force if homeopathy helps you THEN USE it.

    Best regards

  48. Well put. I enjoy writing for Night Sky, and I do have an S&T article in the works right now, I haven’t written a single word yet, so it’s a bit preliminary.

  49. Majin Vegeta

    I love the article Phil, and I really want to be unbanned on BABB / BAUT 😛

    But… Just for the heck of it, try going to Church some Sunday… You’ve got nothin’ to lose except two hours of your time. I’ve felt things in church that no man in science has ever felt, and I can gaurentee that. (It doesn’t happen in Catholic churches, remember that) Jus give it shot. You’ve got nothing to lose at all.

    Love the rest of the blog, too!

  50. Sriram

    cool speech an inspiring and apt one fer students

  51. Phil,
    I occasionally teach an Intro Astronomy course at my high school, and I confront astrology frequently. People are so credulous today and it’s frustrating. This speech is inspiring to me, and I would like to use it with your permission.
    I would also like permission to link to your site for various topics from time to time.
    Jack Carlson

  52. Hey Phil, congratulations for such a nice and wise blog! I agree with you in your post “Science Fare”. By the way, my wife and I are running a new project about Single board computers and many other great tools. I find your work interesting and you may have the professional skills we need. Keep writing, we will contact you!

  53. alessandro

    WOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWOWO i had to do a speech on it and then i saw the speech and its so cool :):):):):)!!!!! THX ALOT now because of u i got a 100%

  54. Umm … not to too much, but umm … this whole thing contains a number of mistakes.

    Gregor Mendel was an Augustinian Monk and he is called “The father of modern genetics”. I’m pretty sure that would qualify as a “creationist” given Francis Collins over at the Human Genome project and Mike Behe of Lehigh University are called “creationists”. Oh and did I mention Francis Collins head of the Human Genome Project ? These people contributed immesurably to the “cracking of the genetic code”.

    And umm … a very large number of the units of measure in physics are named after people that would qualify as “creationists” in the way it is currently used to describe anybody who is not an ardent naturalist.


  55. Ben Main

    Jason, Gregor Mendel and Francis Collins have made their contributions to scientific understanding, but neither they nor Michael Behe was responsible for cracking the Genetic code. Gregor Mendel may be the father of modern genetics and Francis Collins may be the leader of the Human Genome Project and Michael Behe may have pondered over his idea of irreducible complexity, but none of them “cracked the genetic code”.

    I think that your objection is to an imagined view of the speech rather than what it actually says. It doesn’t say that people with creationist beliefs cannot do science…it goes more to suggest that creationism itself is not science, a point with which I agree.

  56. smratmark715

    Jason here obviously can’t grasp the difference between being religious and being a creationist. Francis Collins has gone on the record in his books rejecting creationism and Intelligent design, and there is no evidence that Gregor Mendel would be considered a creationist. The biggest problem with creationists is that when they don’t understand something, they want to label as “God did it,” which conveniently takes away any need to find another way to explain it. Francis Behe is a relatively minor scientist whose fame comes only from his controversial views, and scientists are people too, completely able of deluding themselves in an effort to make them feel better.

  57. ccmath

    As a mathematics teacher who used to be a rocket scientist and who is and forever shall be a Christian, I applaud and agree with your speech except for the implications in the statements “No creationist ever cracked the genetic code. Chemists did. Molecular biologists did.”
    That paragraph implies that Science and Christianity are mutually exclusive and they are not. Many of us have no problem believing the theories of evolution and the big bang theory. Where did the stuff involved in the big bang came from?? We believe it came from God. So we are happily capable of working on “real science” since we don’t have a problem with the scientific community and the theories that seek to explain where we all came from – I think perhaps some scientists are the ones with the closed minds.

  58. Joules

    It truly is a visceral experience.


  59. sasha
  60. marko

    It really pays out to follow the links you place in your blog entries, Phil: “welcome-to-caturday” to “carried-in-on-a-litter” to your great speech here, from a time where I didn’t read any blogs yet.

    If it wasn’t for your well-placed links, I would have missed this!

  61. Great speech, I’ve always found science fascinating and I would like to have your permission to translate this post to spanish and post it on my blog, of course all the credit will go to you.

