Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 301 of 404 (698650)
05-08-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 3:23 PM


quote:
When we measure voltage at a point we measure a difference in potential between that point and a reference. We can choose different reference potentials and thus get different voltage readings for the same point.
Exactly, so what source do you choose to use as your base voltage value? We will then compare the voltage of every atom in the universe compared to that base value and see if it sums to 0.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 3:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:06 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 302 of 404 (698652)
05-08-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 2:39 PM


quote:
A fair proposal, but one that is not matched to the evidence. The standard model does predict an extremely tiny neutron dipole moment of 10—32ecm, but that moment is simple not strong enough to explain why an atom like He-3 is completely stable despite the repulsion of the two protons. The strong nuclear force does that work.
There is a wikipedia article on the neutron electric dipole moment that is reasonably supported with pointers to the experimental evidence and the theoretical support for the tiny value of the nedm. I see no reason to take your word for it.
A good attempt at diversion, some were probably fooled by it.
quote:
The strong interaction is thought to be mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and other gluons. Gluons, in turn, are thought to interact with quarks and gluons because all carry a type of charge called "color charge."
So call it color, red, green and blue, upquarks, dpwnquarks or whatever, and in the end it is charged particles. So what again is the difference between the EM and strong force?
quote:
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus).
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons.
But wait, the stromng force binds fundemental particles, but sadly it was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not. So how exactly does the strong force which governs fundemental particles have anything to do with neutrons?
Strong interaction - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 2:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 304 of 404 (698654)
05-08-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:06 PM


Electromagnetism - Wikipedia
quote:
The electromagnetic force is the interaction responsible for almost all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity...The theoretical implications of electromagnetism, in particular the establishment of the speed of light based on properties of the "medium" of propagation (permeability and permittivity), led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.
What is gravity again?
Electromagnetic field - Wikipedia
quote:
An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space
Just like gravity, so how far apart do those molecules have to be again???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:34 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:20 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 307 of 404 (698658)
05-08-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:22 PM


Re: Not supportive of your point...
quote:
To sum up the above, the strong nuclear force is a residuum of the strong interaction between quarks. The strong interaction is the inter quark force. The strong force is the inter nucleon force.
So the question to answer now is whether the interquark force is electrostatic. Well apparently not.
but the strong force was "hypothosized" to govern the interaction because it was believed they were fundemental particles. Since they are not fundemental particles, how is the strong force still a fundemental force? It can't be by your very own definition of fundemental forces.
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia
quote:
Fundamental interactions, sometimes called fundamental forces or interactive forces, are described in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems evolving over time, whose descriptions appear not reducible to relations among entities more basic.
Strong interaction - Wikipedia
quote:
The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons.
So the strong force is not even a fundemental force. You like to call it color charge, as if that somehow makes the charge not charge, but in the end it is all to do with the interraction of moving charges, which is electric current.
quote:
An electric current is a flow of electric charge. Electric charge flows when there is voltage present across a conductor.
In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.
And back to plasma we come, 99% of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:45 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 309 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 4:59 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 310 of 404 (698662)
05-08-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:45 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
quote:
Let's take this statement to be correct.
So what? The point is that it is not electro-magnetic. The strong nuclear force is generated by the strong interaction which is a fundamental force, and which is not generated by charge. The attractive force between nucleons is greater than can be generated by electrostatic forces.
Says who, the same people that still claim the strong force is a fundemental force when it is a sub-field of the color charge force? And what is the color charge force? Moving charges.
Electrostatics - Wikipedia
quote:
Electrostatics is the branch of physics that deals with the phenomena and properties of stationary or slow-moving (without acceleration) electric charges.
and what does that force have to do with an electron moving at close to the speed of light around the neutron and protons, never mind the speed of the proton and neutron, shall we go look that up? Haven't bothered to yet, but I bet it aint slow.
Stop trying to apply forces to other things that have no application. Just admit electrical forces in the universe and all your dark matter will go dark once and for all.
next you'll be telling me when the solar wind hits the edge of our system it'll veer sideways.
i apologize, that is what you used to say, now you simply have no model whatsoever for the solar system, under no theory but one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 313 of 404 (698668)
05-08-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 5:20 PM


I would get the wrong answer, perhaps you should try with the correct formula.
You still haven't explained to me why i should use 1/r^3 instead of 1/r^2? Especially when you want to use the electrostatic law?
Coulomb's law - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:20 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 7:52 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 314 of 404 (698669)
05-08-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 5:23 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
quote:
No. I mean the same people who say the strong force is a residuum of the strong interaction. Remember that you are the one who provided the reference saying exactly that.
And no a force is not "moving charges", so why not tell us what you really mean when you say that. I cannot address this until you say something coherent.
I didn't write it, got a source you prefer? Let's see what that has to say. I simply used as reference wiki, which earlier you were saying it made your point, but its suddenly not good enough?
And I think Einstein would disagree, since mass and energy are idistinguishable from one another. He tried to tell you by the very title of his paper, and by the very equation that defines relativity, but you ignored him then and you ignore him today. Just like when he said Black Holes could not be a physical reality. You ignored him because you WANT there to be black holes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 315 of 404 (698676)
05-08-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:34 PM


quote:
Let me describe the situation in some detail. Picture an electron and a proton centered at exactly the same point.
Why? That only occurs in Big Bang theory When Black Holes compress all matter into 0 volume, a blank check to explain anything they can't explain, not to mention forbidden by that very theory. Especially when gravity is a field interpretation.
Division by zero - Wikipedia
("Division by zero must be left undefined in any mathematical system that obeys the axioms of a field.")
quote:
Each would generate a electric field equal and opposite from that generated by the other particle, yielding no net electric field through out all of space.
See above.
quote:
On the other hand separating the charges by some distances does creates a net electric dipole field, but the field is not spherically symmetrical. Both sign and magnitude depends on the orientation of the dipole. Now given random orientations relative to some external object, the net electric field would again be zero. In order to detect the dipole we would need some way to align the orientations.
Yet we measure charges every day, we have 100 years of laboratory work measuring charges that apparently don't understand that theory.
quote:
Even given some alignment, the dipole force law is not an inverse square law relationship. If this was the way gravity was produced, we would observe that planets did not obey a 1/r^2 force law, and we would observe that gravity could be repulsive rather than attractive. We would also observe that gravity would have zero effect on objects having neutral charge. Finally, we would observe forces that were not proportional to the mass of the object. Accordingly no equivalence principle meaning that General Relativity is a bunch of hooey. No explanation for the anomaly in the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, and Earth, etc.
But yet relativity says that the electromagnetic force can be observed both as just an electric force, and as an electric and magnetic force, depending on ones frame of reference. So let's play with relativity shall we? One can observe an electric field, without a magnetic field, but one cannot observe a magnetic field without an electric current (moving charges) - call em dipole movements if you want, that's fine with me. Spinning electric charges creating that very dipole field. Yet are you claiming Quarks have a dipole moment, or are created by at least 3, because you require a minimum of 3. So no magnetic dipole moment exists unless two or more charges interact. There exists electric monopoles, but no magnetic monopoles. Since we know that the electric force is both attractive and repulsive, depending on orientation of the currents and the magnetic field they create, I quite agree that it is an alignment issue. Do quarks exist only in protons and neutrons???????? They say they don't exist in electrons, and I tend to agree, but then again they cant pinpoint the electron down, only end up in results that tend to show up as clouds. Do quarks just disappear when you smash a neutron in an accelerator? You've only theorized they exist, never seen one, just like you've never seen an electron, but an electron cloud is well known. Want to discuss particle physics too?
So it is far from impossible for gravity to be an electrical event, as like you said, it all depends on what the REAL basic particle is. We won't go into the purely geometric interpretation of relativity because that is patently false since all of relativity is derived from the Electromagnetic force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 7:27 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 319 of 404 (698684)
05-08-2013 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 316 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 7:27 PM


quote:
It is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate a point. And there is no division by zero involved in the thought experiment because we are not discussing the forces on the particles of the charges, but only the field generated by the charges at a distance from the separated charges.
the point of a thought experiment that is impossible is that it serves no point at all, it's impossible. There is no need to even consider it in the equation, it affects the outcome not at all, which only serves to prove their MUST ALWAYS be an electric charge, since no electric charge at all is impossible. That's what that thought experiment really says.
You have not explained anything about how charges behave, that is why you have no explanation for the galactic rotation curves. Because only when plasma is condensed into solids, liquids and gasses, and its atoms are more in alignment than when charges are separated, does the effect you call gravity begin to dominate. In the vast reaches of galactic space the accumulated non-plasma matter is too thin, too sparsely populated, and the electric and magnetic aspect dominates, not the just the aspect you call gravity.
This is why plasma does not behave like any other form of matter. A fact I know you know well, you have shown you are not stupid, which is surprising that you can then ignore 99% of the universe??? That I DO NOT understand at all? Nor can I even begin to comprehend how you can even suggest to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace, when it is plasma, and you know how plasma behaves, electrically. But the sun has a high enough concentration of plasma in one spot due to the z-pinch that the alignment you seek occurs. And as you said, the electric force is both attractive and repulsive, and with a few exceptions of things knocked out of orbit, the planets seem to never want to get too close or too far away, even though they both accelerate and decelerate in their orbits. If relativity was totally correct galactic rotation profiles would obey it, not just the electrical force.
So yes, relativity is close enough when one works in the moderately condensed matter of the solar system, but the minute you step outside dense concentrations of matter it fails. Not one single galaxy in the entire universe behaves as it was predicted it should, because as you noted, the dipole movement is not always symmetrical, especially when not bounded by other dipole moments. This is why plasma is filamentary in aspect, until enough mass is collected to form more aligned dipole movements and the ball begins to form, not the filament.
I know you are not going to try to say space is not highly filamentary outside the bounds of the solar system, and even large concentrations of plasma within the solar system remain partially filamentary, look at the sun, lightning.
So the real question is how can they ignore the electrical force as if it doesn't exist, when that is exactly what makes plasma a plasma.
And by the way, the electrical force is an inverse square law despite your claims to the contrary.
Inverse-square law - Wikipedia
quote:
Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, magnetic, light, sound, and radiation phenomena.
All EM in nature but sound. And since that is a vibrational aspect of molecules (bound only by electric theory) one wonders how much we really don't know about a lot of things. but E=mc^2. Everything that has mass has energy, yet accelleration increases the affect of mass, without increasing the actual mass, because it adds energy to the system.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 7:27 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:40 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 321 of 404 (698690)
05-08-2013 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 8:40 PM


Every theory about the sun has been proved incorrect, you have no working theoretical model of the sun or the solar system, on what theory do you claim the sun is as you say it is?
Measured convection is 1% of that required by theory. Granted, it is a preliminary experiment, and yes, I expect the results to be refined, maybe to 5% or maybe to .5%, but we both know its not off by 99 orders of magnitude.
Your theory forbids the sun to be as round as it has been measured to be, another falsification.
Do you want to discuss neutrino counts? the LSND, SNO or MiniBooNE data? Either or all is fine with me.
Why is there even a corona if its just a nuclear furnace? The photosphere?
How about the solar wind that continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and then stops abruptly at the heliopause? Not quite wanting to behave like your fluid dynamics predicts. Perhaps because it doesn't obey the laws of fluid dynamics because its plasma?
Likewise I have no problem separating the gravitational and electrical properties, its not required they be the same force, just because they are both inverse square laws and the math describing each is identical, with charge and mass being interchangeable between them. See "Parallels between electrostatic and gravitational fields"
Electric field - Wikipedia
Nor the tiny itty-bitty fact that all relativity is seated in the electrodynamic formulas, upon which it is based. But all those problems are resolved if you just put the electro back into electromagnetism and let plasma be plasma.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:40 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:19 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 326 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 11:35 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 323 of 404 (698692)
05-08-2013 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2013 9:19 PM


Let's do discuss it, there is my theory, where's yours?
http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:19 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:51 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 325 of 404 (698696)
05-08-2013 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by Dr Adequate
05-08-2013 9:51 PM


Says who, you? Other people that can't predict anything right by their own theory? I'll stand by observation and laboratory experiment any day over fairy dust to explain things, especially when every new discovery since the space age has backed that model, not mainstreams.
But I apologize, you are correct. it isn't a theory, it's a paradigm.
Paradigm Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
But still in the early stage, since our evidence comes only when you are surprised because you weren't looking for it, Which is every story published since the 80's, so couldn't avoid finding it. Still more correct than yours and you call yours a theory.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 9:51 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2013 2:43 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 332 of 404 (698743)
05-09-2013 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 327 by NoNukes
05-09-2013 12:06 AM


Re: Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
Plasma cosmology people just want you to accept plasma for what it is considering 99% of the universe is made of plasma. The paradigm was started by plasma experts and electrical engineers, simply because modern astronomy refuses to even consider plasma studies done in laboratories for over a century. WHY? If 99% of the universe is plasma, why are you completely ignoring it?
Magnetic fields are impossible without electric currents, get your very own science right before you claim others have it wrong. Shall we do a search on magnetic fields and see what your very own science says about it? Take that challenge, I'll accept any mainstream textbook you present because it is going to tell you magnetic fields are formed from electric currents.
As a matter of fact let's see what NASA says:
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html
Don't read this if you don't want the truth.
And if your solar theory and cosmological theory is correct, why does everything surprise you? Every result since the space age has come as a surprise to you, why? Does not your theories predict anything correctly?
Astronomers Surprised: Stars Born Near Black Hole | Space
Page not found - The Daily Galaxy
The Victoria Advocate - Google News Archive Search
Florida Today
Schizophrenic Magnetic Monster Discovered By Swift, Astronomers Surprised | Space | Before It's News
http://news.oneindia.in/...rprised-by-suns-constantsize.html
Astronomers Surprised by Unnatural Star Cluster | The Institute for Creation Research
Why were astronomers surprised to find a pulsar with a planetary system? - Answers
http://www.todayszaman.com/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?...
Herschel astronomers surprised by HFSL3 galaxy producing new stars | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Shall I list 2 or 3 thousand more?
You calim to be correct, then why is every observation a surprise???? If your theory was correct you would not be surprised by every single discovery since the space age. We are not talking one or two small things, but everytime you actually look into the universe, observations do not match your theory.
And yet you are going to claim that a paradigm that has predicted every discovery about the sun and solar system and galaxies is wrong.
i suggest you look at your own theory again since none of the observations seem to want to fit your theory. Oh well, back to the drawing board, as long as we don't have to accpt plasma for what it really is.
And trying to pretend it's different just shows you are practicing pseudoscience. They believe thier ideas are correct even when confronted by evidence to the contrary.
Do we need to look at every article published about space since 1980? Becayuse I guarantee the word surprised, mysterious, unexplainable or left us without a working theory is in every single one but maybe 10 or so. Shall we? Willing to put your money where your mouth is?
Pseudoscience - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 327 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2013 12:06 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2013 10:00 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 337 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2013 11:38 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 333 of 404 (698746)
05-09-2013 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by JonF
05-09-2013 8:15 AM


Tom Bridgman? Hah, that's a good one. Why don't you include that link to his paper so everyone can read it, instead of you telling it what it says??
Her's our reply, I am not scared to present it, present yours, let's look at them both.
http://electric-cosmos.org/RebutTB.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by JonF, posted 05-09-2013 8:15 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by JonF, posted 05-09-2013 11:08 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3169 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 339 of 404 (698781)
05-09-2013 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by ringo
05-09-2013 12:10 PM


Plasma is currently the source of the scientific search for a sustained nuclear fusion. You don't mind studying it in the lab in your fruitless search for sustained nuclear fusion, as long as when we talk about the sun you can then ignore it.
There are only two possible results:
1) You in reality have no idea what plasma is because astrophysicists who have never taken a course in plasma physics or eletcromagnetic field theory don't understand it either; or
2) You know what it is and are lying to everyones face.
We have over 100 years of laboratory experiments with plasma. So lets see which of the above two it is. You and anyone else keeps evading the very simple question: What is plasma?
Do any of you NOT believe in the Big Bang?
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 12:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 4:06 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024