Thread: Mac's Final Relativity Thread

  1. #501
    So are you going to bother reading those books I name or are you just going to keep whining how noone spoon feeds you an explanation which is within the grasp of a 10 year old?

  2. #502
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    So are you going to bother reading those books I name or are you just going to keep whining how noone spoon feeds you an explanation which is within the grasp of a 10 year old?
    as I said a while ago Alphanumerico 'tis not my problem that you can't determine the mechanism that allows universal constants, and it's not my problem that you are stuck with a photonic causation model that is going to keep science in the dark ages for some time yet.
    So you work it out then and when you do we can compare notes...until then I keep my 100 bucks and I launch a web campaign when I get round to it and make some money out of your stupidity....

  3. #503
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    Sorry, but I just don't think you guys get it. Relativity assigns kinematic and dynamic variables to the system of interest, and then calculates how that system evolves over time, as seen from various inertial frames. Based on these calculations, we can then predict how various processes will affect our measuring devices, and where and when these things happen. Doesn't matter what sort of measuring device you use. For example, as a clock you could use a human being's aging process, a cuckoo clock, a stopwatch, a metronome... anything that reads time will be affected in the same way. If you don't like the philosophical concept of treating space and time as relative things, or don't like the idea that velocities are only relative and all inertial frames are equivalent, that's your prerogative. Unless you can demonstrate a mathematical inconsistency in relativity or a known phenomenon that completely disagrees with it, I don't think I have anything more I can discuss with you guys on this topic.
    And you don't seem to understand this is not about how SR is applied. It is about the real world consequences and erroneous assertions being made.

    i.e - That relative velocity is a cause for physical change, ignoring that you don't userelative veloicty but a form of absolute velocitychange when you consider "Frame Switching" (acceleration or who has actual velocity).

    Or that the "Perceptions of observers over disance or with relative motion are physically real at the local level of the observered clock. It isn't. When relative velocity stops the affect stops and there is no permanent change in the clock due to mere relative velocity.

    The only change is in clocks that have been accelerated.

    Or that you can only claim spatial contraction if you first ignore your prior stipulation that a clock is time dilated. If you consider the dilated conditon of the clock when computing from its frame then distance must remain fixed and the observer merely computes a different relative velocity.

    These are the issues being discussed but you and all the other relativists want to keep interjecting what SR says about observers "See" while IN relative motion, interjecting "Simultaneity" and velocity addition, etc which is not at issue at all.

    THE ONLY ISSUE IS THE ULTIMATE CONDITION OF CLOCKS ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO A COMMON REST FRAME SUBSEQUENT TO HAVING HAD RELATIVE VELOCITY. THAT IS THE ONLY TRUE TIME DILATION AND IT'S CAUSE MOST CERTAINLY IS NOT RELATIVE VELOICTY BETWEEN CLOCKS BUT ACTUAL MOTION DUE TO HAVING ACCELERATED.

    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    Nowhere in any of my equations have I made any reference to absolute motion or the need for it, and the acceleration history is irrelevant as well, only relative velocity matters here.
    SEE ABOVE. YOU AREN'T DISCUSSING THE ISSUE ON THE TABLE AT ALL.

    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    As far as evidence goes, like I said particle lifetime measurements at different velocities make a great example, and it's easy to show that the acceleration history is irrelevant here too. Please read carefully through my most recent description of how the experiment shows that only relative velocity counts. Since the Earth is orbiting the sun, I don't think there's any reason to think we might happen to be in an absolute frame of rest, but it doesn't matter whatsoever what time of year you do the experiment. So at this point I guess if your objections are philosophical, I can't get you to accept concepts you don't want to accept. If you have any mathematics you can use to demonstrate your points, that's all I'm willing to discuss for the remainder of this particular thread.
    Then you are either incapable or unwilling to face the issues raised and only want to talk dogma and rhetoric of which we have no interest. It is the real issue and not the emperically unsupported absurd claims of SR that are of any importance.

  4. #504
    Registered Senior Member MacM's Avatar
    Posts
    10,104
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    So are you going to bother reading those books I name or are you just going to keep whining how noone spoon feeds you an explanation which is within the grasp of a 10 year old?
    I'd be very careful about making these 10 year old comments. They have a tendancy of coming back and biting you in the ass.

    For the most part QQ's comlaint is dead on. My own experience has been that you folks just love to talk about what SR says but never actually restraining your comments to the particlular issue raised. That is in my case I care less about any affect real or imaginary due to observations while in relative motion. But you ( as in relativist) continue to interject what others "See" while in motion and/or affects of "Simultaneity".

    Don 't you understand the most simple thing and that is affects of relative motion don't exists when in a common rest frame, nor does simultaneity.

    Keep your rebuttal to the physics of clock conditions when measured in a common rest frame subsequent to having had relative velocity.

    THEN TRY IN VAIN TO CLAIM THAT RELATIVE VELOCITY IS A CAUSE OF TIME DILATION.

  5. #505
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,534
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    I think I know a happy middle ground for the two of you, although I'll admit I could definitely use more practice on the quantum field theory side of things. I believe quantum field theory would argue that at all times, the photon's wavefunction exists everywhere in the universe. The average value of its position would move through space at the speed of light, but there's nothing stopping the photon from making a random jump to the opposite end of the galaxy at any moment. Yet there is some debate as to whether the wavefunction implies that the photon itself exists everywhere, and some could argue that in fact the photon exists entirely outside the apparatus altogether until the measurements are made. I think QM would say that, unless we find a way to beat the uncertainty principle, this question is impossible for us to answer through experiment.
    There is nothing wrong with that POV in MHO, but it does not touch on the fundamental disagreement between QQ and accepted science.

    I think QQ will agree. I think QQ believes that the delay of light propagation is due to an "inertial effect" of matter. I.e. QQ states that we never see the photon by its self - only via matter.

    QQ: Is that fair and reasonably accurate summary of your POV?

    Thus one of the strongest counters to QQ's POV is Maxwell's Equation and some lab experiment which have nothing to do with light - Can be done in total darkness without using a single photon etc.

    I.e. one can measure the vacuum permeability (a magnetic field is used) and the dielectric constant of vacuum (and electric field is used) multiply their values, then take the square root of that product then, If I recall correctly, divide unity by that root. What you get is the measured speed of light!

    This strongly implies that light is an EM wave* and its speed has nothing to do with the inertial of matter - does not even need there to be any matter for light to exist and have that speed. (Although without at least one atom in the entire universe there is no way to measure the speed as you would lack a reference point. Speed is always wrt some reference assumed not to be moving.)****

    ------------------
    *Note also that Maxwell with his equations predicted that radio wave should exist (as well as light)** and then some years later Hertz was able to demonstrate that they did – he made what is now called a primitive “spark gap transmitter”, SGT. (In an AM radio you can hear any nearby spark as “static”) Hertz’s SGT had a pair of horizontal wires attached as he believed in the existence of EM waves and wanted to concentrate (I assume this was his thinking) the radiation into a particular wave length.

    Nearby was a second pair of equally long horizontal wires, also with a tiny spark gap between them. When the bigger SGT, charging up with a static electric generator , “cut loose” (Its gap discharged the system capacitance.) wonder of wonders, there was an observable spark across the tiny gap of the “receiver”, which was not physically connected to any thing. Thus, establishing the reality of the predicted EM waves as the “connection.”

    **Maxwell was a good mathematician. He was able to pull the prediction of waves out of his equations, which were based only on the known but separate magnetic and electric field facts Faraday and a few others had discovered. He also knew that the speed of the waves was determined in his equations by the two experimental values that Faraday had statically measured. He had available the then “known” speed of light also. Fact that it was the same (within experimental error) to the speed calculated from these static measurements was why he was confident that not only light was EM waves but that very different wavelengths were also possible - I.e. could predict that what we now call “radio waves” would exist also. It is grand and glorious history of a huge step forward by mankind*** – The first real “unification” of two fields of physics until then thought to have nothing to do with each other.

    *** A million times more important and glorious than what happened on the moon 40 years ago, IMHO, (But I have always opposed manned space flight as instruments can do all the exploration that man can much cheaper and better. Furthermore, if that money had been directed towards making instrument more intelligent, then AI would be decades ahead of where it is now.)

    ****late by Edit:
    I am not sure this must be true. For example, a photon crossing perpendicular to a beam of photons could use that bean instead of an atom as its reference. I.e. it would be leaving the line of the beam at the speed of light. (But if no atoms exist in the universe, then no one is measuring and there is no means of measuring so this is a philosophical question, more than one of physics.)
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 09:48 AM.

  6. #506
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,495
    I agree entirely with your point. But it's impossible to detect the EM field without first putting some sort of detection apparatus up in the empty region of space. I think QQ would just claim then that adding the extra apparatus caused the experiment to change, so now the photon still exists wherever you measure it but "nowhere inbetween". It's a philosophical point and not worth arguing over in the slightest. Maybe the EM field really does travel between source and detector, or at least the expectation value of each photon's wave function does. Or maybe invisible space octopuses grab the photon and teleport it to the detector, tweaking it to appear as if it travelled through space, so we humans never find out the actual truth and acquire the technology needed to stop these octopii once and for all. Either viewpoint agrees with experiment.

  7. #507
    [quote=CptBork] Originally Posted by geistkiesel
    Do not some critics point out that Fizeau did not actually measure relativity?

    IN AE's "Relativity" AE states regarding the Fizeay experiment, ," . . . The light plays the part of the man walking on the carriage . . ." In the man walking scenario the velocity of the man relative to the embankment was the velocity of the man relative to the carriage plus the velocity of the carriage relative to the embankment. Substituting light for the man without subtracting the velocity of the train assumes that light and the man are identical,seen from the carriage or the embankment both observers are aware of the 'speed of light independence' postulate. Earlier in the chapter (CH V) AE recognized light speed as independent of the speed of the source of the light hence the substitution,'light for man' was a gross error. ”

    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork
    Not true at all. In relativity, velocities don't add the way you describe. If two spacecraft are each going at near lightspeed relative to Earth, in opposite directions, the spacecraft will still see each other travelling at less than lightspeed. So whether you use a man or a beam of light, it wouldn't matter. In the Fizeau experiment the light is travelling at somewhat less than c because it's carried in a refractory medium like water, so you can treat it like a fast-moving spaceship.'
    You mean the way Einstein added velocities?
    AE starts out W = v + w, where W is the speed of the man wrt the embankment
    ,v is the speed wrt the embankment and w the speed of the man wrt the carriage.
    AE substitutes the SOL c for W the SOL wrt the embankment and w the SOL wrt the carriage - AE substitutes light for the man walking, but earlier he recoignized that te SOL is ndependenbt of the speed of the source of light, this directly contrary to the speed of the man as seen by the embankment observer where W is the sum of v + w. The embankment observer sees the substitued 'SOL for the speed of the man' ad he measures this light w as equal to c. When he then rearranges w = c - v, and while stating that w is the OL wrt the carriage, the terms for c and v (in the 'c-v' expression) are both measured wrt the embankment, yet AE wants you to overlook the frame switch where w is said to be measured wrt the carriage and then claims this violates the princples of relativity - when it only violates the [princimple of inertial frame switching.
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork
    “ Originally Posted by geistkiesel
    So, the thinking of astronauts and meteors somehow determine the laws of physics? ”

    Har har har. It's pretty obvious what I was implying there.

  8. #508
    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    as I said a while ago Alphanumerico 'tis not my problem that you can't determine the mechanism that allows universal constants, and it's not my problem that you are stuck with a photonic causation model that is going to keep science in the dark ages for some time yet.
    Your 'universal constants' whining isn't even coherent, as special relativity is entirely consistent with the constants found in physics and when combined with quantum mechanics correctly predicts how such 'constants' as the fine structure constant vary with energy. And your unwillingness to look at evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    So you work it out then and when you do we can compare notes...
    What notes do you have? 20 years of work with nothing to show for it is all you have. You haven't read anything, you haven't worked through any thing, you haven't learnt anything. You've achieved nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantum Quack View Post
    until then I keep my 100 bucks and I launch a web campaign when I get round to it and make some money out of your stupidity....
    You and Kent Hovind can go on a tour of Christian Science reading rooms.

    Quote Originally Posted by geistkiesel View Post
    You mean the way Einstein added velocities?
    AE starts out W = v + w, where W is the speed of the man wrt the embankment
    ,v is the speed wrt the embankment and w the speed of the man wrt the carriage.
    AE substitutes the SOL c for W the SOL wrt the embankment and w the SOL wrt the carriage - AE substitutes light for the man walking, but earlier he recoignized that te SOL is ndependenbt of the speed of the source of light, this directly contrary to the speed of the man as seen by the embankment observer where W is the sum of v + w. The embankment observer sees the substitued 'SOL for the speed of the man' ad he measures this light w as equal to c. When he then rearranges w = c - v, and while stating that w is the OL wrt the carriage, the terms for c and v (in the 'c-v' expression) are both measured wrt the embankment, yet AE wants you to overlook the frame switch where w is said to be measured wrt the carriage and then claims this violates the princples of relativity - when it only violates the [princimple of inertial frame switching.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread....31#post2320131

    Are you just going to mindlessly repeat your ignorance again and again and again and again? I've seen you post that same nonsense at least 3 times now, each time you've ignored it when someone has explained to you how you epically failed to grasp what the book is actually saying. There's no 'switcharoo' or slight of hand, there's only your inability to read and understand and since you've jumped to the conclusion you want, why would you bother to put in effort to understand your mistake?

    You and QQ whine about how science is full of fibbers and cheaters and yet neither of you have a nanogram of honesty and integrity to rub between you.

  9. #509
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,534
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    ... Or maybe invisible space octopuses grab the photon and teleport it to the detector, tweaking it to appear as if it travelled through space, so we humans never find out the actual truth and acquire the technology needed to stop these octopii once and for all. Either viewpoint agrees with experiment.
    Yes, but one important characteristic of light is not likely to be achieved by octopi as they seldom travel in straight lines for very long.

    That is why when I advanced this same alternative many posts back, I told you and everyone that the carriers of the photon energy were tiny invisible unicorns. Everyone knows that they only run in straight lines, which race horse can only approximate, until the bounce off some fence etc. Unicorns are very fast but have only one gait. They also have a very strong labor union: If light* energy is to be transported in your frame the local carriers get the job - that (with the only one gait) expains why light has the same speed in all frames. But of course if they must run between the molecules of glass etc. that does slow them down. This explains the index of refraction effect.

    Thus your theory is not only WRONG but incomplete. What are you? Some kind of idiot?

    -----------------
    *Why do you think it is even called "light energy"? - The tiny unicorns are not strong enough to carry "heavy energy."
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 11:27 AM.

  10. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    If light is to be transported in your frame the local carriers get the job - that (with the only one gait) expains why light has the same speed in all frames. But of course if they must run between the molecules of glass etc. that does slow them down. This explains the index of refraction effect.
    No, if the unicorns have to go from molecule to molecule, they have to change direction a lot and this would wear down their hoves normally so they have to don thick protective unicorn shoes, to counter this, when they go through dense substances and that is why they slow down.

    Obviously your work is so laughable you're only fit to do string theory

  11. #511
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Yes, but one important characteristic of light is not likely to be achieved by octopi as they seldom travel in straight lines for very long.