  62. geetha

    hi phil
    if it’s okay to comment after such a long time ……..

    three cheers to you for such a wonderful speech. i can see a touch of carl sagan in that. lucky students and i am sure atleast some of them would have been inspired to pursue science.

    i am printing this speech and filing it for my 5 year daughter to read when she grows up

    love u

  63. Jeb Goodcarver

    Excellent post Dr. Plait…I trust you will allow it to be taught along with Creationism after the McCain/Palin team takes over in Janbuary 2009 and eliminates the teaching of Science from our school system.

  64. AlphaOmega

    Someone back in 2005 posted that he/she almost cried after reading your speech. May I say I just went one step further than the “almost”.

    Salute skipper for your deeply motivating exorcization of human dumbness.

    The One.

  65. the speech was great..but i hav to giv a speech to the whole school…thanks for the ideas!

  66. This needs to be recorded on video with your enthusiastic style and put on YouTube for more people to see and hear. And you can even update it some. :)

  67. Daniel J. Andrews

    Agree with Larian. This needs to be on video, perhaps with diagrams and pictures.

  68. Satan Claws

    I’m voting this be put on video as well. People react better to visuals and sound more than reading types on a screen or paper. If it’s not clear whether to use only visuals with Phil’s voice in the background or to just let Phil speak up to the camera, you can put two versions and let the people see what they choose.

  69. Dylan Evans

    Down here it is unlikely this will be read, but I feel it is important to write.

    I am as much a ‘scientist’ in my beliefs as the next average Joe who chooses knowledge and understanding above a historic belief systems.

    But it has to be remembered that as ‘scientists’ part of our core belief must be knowing that we know very little. To take what we know and declare that this means everything else is wrong is to classify ourselves amongst the ignorance of history.

    Some simple questions we have asked for a long time now:

    How can the Universe be infinite?
    How everything we know, us, our planet, all the galaxys in the universe, everything be created from a single point of nothingness?

    We cannot categorically answer these questions, and we must be open to theories presented.

    Yes it wrong to claim astrology is the be all and end all to the answers of universe, but it is equally as wrong to claim science is this. Our minds must always be open and questioning, if they are not we will never gain new scientific understanding of our world.

  70. Moonpie Nobot

    @Dana, not so

  71. John Flerianos

    @dana, homeopathy is as anti-science as it gets.

  72. Bogz

    GAV’s zenpencils brought me here. impressive speech good sir!

  73. Daniel J. Andrews

    Even better the second time around. Glad it made it into a comic.

  74. Eileen Land

    Not only is this an impressive argument for the joy of science, it is equally an impressive example of a great speech. You combined an emotional connection to your topic with an emotional connection to your audience. You spoke simply and imaginatively and, in doing so, achieved a great result. Congratulations!

    May I have your permission to make a copy of this for my class on presentations?

  75. Saber

    This is how i found my way here…..think it’ll make a good poster for classrooms

  76. REBECA

    Hola , soy de México, queria preguntarle varias cosas esperando que me las pueda responder.

    Estoy inscrita en el Blog de Cosmo Noticias en donde nos mandan articulos que traducen, muy buenos , pero aqui el dia de ayer me llego uno en donde habla que podria ser que nuestra galaxia y nosotros mismos seamos un holograma por lo que entendi en el articulo, porque supuestamente ya se tienen algunas cosas que lo pueden asegurar y que las teorias del universo prodian cambiar como ahora las conocemos.
    Mi pregunta va de acuerdo a esto, ya que hace unos dias estaba viendo un video donde decian que la tierra no da vueltas alrededor del sol sino que hacen como un espiral la tierra y los demas planetas como si se viera la cadena de un ADN, pero que ademas estamos pasando a diferntes dimensiones , esto me llamo la atencion por lo que lei que podiamas ser un holograma… pero ademas me intriga lo que dicen que en este año 2012 vamos a entrar a una linea de fotones en donde pasaremos a otra dimensión pero que ademas tendremos tres dias de obscuridad ….me espanta por la congruencia del articulo, con lo que dicen de a asencion por el cosmos, cambio de ADN del ser humano … por lo que vi en el video y por este comentario que hacen … me podria ayudar a entenderlo??

    Eso me esta llamando la atención le anexo el link para que los vea :

    Somos un holograma de cosmo noticias;

    Ayudeme a comprender si son mentiras

  77. James

    Ok, so I got here via Gavin’s Zen Pencils cartoons and I wondered, “Is there a video of the original speech anywhere out there?”

    I can totally imagine the applause and cheers and emotion after that address was given.

    Please? Video?

  78. Lindsay

    Yes, another visitor from and another request for you to make an audio of this one, Phil, it’s just so fantastic.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar