Gravity Works Like This

RC

Funny, I could have sworn that was EXACTLY what I was trying to get Grumpy to STOP doing with his insisting and conflating that purely NON-physical PHILOSOPHICAL notions of 'time and time rate existing' even without any mass events represented physically active physical 'time rate' extant in such scenario.

Grumpy hasn't added anything to GR or SR. And that is what says that spacetime is a real thing. Funny, in the other thread I posted an explanation of it that you and the other cranks have failed to address showing that bent spacetime. I even posted real Hubble images where the curvature of spacetime is illuminated by background light. And pointed out my simply HUGE clock. You all bailed because you can't deal with the facts, even Maxilla bailed completely. You can answer it over there or I will post the same info here, your choice.

Grumpy:cool:
 
RC



Grumpy hasn't added anything to GR or SR. And that is what says that spacetime is a real thing. Funny, in the other thread I posted an explanation of it that you and the other cranks have failed to address showing that bent spacetime. I even posted real Hubble images where the curvature of spacetime is illuminated by background light. And pointed out my simply HUGE clock. You all bailed because you can't deal with the facts, even Maxilla bailed completely. You can answer it over there or I will post the same info here, your choice.

Grumpy:cool:

But the images don't show space-time curvature , they show the energy produced by a sun or galaxy bending the light , as does light through water
 
There is spacetime for real, it is the container, and energy(in any of it's forms or activities)is that which is contained.
What "spacetime container"? There is NO such thing in Relativity. Only 'spacetime' CONSTRUCT INVENTED by Einstein/mathematicians as purely abstract REPRESENTATION of the dynamics observed. No actual underlying entity identifications/explanations are addressed let alone attempted. Separate fact from your fiction 'impressions' of what spacetime and Relativity actually are and their limitations due to being abstract inventions, Grumpy.

The 'energy-space IS the realm universal substrate in/from which its processes occur and are observed by us as particle/wave phenomena. Not an abstraction/construct like the 'spacetime' invention. Even the QM Quantum Vacuum concept/construct is MORE REAL than the 'spacetime' math construct/abstraction invented for Relativity theory. :)

How many times has it been pointed out to you that 'space-time' was a composite abstract mathematical 'space' and 'time' analytical convenience? At no time is the 'spacetime' actually identified as independent existing entity. Only a mathematical-physics analysis 'entity/construct'; since the underlying physically real energy-space ITSELF is NOT actually any part or intent in the Relativity theory 'explanations'. Only the space and the motions (timing/comparing of) are used in Relativity and used in the analytical construct to predict/quantify OBSERVED phenomena not EXPLAINED in deeper real terms. Drop all those impressions from early days of learning 'comic book versions understandings', Grumpy. It's the real world we're after; not more old-time abstract fantasy worlds.



A slurry of glass particles in water is not a glass of water, you can't mix the contained with the container. Spacetime is the stage upon which all events happen(energy, speed, matter), whether a play is currently in progress or all the lights are off, the stage empty.

Your 'explanations' are drifting off into purely philosophical things/assumptions, Grumpy, and leaving the reality way behind again. Unless you are now positing an ABSOLUTE 'universal time' concept irrespective of whether mass (clocking) events happen or not, then its up to you to explain how any REAL PHYSICALLY meaningful 'time rate' can apply anywhere in the absence if said clocking mass events/motions from which we CAN derive physically meaningful comparative values we term time/timing for our analytical math construct 'time dimension axis' on a graph/in equation 'map'.

There is no 'off stage' universe is all there is. Energy-space is real substrate. Motion/change is real PROCESS of/in that real energy-space. Period. Your 'philosophical' and 'abstract math' time concept is a derived analytical convenience/value. Nothing more. Not 'extant' in itself in reality.

Did you understand what what Sir Roger Penrose had to say about this? Did you understand the implications for your 'impressions' about 'time' being 'real' and 'extant and a rate irrespective of any mass/motion events' happening from which it is actually DERIVED when all is said and all 'philosophical/abstract overlays/impressions' are eliminated from consideration of the ultimate reality left when that is done?


Photon-a quantum of radiant energy, having both a particle nature(it is discrete and does not interact with other photons), and a wave nature(it travels through spacetime as a wave of electromagnetic energy). It has no rest mass and travels through spacetime at c. It also experiences no time, to it, it's moment of emission and of adsorption are the same moment. The word "Photon" contains all of that but is easier, clearer and simpler to write down. Some of that kind of simplicity would make your posts ...decipherable. Without such terms our writing and speech would be awkward and unnecessarily convoluted, you know, like your posts. If you cannot get your idea out in simple declarative sentences, each with a single complete thought, strung in a series leading down the tracks you want your train of thought to travel down no one will ever be able to understand you, or is that the goal?
Yes, we've heard all that before. Such 'interpretations from theory' are not actual real things, Grumpy. Try to separate 'comic book version' so-called 'interpretations/explanations from the reality at bottom. And explanations are not dependent on source or form/semantics, they are dependent on the ideas that are included that stand for themselves. No evasions based on 'reading/writing style' can subsitute for actually trying understand anyway what is written/presented.

Anyway, have you read some of those old-time scientific texts/explanations? How convoluted are they? We still read them and tried to understand what was implied/explained of the essential ideas involved; we did not just complain they were too hard to read and promptly ignored them and made up our own sh!te, did we? At least not those of us who were more interested in the content than the form/source/semantics, hey?


No, time stops for anything traveling at lightspeed.

What do you have in mind, other than light/gravity radiation, that can travel at/like light travels/propagates in/across energy-space?

So, anyway, 'time stopping' for photons is precisely what Sir Roger was on about when he said no meaningful physical conclusions/assumptions can be made about any 'time' or 'time rate' being 'still real' in energy-space purely and only in the form of 'ubiquitous photonic bath' everywhere at 'heat death' of universe. Do you understand what that meant; and the implications for your unphysical/philosophical overlay 'impressions' that become moot in such scenario where NO mass events/motions exist for us to derive meaningful physical concept/values from?

Cheers. :)
 
Maxila,

...all the Doppler shift is caused by apparent speed due to expansion, not speed through spacetime itself.

Very glib, Grumpy, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.

Let alone yet explained how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'. Until mainstream physics DOES identify & explain 'spacetime-to-mass' COUPLING mechanism and 'necessary forces' to make masses 'move along with it' (hypothesized inflation/expansion) or 'change course within it' (gravitationally affected geodesics), then it's all mainstream hypothesis/conjecture, not 'explanation' of anything.

Perhaps until that has happened, all those 'glib' non-explanatory 'comic book version' fairy tales should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached whenever anyone is tempted to just post these 'chestnut' ad hoc copouts-in-lieu-of-real-explanations without any understanding of the reality implications/limitations of same? :)
 
RC

Very glib, Grumpy, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.

At least I finally got you to understand that spacetime curvature is a real property of the Universe. That we don't know everything does not mean that we know nothing. Spacetime is a real thing, Relativity theory is our description of how we see that real thing(spacetime)behave. It is not an overlay and despite the fact that it is a construct, it is an accurate construct that describes reality. It is a very accurate map indeed.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.

That the Universe is referred to as "flat" has nothing to do with Relativity or spacetime. It is a measurement of the density of the Universe and if it will collapse or not, flat is on the cusp of those two possibilities. Spacetime IS warped(bent) by mass. Whether it is gravitons or Higgs boson that causes it is irrelevant to that fact(it's probably the Higgs field).

Let alone yet explained how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'.

The expansion is centered on every single point of spacetime, galaxies don't need to be "pulled along" because they aren't going anywhere due to that expansion. The expansion is happening everywhere all the time, there is no inertial coupling to matter for that.

That is why it is "apparent" velocity, not actual speed through local spacetime. They are relatively stationary in their local spacetime, we are relatively stationary in ours, but since all of spacetime is expanding the cumulative expansion of all the spacetime between us gives us apparent velocity. They actually are receding from us at high speed thus the redshift, but are stationary to local spacetime(just like us).

Perhaps until that has happened, all those 'glib' non-explanatory 'comic book version' fairy tales should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached whenever anyone is tempted to just post these 'chestnut' ad hoc copouts-in-lieu-of-real-explanations without any understanding of the reality implications/limitations of same?

You haven't learned anything in a long time, have you? Everything I posted is good solid science, your posts are just woo, sad.

What "spacetime container"? There is NO such thing in Relativity. Only 'spacetime' CONSTRUCT INVENTED by Einstein/mathematicians as purely abstract REPRESENTATION of the dynamics observed

Spacetime is the reality that Relativity describes, it exists, I have demonstrated that and you won't address it where I posted it so her it comes

My whole point was to observe that the clocks varied in time rates. That direct observation implied that the light between the mirrors moved across energy-space differently compared to each others location in GR context. Period.
The whole point is that a photon takes longer to travel a bent path through spacetime at c than it would to go straight between the same two points(coordinate distance), and that gravity bends spacetime in proportion to the strength of the gravity field. The two clocks see different gravity field strength, the spacetime bends more in the lower clock, so it registers slower clicks.

Energy-space is an oxymoron, stop using it, it makes you look ignorant.

Whatever 'interpretation' is to be put upon the REASON why that differing light motion/rate is what the discussion between Farsight and you et al is all about.
The light moves at c. It is only the coordinate speed that changes, not the speed of the light c. Just like every one of the non-cranks have been saying. Farsight has been wrong from the start, he rejects both postulates of Relativity.

Your contention is 'spacetime path contraction' or some such abstract 'spacetime' construct-based 'interpretation of the REAL DIRECT OBSERVABLE FACT that the clocks DO indicate the light IS moving differently compared to the other clock.
No, light always travel exactly at c in all frames, between all frames and from all frames. Period. It is the coordinate speed that changes because light takes the bent path of spacetime not the straight path between those same coordinates, the bent path is longer the further into a gravity field you go. But light travels at c all the way down. Spacetime is a real thing in the Universe, it actually affects reality. The theory of Relativity is not an interpretation, it is a description of the real behavior of the Universe itself and the interaction of it's properties. Constant lightspeed is so well established that no one has yet made a portable instrument to measure it, it would only indicate one speed(no matter how accurate you make it)in all circumstances(IE it would be useless).

Farsight says that it is light speed that slowed.
Yes, and that means Farsight doesn't know a damn thing about physics or Relativity(not to mention the history of the investigation of light).

So your discussion is at the stage of you and he trying to support your respective 'interpretation' of the observed light behavior variation.
When your "interpretation" requires the violation of a well established physical fact(c), your interpretation immediately and completely fails(at least as a description of reality). Our description of the Universe is valid, it explains the time dilation without violating that well established physical property. In fact, the whole of Relativity came into being to explain that well established fact(c). Constant lightspeed is the basis for Relativity. Relativity explains that fact.

In the real GR case before you of the two clocks in the room you are standing in, there are no '[measured' sped of light.
The clock is based on the coordinate speed of light between two mirrors, it is the operating principle of the clock. That is what the clock measures. It is the differences in the coordinate speed between those two mirrors that causes the slower clock. So,the only thing we are talking about is that coordinate speed between the mirrorsand the actual speed of light.

Farsight says that they are the same, that light slows down. Well, in physics in general and in Relativity we have known that light only travels at c for almost two hundred years, with not one instance in all that time where that has been shown NOT to be true. Farsight is therefore wrong, the actual speed of light does not slow down, he's missing something in his understanding. Einstein says light travels the zero energy geodesic through spacetime, if spacetime is bent, so is a photons path. Gravity bends spacetime and light follows that bent path, which is longer than the straight coordinate path, thus the clock slows down under acceleration because the spacetime it is in gets bent more. The coordinate speed of light gets slower even though the actual speed of light through spacetime does not change, it remains c.

xxnyt.jpg


Bent spacetime due to gravity doesn't just affect clocks, we use it as a lens to see distant galaxies. Interestingly, this setup above also illustrates the difference between coordinate speed and lightspeed through bent spacetime. The starlight passing straight through the galaxy cluster will arrive very close to the coordinate speed between Earth and the most distant blue galaxy, while the bent spacetime paths on either side of the center galaxy cluster will be time delayed due to their light having traveled a longer path through bent space, even though the light itself traveled all three paths at exactly c. The time differences will give you a very accurate measurement of the mass in the galaxy cluster doing the lensing. The time delays between the center one and the outer ones will then give you a very accurate distance to the further galaxy, using calculus that Newton could do. In Cosmology our clocks are huge. Earth replaces the detector and the distant blue galaxy replaces the emitter, the galaxy cluster is the acceleration and the difference between the times is caused by the same effect as happens in our clock.

You can even see the bent spacetime, curved by the gravity field and illuminated by the lensed light passing through it that focuses on Earth.

207624main_double_einstein_full.jpg


Notice all those bent arcs? Illuminated bent spacetime.

Address this post or admit you cannot.

Grumpy:cool:
 
At least I finally got you to understand that spacetime curvature is a real property of the Universe.

I already pointed out in the other thread the following disclaimer for all such glib abstractions/assumptions based on unreal maths because the Relativity etc professional partial theories don't yet treat mechanisms-wise or identify the fundamental entities or energy and space (as in 'energy-space real construct not abstract 'spacetime' maths construct)....as follows:
Very glib, Grumpy, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.

Let alone yet explained how 'expanding spacetime' couples to galaxies mass to 'grab' them and 'take/push' them ALONG with 'expanding spacetime' at whatever 'expansion speed'. Until mainstream physics DOES identify & explain 'spacetime-to-mass' COUPLING mechanism and 'necessary forces' to make masses 'move along with it' (hypothesized inflation/expansion) or 'change course within it' (gravitationally affected geodesics), then it's all mainstream hypothesis/conjecture, not 'explanation' of anything.

Perhaps until that has happened, all those 'glib' non-explanatory 'comic book version' fairy tales should have a 'disclaimer' like that above attached whenever anyone is tempted to just post these 'chestnut' ad hoc copouts-in-lieu-of-real-explanations without any understanding of the reality implications/limitations of same?

So much for your claims of abstract maths 'spacetime construct explanations' purporting to represent reality and not listening to others who have a more real construct to discuss which is more representative of the real things directly observable, Grumpy.

We have differing perspectives: me from reality; you from abstraction and maths. We don't want your headaches returning worse than ever, do we! Agree to disagree. We'll leave it at that shall we mate? Cheers. :)


PS: Like I earlier pointed out to Trippy, the Epicycles 'described' via abstract unreal maths construct the observed motions across space, but it didn't actually identify the underlying energy/space entities, processes or actually provide any real 'explanation' of anything when all was said and done within its 'construct/assumptions/interpretations rhetoric, did it? The corollary with equally mathematical abstract 'spacetime' construct which ALSO 'describes' but does NOT actually 'explain' the entities/process of underlying energy-space or mechanisms. Spooky similarity of math-turbation abstract artifacts not real facts, isn't it? ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't know what to think about a "theory" that claims all theories based on abstractions are flawed. This includes counting with numbers, since numbers are abstract and arguably there is a "theory of counting" (something like: numbers exist and we use them to label objects such that the objects are ordered).

Instead, we should use "reality", rather than abstract constructions. In which case, someone should tell us what that "reality" is.

They should also explain why the abstractions have been used for so long if they are flawed.
 
I don't know what to think about a "theory" that claims all theories based on abstractions are flawed. This includes counting with numbers, since numbers are abstract and arguably there is a "theory of counting" (something like: numbers exist and we use them to label objects such that the objects are ordered).

Instead, we should use "reality", rather than abstract constructions. In which case, someone should tell us what that "reality" is.

They should also explain why the abstractions have been used for so long if they are flawed.

Any purely abstract system may 'describe' (as in Epicycles?), no problem; but perforce of being pure abstraction and incomplete, however 'useful' it may have been over time within limited domains of applicability, it must logically follow that it must inevitably have some flaws and limitations which have prevented explanatory completeness in reality terms.

No more than that observation has been put by me during my observations of the discussions here and elsewhere. I have my own complete and consistent ToE coming out which goes beyond the limits and inherent flaws inescapable in purely abstract theory and interpretations of 'reality' therefrom (as was once done from maths abstraction 'Epicycles' theory).

I get an idea of what others here are coming up with as their own 'partial' theories closer to the reality, but I have yet to see one of these theories come close to complete and consistent reality ToE status. That's my objective observations so far.
 
Your trolling has been noted. You were answered properly and you come back with that evasion of the point made. Not a good look, for supposed 'scientist', Russ. Do better.
I'm an engineer - we are kinda like scientists except with better senses of humor. You said:
....energy-space is self-defining
....which isn't good enough. Words are not self-defining, they require humans to explicitly define them. Lacking any formal definition, I've supplied my own to highlight the sillyness of your inventing of meaningless terms.

The real question here isn't whether I'm trolling (I'm just picking-up what you are laying down....or, rather, scraping your crap off the walls after you fling it) it is whether you know you are trolling or not.
 
I'm an engineer - we are kinda like scientists except with better senses of humor.

All modesty aside, you are an applied scientist then, which requires that you use theory to synthesize working solutions without the luxury of only pretending to know how things work. You have to actually make them work or you don't get paid.

The other BIG data point for the smug novices who would challenge you is that about half of the main contributors to physics (between the eras of Fitzeau and Einstein) were engineers.

And let me guess: you had to know differential calculus and linear algebra in your first year, and to pursue advanced topics in math and science in the remaining years, just to even make passing grades.

Sounds impressive Russ. If I were a doubting novice I would simply shut up and ask you to help me understand. Of course that's what any normal doubting novice would do.

Well, you illustrate one thing that's often mentioned: engineers have great moments!
 
Russ_Watters

I'm an engineer - we are kinda like scientists except with better senses of humor

But, Oh those shoes. They're almost as bad as pocket protectors! Back in the day they were boots. A man can have respect for a good pair of boots.

But seriously, I have much more respect for those who apply than for those who think about applying.

Grumpy:cool:
 
Very glib, Grumpy, but unfortunately mainstream physics has not yet identified 'coupling mechanism' with spacetime that allows mass of a planet to 'curve' its surrounding spacetime.
And?

Do you similarly doubt Newtonian mechanics?

You realize that you are taking an evidential position in science that has been soundly rejected for over three hundred years?

While it would be nice to find the mechanism by which gravity works, this doesn't change the fact that what this mechanism would have to account for is the behaviors that we observe today for gravity, i.e., the behaviors associated with GR.

Nor has it yet explained how universally 'flat' geodesics are 'curved' and how 'spacetime' couples to infalling masses to redirect that mass from otherwise 'flat' spacetime geodesic path.
The how is actually laid out explicitly in GR and in many proposed successors to GR. That you have studiously ignored the content of GR does not make this content disappear.
 
PS: Like I earlier pointed out to Trippy, the Epicycles 'described' via abstract unreal maths construct the observed motions across space, but it didn't actually identify the underlying energy/space entities, processes or actually provide any real 'explanation' of anything when all was said and done within its 'construct/assumptions/interpretations rhetoric, did it? The corollary with equally mathematical abstract 'spacetime' construct which ALSO 'describes' but does NOT actually 'explain' the entities/process of underlying energy-space or mechanisms. Spooky similarity of math-turbation abstract artifacts not real facts, isn't it? ;)
Ah, I love it when people ignorant of the history talk about epicycles.

Some epicycles actually did point to physical phenomena. Most people do not know that the most significant epicycles in the modified Ptolemy system were coordinated with the Sun; they essentially tracked the position of the sun in the sky, with the movement of Venus and Mercury along their epicycles pointed (IIRC) toward the Sun and the other planets pointed away from the Sun.

So that is an interesting collection of evidence to consider in the phenomena of epicycles. One that is explained by the Copernican system: you have to introduce epicycles to match the motion of the planets around the Sun and their positions inside Earth's orbit or outside of it.

But the Copernican system is equally abstract. So what decides between them?
 
One thing about gravity, that seems to be left out of existing models, is connected to the pressure interface with matter, which allows gravity to impact the others three forces. Pressure is defined as force/area with all forces able to generate pressure=force/area.

For example, the pressure in the earth's core, due to the earth's gravity, causes iron to become solid at the high core temperatures, where it would be a gas on the surface. Gravity is altering the EM force behavior via the pressure interface. Based on energy conservation, this change in EM force (vapor would contain more potential energy) due to the pressure interface between gravity and the EM force, means gravity can't remain at the same potential energy. How does existing theory resolve the energy balance and avoid perpetual motion?

Gravity would be isolated in a universe of pure mass. without other forces, that it can interface via pressure. Does that mean the gravitational constant is an average value .that may not apply locally and breaks down at extreme pressure?
 
...That was specifically in answer to Russ's question of what 'energy-space' itself was. It concerned the 'underlying energy-space' itself, rather than the dynamical processing OF/IN said underlying energy-space itself...
OK noted. But do you recall me talking about Compton scattering, and how you could do another Compton scatter on the residual photon? And another and another, until you've taken all the energy out of the wave and there's no wave left? In the limit, the photon has been entirely converted into the motion of electrons. It has been entirely converted into motion. And yet, you could use pair production to convert a photon into an electron (and a positron). So in a way, the electron is made of motion. IMHO that's worth thinking about, is that.
 
But the images don't show space-time curvature , they show the energy produced by a sun or galaxy bending the light , as does light through water
As it happens space-time curvature is not actually why light bends and things fall down. If you take a look at pictures of the bowling-ball in the rubber sheet you're looking at a fair depiction of space-time curvature. But light bends and things fall down where the sheet is tilted rather than where it's curved. This tilt represents inhomogeneous space, see the OP.
 
At least I finally got you to understand that spacetime curvature is a real property of the Universe. That we don't know everything does not mean that we know nothing. Spacetime is a real thing..
I'm afraid it's a "mathematical space". One which combines the spatial dimensions which offer freedom of movement, with the time dimension which is a measure of regular cyclical motion in space. As such spacetime is a static mathematical space. There is no motion in it or through it. It isn't real, and nor are light-cones or worldlines. Sorry.
 
I'm afraid it's a "mathematical space". One which combines the spatial dimensions which offer freedom of movement, with the time dimension which is a measure of regular cyclical motion in space. As such spacetime is a static mathematical space. There is no motion in it or through it. It isn't real, and nor are light-cones or worldlines. Sorry.

A good way to see how this is true is consider a spherical coordinate system which defines space with two angles and a radius. If we used this system to define the space within space-time, the angles would now have special significance to many. Is theta the same as phi? Gravity, which bends space-time, tends to form balls which looks more like the spherical system, so why use Cartesian that looks like a cube?

I like the analogy of the windshield display of a fighter plane, which superimposes visible space with a grid system. At first, the mind will see these as separate, but as we use this grid system day after day, and begins to see it very works well, it merges and the two appear as one.

If we changed the windshield grid to a polar coordinate system, then one is back to square one. The pilot need to be get accustomed again, until he can instinctively trust and anticipate, then two will merge.

cartesian_spherical.jpg
 
even Maxilla bailed completely.

I bailed because you are not merely ignorant of the scientific facts, you’re obtuse, unable to acknowledge your misconceptions when direct references are provided to the contrary. I provided links and quoted the points that were in direct contradiction to what you were quoted saying, you had the hubris to post in reply “You've yet to correct anything I have posted”, you also didn’t even acknowledge you misquote of me when I pointed that out too. The evidence is right here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ks-Like-This&p=3175284&viewfull=1#post3175284

You're obviously lacking or plain wrong in knowledge of the topic, and you think nothing of ignoring scientific principles whenever is suits you. Arguing with you is akin to banging my head against the wall to cure a headache; not only is it pointless, it’s excruciating. I make a real effort to not make these type of posts, I usually just stop responding to people like you, but in this case if it benefits any other readers to see what you are all about and they learn not to take you seriously, I will have accomplished something positive.
 
Back
Top