    That is why when I advanced this same alternative many posts back, I told you and everyone that the carriers of the photon energy were tiny invisible unicorns. Everyone knows that they only run in straight lines, which race horse can only approximate, until the bounce off some fence etc. Unicorns are very fast but have only one gait. They also have a very strong labor union: If light is to be transported in your frame the local carriers get the job - that (with the only one gait) expains why light has the same speed in all frames. But of course if they must run between the molecules of glass etc. that does slow them down. This explains the index of refraction effect.

    Thus your theory is not only WRONG but incomplete. What are you? Some kind of idiot?
    I laugh at your unicorn labour union, because my octopii comprise an entire army! There are infinitely many octopii floating through space, occupying every possible point in position-momentum phase space. These octopii, living in the realm beyond our pathetic inability to make accurate measurements (which we excuse with our so-called "uncertainty principle" as if it wasn't just a matter of us screwing up), are unbound by the rules of locality, and are able to huck the photon across the vast reaches of spacetime with instantaneity to wherever they desire.

    So laugh at me all you want, but really I'm the one laughing at you and feeling sorry for you, because my theory already has prior theoretical confirmation from some of the greatest minds in history. Why do you think Dirac described the universe in terms of a sea? Read the math, it's all there and proves everything I've been saying about octopii, so sorry for you that you're stuck in the primitive dark ages of unicorns and can't show any scientific integrity.

  12. #512
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,495

  13. #513
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,534
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    ... you're only fit to do string theory
    What makes you think I do not do that? Acutually, I have published many papers on string and bains; Of course like here I do not use my real name.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 12:49 PM.

  14. #514
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,534
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    ... my octopii comprise an entire army! ...
    Oh Yea! That is crazy! If the octipi are so strong and dominate, then tell me why it is called "LIGHT energy" - I have already explained that in footnote of prior post. Octpi live in water - Every one know that removes most of the effect of gravity - if your army of octipi were the carriers the energy would be called "HEAVY" energy - See my footnote of prior post for more details.

    As light does not travel very far thru water perhaps there is some truth in your POV. Neptune may have empowered/ authorized the octopi to transport photons under water but Zeus clearly gave the air and vacuum job to the invisible unicorns.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 12:47 PM.

  15. #515
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,534
    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric View Post
    No, if the unicorns have to go from molecule to molecule, they have to change direction a lot and this would wear down their hoves normally so they have to don thick protective unicorn shoes, to counter this, when they go through dense substances and that is why they slow down. ...
    With such an imagination, unconstrained by observable facts, I assume you too publish string papers.

    But here in optics, there are facts: The unicorns do not experience any “wearing down” so need no "protective shoes." They only weave around the molecules and rarely touch any (unless the glass maker put impurities traps in with the pure SiO2). Then they do occasionally have always fatal collisions due to their high speed. It is a well known fact that the photon either come thru glass with ZERO energy loss of do not make it thru at all.

    In the future please stick to string theory - I bet you are good at that with your imagination unchallengeable by any experimental facts.
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 12:40 PM.

  16. #516
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy T View Post
    Oh Yea! That is crazy! If the octipi are so strong and dominate, then tell me why it is called "LIGHT energy" - I have already explained that in footnote of prior post. Octpi live in water - Every one know that removes most of the effect of gravity - if your army of octipi were the carriers the energy would be called "HEAVY" energy - See my footnote of prior post for more details.
    But that's the whole point- the octopii are swimming in the Dirac sea, so the energy ISN'T HEAVY. Yes, in YOUR case if the universe wasn't permeated by a wateriferous aether, you'd be correct. But the fact is THERE IS a wateriferous aether, so in MY case I'm right and you're wrong.

    Edit: Look, I've been thinking about this a little more, and I think what's happened is we got started on the wrong foot and had a bit of miscommunication. After considering your arguments more carefully, I think we're actually 100% in agreement. When the octopii are flying around, it's entirely possible for their tentacles to be mistaken for the horns of unicorns, it happens all the time. Physicists come up with these stupid ideas like "uncertainty principles" and "relative velocities" to explain why they haven't figured it out, but really it's just common sense to people like us who haven't been led astray by their little education factories. In actual fact it looks like your ideas fit into mine perfectly, they're just a specific sub-case of my own theories where you're looking at a small piece of the puzzle and I'm looking at the whole picture. So what do you say, Billy T? Want to join forces and overturn this ridiculous, self-entitled establishment once and for all?

