It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Reinterpreting dark matter...

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 10:56 AM
link   
True to an extent. What intrigued me is that they are nearly 7 years apart, the videos agree that, time dilation causes anti gravity, which is contrary to GR and also implies universe's own time has a physical aspect to it.
a reply to: Dolour




posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Except we've never experimentally confirmed that magnetic fields can bend photons.

en.wikipedia.org...
we know magnetism DOES have an effect on light, its just not fully understood.
and any predictions on how much effect this would cause is sorta pointless without any prior investigation on megnetic fields in astronomy.


I read that three times but sorry I don't get your point, except that it has something to do with ordinary matter. What about ordinary matter?

yeah what about it, you argue with ordinary matters properties and then go on with some DM gibberish totally unrelated.


My point was ordinary matter like the Earth exists, and in other galaxies objects like planets and brown dwarfs are too hard to observe when they are that far away.

because they are hard to observe doesent make them dark matter.

[quoite]We have observed a 350 degree C brown dwarf 40 light years away (Which is a MACHO made of ordinary matter)
MACHOS are NOT made of ordinary matter. you finally got that or do i have to tatoo it to your face, so you can look at it in the mirror once you mixed it up again?
there: en.wikipedia.org...


but it's unlikely that with current technology we would be able to observe this same class of object in another galaxy. As I said, maybe as technology improves, so will detection capabilities.

we didnt observe them in our own galaxy either, thank you.


Have we observed any ~350 degree C brown dwarfs in other galaxies, like this one 40 light years away?

Astronomers discovered the coldest brown dwarf star ever observed
isnt it incredible how sensitive modern tech is?
and what exactly is your point other that you marveling about modern magics?
brown dwarfes are basically just immense gas giants.
noone ever came up with proove for the existance of a "baryonic dark matter version" of one.


would not be detectable due to the greater distance, so those would be considered dark matter.

again dark matter does not mean stuff we cant see bc its too far away.
i really dont get why you drag this BS up for the 1000th time allready, read the freakin wiki link.


I suppose you could say maybe that the only brown dwarfs in the universe are those close enough to us to actually observe directly, but would that be a logical point of view?

more BS? your the one thats arguing dark matter is what we cant see.
the "type of matter" is nowhere dependent on weather you can see it from your relative POV.
another thing you should wiki is the term "laws of physics" hence they, per definition, have to hold true EVERYWHERE in the universe, and has nothing to do with your relative whereabouts and weather light from an object can travel up to your point.
this horrible statement clearly shows that you didnt even understand what defines throughoutly applicable laws.


I don't see how I'm twisting your words but please stick to discussing the facts and stop trying to make this personal. Our discussion should be about dark matter, the topic of this thread, and not each other.

strike 2, on 3 the staff will deciede, judging from the writings in this very thread wich you cannot alter anymore i might hint out, weather thats true and gets you a well deserved bann.
and lastly take your own advice and stick to the topic instead diverting the discussion to particulary weired and unproven theories.

just to sum this brown dwarf stuff up: the assumption is(! read carefully): that there are huge gas giants out there, that for totally unexplainable reasons do not behave the slightest like the ones we can observe, namely jupiter, saturn and neptune.
all of them emmit #tons of energy, so no "dark matter" (not the stuff earth is made of, you finally got that?) to see here.


originally posted by: Nochzwei
True to an extent. What intrigued me is that they are nearly 7 years apart, the videos agree that, time dilation causes anti gravity, which is contrary to GR and also implies universe's own time has a physical aspect to it.

well its got to have some physical aspect to it, since its unquestionable part of the physical world. :p
yet there is no consistant mechanic described thats causing it.
asnwering the question "whats time?" with "its totally caused by gravity!", or vice versa, of wich we equally dont know how it works is not really a working theory. ~~

edit on 18-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
I read an article recently in Discovery about different types of Dark Matter. The gist of it was that the revolution in our understanding of Dark Matter is that there're different kinds and its behavior is more diverse.

One piece of research referenced is this:
physicsworld.com - Gamma rays hint at dark matter...

It hints that dark matter might produce the gamma rays seen emanating from the center of the galaxy by the annihilation of intermediate particle pairs such as electrons and positrons, but whereas past models say this should only very rarely happen, this piece of research suggests somehow these intermediate particles (i think these're dark matter particles)) stick together and combine more frequently, thus giving us another line of evidence showing us how dark matter behaves.

(please note the linked research above is not final.. just a possibility)

A year later a new theory to potentially explain this came out:
physics.aps.org - Synopsis: A Second Dish of Dark Matter...

They proposed that there's an additional kind of dark matter that only constitutes some 5% of the dark matter but interacts more frequently with itself - thus producing these gamma rays.

One of the researchers that helped create the theory said this about the Weniger detection (the first link):

"The signal would be too small for you to see under most reasonable models of dark matter," she says.

The researcher then speaks about the possible consequences of this by saying "super-dramatic consequences." The writer says if one kind of dark matter can interact with itself in such a way then there could be other kinds too. This might all form a variety of dark structures. Something so diverse it might rival the richness of the visible matter!
edit on 18-7-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
since time and dm existed b4 the big implosion, it is a part of our reality. time is not caused by anything, it is an independent entity coupled with dm. that's my theory/hypotheses anyway which is still in its infancy as of present.
a reply to: Dolour



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
MACHOS are NOT made of ordinary matter. you finally got that or do i have to tatoo it to your face, so you can look at it in the mirror once you mixed it up again?
there: en.wikipedia.org...
So you say Machos are not made of ordinary matter, but you don't define ordinary matter. You send me to wiki to read about how it's not ordinary matter, and what does your link say?


A MACHO is a body composed of normal baryonic matter
Does your link really support your point? I don't think so. How does saying it's normal baryonic matter mean it's not ordinary matter? If we can't understand each other on this simple point there's no point in further discussion. Tattooing won't help, you need to explain your rationale for your interpretation.


we didnt observe them in our own galaxy either, thank you.
Are you denying this observation of a MACHO in the "Astronomers discovered the coldest brown dwarf star ever observed" above?


brown dwarfes are basically just immense gas giants.
noone ever came up with proove for the existance of a "baryonic dark matter version" of one.

again dark matter does not mean stuff we cant see bc its too far away.
i really dont get why you drag this BS up for the 1000th time allready, read the freakin wiki link.
I'm giving up on you before saying it 1000 times. Let me try rephrasing it. The type of matter doesn't change with distance, but the detectability changes with distance. Does that make sense? With a pair of binoculars I might be able to see a bird 1 mile away, but if the same bird is 100 miles away, I might not be able to see it with those binoculars.

Same idea with brown dwarfs, you can see them if they are nearby, but not if they are too far away for your instruments to detect.


your the one thats arguing dark matter is what we cant see.
the "type of matter" is nowhere dependent on weather you can see it from your relative POV.
We agree on this, but I'm not saying the distance changes the type of matter, I'm saying the greater distance makes it harder to detect.


just to sum this brown dwarf stuff up: the assumption is(! read carefully): that there are huge gas giants out there, that for totally unexplainable reasons do not behave the slightest like the ones we can observe, namely jupiter, saturn and neptune.
all of them emmit #tons of energy, so no "dark matter" (not the stuff earth is made of, you finally got that?) to see here.
We can see them because they are close. If they were in another galaxy they would be much harder to detect.



posted on Jul, 18 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to [post]Dolour[/post]

Once again you are making many assumptions and you didnt understand what i said.

OK so the data was real data, data we took ourselves. Furthermore what i said about models is that yes, you apply the physics as you think it works and compare it to the data.

That is the point isnt it?

We say gravity has a 1/r^2 fall off, we look at matter in a disk, orbiting, composed of the mass we observe. What it says to us that the matter we OBSERVE does not have the rotation curve we expect if ONLY gravity from objects we can observe is binding the system.

Your rambling of fudge factors and the rest, and accusations of things being rigged is quite frankly ignorant.

Would i defend something iv spent my life doing? Yeah i guess... but iv also had many ideas and concepts changed down the line. What people that appear to be like you want to do is either say "Oh we know nothing, why bother" or want to say "Oh you are all wrong, but i know everything, here is a pile of ZERO evidence and some fancy animations to prove my lack of evidence."

So what? Shall we cancel all science projects? Lets just sit and look at the sky and think... "wow, its amazing, but its quite difficult to understand it all, i think ill just not bother"

We don't know everything, but we certainly do not know NOTHING as people like you claim, and unlike you claim, the majority of scientists, will, given the evidence presented without bias, and without accusation, concider all sides to an argument. The times we seem to just wave something away is when our first thought is of how an idea can simply not be possible by all that we know about the very basics of a system.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433

Once again you are making many assumptions and you didnt understand what i said.

OK so the data was real data, data we took ourselves. Furthermore what i said about models is that yes, you apply the physics as you think it works and compare it to the data.

read your own sentence like 5 times please, and think of it.
FACT is, theres quite its share of maths that CAN be applied, wich delivers good aproximations.
yet you guys only look into ONE of the models, deliberatly(!!) ignoring everything else.

YOU are making assumptions, without ANY attempts to look into any intersections.
THAT is assumption, pure mindgames that dont give a crap about experimental and/or mathematical evidence, clearly showing theres something cheesy.
instead of going back to start and reevaluate where an error might have slipped in, you add more arbitrary values(and free parameters are ALLWAYS BAD, didnt they tell you that at U?) in the value nessesary to get it back in line.


We say gravity has a 1/r^2 fall off, we look at matter in a disk, orbiting, composed of the mass we observe. What it says to us that the matter we OBSERVE does not have the rotation curve we expect if ONLY gravity from objects we can observe is binding the system.

gravity is ONE WAY to explain it, magnetism and electricity can allso explains it very well, even alot better, yet its deliberately ignored.
your really no better than any middle-ages inquisitors choosing what to believe, BECAUSE you ignore VAST parts of the info available, and scream heretic!


Your rambling of fudge factors and the rest, and accusations of things being rigged is quite frankly ignorant.

so you deny the addition of DM to make the model work would be a form of rigging?
i WILL quote that, take it for granted!


Would i defend something iv spent my life doing? Yeah i guess...

with all means, see above "DM is not rigging". open your eyes.


but iv also had many ideas and concepts changed down the line.

id actually feel sorry for you if you wouldnt mentally evolve. at least not all hope is lost, lol.


What people that appear to be like you want to do is either say "Oh we know nothing, why bother" or want to say "Oh you are all wrong, but i know everything, here is a pile of ZERO evidence and some fancy animations to prove my lack of evidence."

nothing could be farther from the truth...
your the one defending pure theory with ZERO evidence, while i built my beliefes on mathematical evidence and intersections of multiple similar theories.
you know, the scientific way, relying on actual info instead of pure hypothesis.


So what? Shall we cancel all science projects? Lets just sit and look at the sky and think... "wow, its amazing, but its quite difficult to understand it all, i think ill just not bother"

drugged out again? please quote me where i sayd something about abandoning science!
what about some research ona promising topic instead of further beating a dead horse that can only stand on its legs utilizing training wheels?


We don't know everything, but we certainly do not know NOTHING as people like you claim, and unlike you claim, the majority of scientists, will, given the evidence presented without bias, and without accusation, concider all sides to an argument.

riiiight... do fleischmann and pons ring a bell?
where did the tritium come from? was that evidence science looked into? and how come someone got his career destroyed for providing evidence? (oh wait it didnt match the "religion" your defending, duh)
wake freakin up dude, your part of a sect that has proven over and over and over again that they indeed are the modern version of the inquisition.
claiming science would look into data unbiased is ludicrous to say the least...


The times we seem to just wave something away is when our first thought is of how an idea can simply not be possible by all that we know about the very basics of a system.

the mistake here is to NEVER question this stuff, even tho its got more holes than swiss cheese.
your incapable and unwilling to touch the foundation in any ways, even tho it is apparent that theres something missing.

/edit: i want you to think of something:
i did spent 6 semesters learning mainstream physics, add 20 years of private interest on top of that.
now question yourself: how come you subconsiously expect ppl to not be educated in physics, because they, after amany years, come to the conclusion that there must be a fundamental flaw in our model?
THINK of why this is the case, and what factor your surroundings is in that equation.
in case your only into physics, with little to no interrest in other topics, id like to divert your attraction to this:
www.youtube.com...
THINK dude! think....

@Arbitrageur:

Are you denying this observation of a MACHO in the "Astronomers discovered the coldest brown dwarf star ever observed" above?

you just dont get it that brown dwarf are ordinary celestials, dont you?
it is "suspoected" that there MIGHT be BD out there that are composed of DM.
hypothetically theres even some sort of DM physical world, parallel to ours.
yet NONE of the observed objects consists of any dark matter.
neither does your "coldest brown dwarf ever discovered".

im getting tired of you and i will not waste any more of my time, on some kiddo that cant read properly.
where the heck is the ignore button?


edit on 19-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
you just dont get it that brown dwarf are ordinary celestials, dont you?
I do get that they are made of ordinary matter, we agree on that, I think, though you never explained why you thought MACHOs aren't ordinary matter.


it is "suspoected" that there MIGHT be BD out there that are composed of DM.
It's confirmed that there are brown dwarfs close enough for direct observation, and it's "suspected" that there are similar objects which are too distant to be directly observed, say, over 100 light years away perhaps, and in the latter instance they are considered "dark" because their radiation is not detectable with current technology.

You do get the analogy about a seeing a bird with binoculars a mile away but not 100 miles away right? Same bird but it's visible in former case and not in the latter, which shouldn't be a hard concept.

Let's see if NASA's explanation can help clarify this:

Brown Dwarf Detectives

Brown dwarfs are failed stars about the size of Jupiter, with a much larger mass but not quite large enough to become stars. Like the sun and Jupiter, they are composed mainly of hydrogen gas, perhaps with swirling cloud belts. Unlike the sun, they have no internal energy source and emit almost no visible light. Brown dwarfs are formed along with stars by the contraction of gases and dust in the interstellar medium, McLean said. The first brown dwarf was not discovered until 1995, yet McLean suspects the galaxy is teeming with them.

"Brown dwarfs are so elusive, so hard to find," McLean said. "They can be detected best in the infrared, and even within the infrared, they are very difficult to detect. We detect the heat glow from these faint objects in the infrared. Typically, they have to be relatively close by, within 100 light years, for us to even detect the heat signature."

If large numbers of brown dwarfs exist, they "could make a small, but significant contribution to dark matter," the so-called "missing mass" in the universe, McLean said.

"Brown dwarfs won't account for all of the so-called dark matter," he said. "There is mass in the form of ordinary matter that is unaccounted for because we don't yet have the technology to find it. There are brown dwarfs, and maybe small black holes, and faint white dwarfs regular stars that lost their outer gaseous envelopes leaving the burned-out core of old stars. White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
Even if you disagree with NASA, and that's ok if you do, the least you could do is acknowledge that you understand what they are saying, but I haven't seen this acknowledgement from you. I bolded a couple of statements you have not seemed to understand. Can you at least acknowledge this is what NASA's website says, even if you disagree with it?


edit on 19-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

"They can be detected best in the infrared, and even within the infrared, they are very difficult to detect"

you still didnt get it, i give up.
stuff radiating infrared light is ordinary matter.
learn to read or youll have a hard time in your life, seriously.
quoting stuff you didnt even finish to read or understand makes you look like... well just like what we used to read from you.

edit on 19-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Dolour
Yes ordinary matter is considered "dark matter" when it's too far away for us to detect the infrared radiation it emits with current technology. I'm not sure why you don't understand this, but NASA's website explained this pretty well.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Dolour
Yes ordinary matter is considered "dark matter" when it's too far away for us to detect the infrared radiation it emits with current technology. I'm not sure why you don't understand this, but NASA's website explained this pretty well.

mwhahahaha, brilliant! ill keep that for quotes.
thats the second most distrubring and seemingly illogical claim youve made(only the sun vs earth garbage was more amusing).

an object IS either radiating or it is NOT.
what part of that radiation is reaching earth and to what degree, doesent change anything about that bodies radiation.
its like claiming that stuff beyong the range of our visible usiverse would be another kind of weired matter, bc light from it doesent reach our area of space.

as usual you havbe brought rock solid evidence of your "understanding" of physical laws.
...or in your case "lawls".



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Dolour
Here's the relevant statement from the NASA site again which basically says the same thing as I said:


originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Brown Dwarf Detectives


"Brown dwarfs won't account for all of the so-called dark matter," he said. "There is mass in the form of ordinary matter that is unaccounted for because we don't yet have the technology to find it. There are brown dwarfs, and maybe small black holes, and faint white dwarfs regular stars that lost their outer gaseous envelopes leaving the burned-out core of old stars. White dwarfs, brown dwarfs, black holes and gas account for some of the dark matter. The rest is presumably a new form of matter."
Nobody is saying the type of matter is changing when a brown dwarf is more distant, it's just that ordinary matter is called "dark" if it's so far away we can't see anything from it in our telescopes, which in the case of dim brown dwarfs is over about 100 light years away. Other galaxies are further away than that, by a vast margin. So if they have brown dwarfs, they are called "dark matter" even if they emit the exact same amount of radiation as the brown dwarf 40 light years away that we CAN see.

It's as much or more about what radiation we can detect, as what's emitted.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
i told ya to hit the wiki for "physical laws" since you seem to not understand how they are defined, but apparently that was asking too much allready... -.-
en.wikipedia.org...
"is a theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

i start to feel real sorry for you dude... real sorry...
OUR capabilities of detection do NOT change any physical definition, and assuming so is utter nonsense.
in other words: it does NOT matter the slightest bit, even if you keep repeating this bull, if our technology is capable of detecting an event.
the fact that it OCCOURS, even without we noticing, and the WAY it does defines it.
edit on 19-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Dolour

"a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present."

There are several repeatable phemonena here. The inverse square law as it applies to blackbody radiation is one. This says when an isotropic source is double the distance, it has one quarter the intensity to the observer.

This phenomenon correlates to the current state of detection technology as described on the NASA website:


"Brown dwarfs ... have to be relatively close by, within 100 light years, for us to even detect the heat signature."


So, I asked you if you could find an example of a brown dwarf where the heat signature was detected in another galaxy. You have not. I also provided an example of a brown dwarf seen 40 light years away, which is within the 100 light years threshold.

So what evidence have you provided to refute the NASA website statement that "Brown dwarfs ... have to be relatively close by, within 100 light years, for us to even detect the heat signature."?

None.

So can we conclude based on your lack of contrary evidence that this phenomenon described by NASA does meet the criteria that NASA describes for all brown dwarfs directly observed so far, and is consistent with the inverse square law etc?

When the James Webb Space Telescope is launched, it will probably have greater detection capability. When this happens, we should be able to see more distant infrared objects. In that event, we can also say that the "if certain conditions be present" part has changed, because the "certain conditions" will have changed to include improved detection technology, and dark matter is about what we observe via gravitational influence but not direct radiation.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
an object IS either radiating or it is NOT.


And how do we know whether it is, or it is not? If you are unable to detect it, then how can you say it is?

I lock you in a room with no light. Is there furniture in the room? Either there is .. or there isn't. So which is it?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Dolour
an object IS either radiating or it is NOT.


And how do we know whether it is, or it is not? If you are unable to detect it, then how can you say it is?

I lock you in a room with no light. Is there furniture in the room? Either there is .. or there isn't. So which is it?

only that you dont see this room, but claim that other rooms totally have no light, nor furniture, even tho every room weve ever seen was lit up and had furniture.

again, we DO have 3 gas giants we can observe.
stating gas giants in other places would behave totally different, without any evidence, is plain unscientific.
fineman, experimental proove and stuff... -.-



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Dolour
But are there other gas giants in other galaxies, and can we observe them or can't we? If we can't observe them, how do we know how many there are, and how much of a contribution they are making to what appears to be gravitational effects in the other galaxy?

We can do those calculations for the nearby gas giants we can observe, but not if there are such objects in another galaxy which we can't observe because they are too far away.

edit on 21-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
But are there other gas giants in other galaxies, and can we observe them or can't we? If we can't observe them, how do we know how many there are

science tried for twice my lifetime to proove anything DM related and failed.
spare me with your allmost religious beliefes!
stuff that REPEATEDLY could not be prooven falls into the realm of believe and wishful thinking, not science...
you dont see any unicorns, elfes and trolls, how does that proove they dont exist? *tard*

we have 2 very convincing candidates to explain whats going on, namely magnetism and resonance (timeindex 13.57 to 14.25) .
and i have news for you: it IS prooven that those 2 exists!

again, feynman, experimental proove and stuff...
facts buddy, not fiction, is the way of science! (wich quite some ppl seem to have forgotten...)

edit on 22-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dolour
science tried for twice my lifetime to proove anything DM related and failed.
spare me with your allmost religious beliefes!
stuff that REPEATEDLY could not be prooven falls into the realm of believe and wishful thinking, not science...
you dont see any unicorns, elfes and trolls, how does that proove they dont exist? *tard*
Why do you keep writing *tard*?

We were talking about things for which we have evidence. I posted proof of a brown dwarf and you were talking about gas giants. These are things we know exist nearby because they were close enough for us to see them. So why are you comparing these to "unicorns, elfes and trolls" as you put it? We've never confirmed any of those at any distance.

So once you know brown dwarfs exist close to us, again I ask you, do you think the only ones that exist are the ones we can see, within 100 light years or so, or do you think there might be more past 100 light years away that exist but we just can't see them because of the inverse square law? I'm not talking about unicorns here, I'm talking about brown dwarfs. Yes there are other types of hypothesized dark matter but let's stick to brown dwarfs for now.


edit on 22-7-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Why do you keep writing *tard*?
I posted proof of a brown dwarf and you were talking about gas giants.

because brown dwarfes are just large gas giants and this topic is on dark matter.
it is hypothesized that there might be OTHER brown dwarfes, ones we cannot see, ones noone ever prooven they exist, weiredass-baryonic-dark-matter brown dwarfes (actually even a whole weiredass-baryonic-dark-matter "invisi-world").

the ORDINARY brown dwarfs you keep refering to are NOT made of dark matter.
they are just large gas giants, on the treshold to ignite its nuclear fire.

we have NEVER prooven anything DM related that cannot be explained by other means.
the lack of mass, high energy radiation or "grav lensing", none of that stuff lacks a good explanation that does not require any DM.
and we do NOT have ANY direct proove for DM, only those indicies that dont really proove anything.

edit on 22-7-2014 by Dolour because: moar typos




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join