  17. #517
    I think QQ will agree. I think QQ believes that the delay of light propagation is due to an "inertial effect" of matter. I.e. QQ states that we never see the photon by its self - only via matter.

    QQ: Is that fair and reasonably accurate summary of your POV?
    Please post to the relevant thread as this is way off topic for this one....However I would agree that what you have stated as a summary is indeed GENERALLY correct.
    and I wouldn't use unicorns or octopii I would use a flying pig called photon

    http://bizzymate.com/uploads/images/...ying%20pig.jpg

    as CptBork has stated:

    I agree entirely with your point. But it's impossible to detect the EM field without first putting some sort of detection apparatus up in the empty region of space. I think QQ would just claim then that adding the extra apparatus caused the experiment to change, so now the photon still exists wherever you measure it but "nowhere inbetween". It's a philosophical point and not worth arguing over in the slightest. Maybe the EM field really does travel between source and detector, or at least the expectation value of each photon's wave function does. Or maybe invisible space octopuses grab the photon and teleport it to the detector, tweaking it to appear as if it travelled through space, so we humans never find out the actual truth and acquire the technology needed to stop these octopii once and for all. Either viewpoint agrees with experiment.
    What this means immmediately is that an alternative causation model for the light effects IS Possible and that is the whole point of the exercise. That being to provide at least a small window of opportunity for a better and more comprehensive model that includes universal constants instead of making them theoretically impossble due to relative simultaneity issues.

    The only way the gravitational constant and inertia and even our invariance of light can be exact universally is due to an underpinning absolute time [t=0] and if you think other wise you should do web building instead of pretend to be a physicist.
    Last edited by Quantum Quack; 07-24-09 at 05:07 PM.

  18. #518
    Please use Sugar Cane Alcohol Billy T's Avatar
    Posts
    19,534
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    ...But the fact is ... I'm right and you're wrong... So what do you say, Billy T? Want to join forces and overturn this ridiculous, self-entitled establishment once and for all?
    Yes definitely lets join forces. We already agree on the basic principle as first stated above. I.e. "I'm right and your wrong." is the powerful argument that MacM and QQ etc use so hell, even MacM and QQ will join forces with us under that banner. Let get cracking team.

    On second thought by Edit:

    QQ posts while I was writing with photo of flying pig called photon carrying the energy. You captain did the same with photo of globe topping octipus.

    Fools both of you! Providing evidence that you are wrong.

    Here between the two line below is what the camera records when taking picture of my INVISIBLE UNICORNS:

    --------------------------



    --------------------------

    Obviously I was right! (You never see the transporters of light energy.)
    Last edited by Billy T; 07-24-09 at 05:13 PM.

  19. #519
    Robbing the Shalebridge Cradle CptBork's Avatar
    Posts
    4,495
    So now that we're agreed it's my octopus theory that is correct and not your unicorn theory, shall we go to congress and give them the same obvious explanations? I figure if we can just pull the wool out from over their eyes, they'll grant us millions in funding just for doing them that one favour, nevermind the revolutionary advances that are sure to follow once my theory becomes accepted by the mainstream.

  20. #520
    Quote Originally Posted by CptBork View Post
    ha...."in an octopussies garden in the shade"...Beatles..

Similar Threads

  1. By Gustav in forum SF Open Government
    Last Post: 04-24-08, 01:27 AM
    Replies: 7
  2. By Orleander in forum Site Feedback
    Last Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PM
    Replies: 16
  3. By Vern in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 05-05-07, 12:24 AM
    Replies: 43
  4. By MacM in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 02-28-06, 03:20 AM
    Replies: 345

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •