Does the earth move and rotate on its axis?, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:16 AM by Albertarocks

If the earth were not spinning, there would be no coriolis affect on our planet. But the coriolis affect is in play on planet earth, it's measurable and it's real. That alone makes this theory quite silly.

www.youtube.com...

Another thing to consider is a little more "out there". For the sake of discussion, let's consider that the earth does not move and that the entire universe spins around the stationary earth. How far away is the nearest star other than our sun? Let's pretend it's only one light year away. And each day we see this star circle around our earth one time. And how far does that star travel in that one day? It would travel 6.28 light years in that one day. That folks, is 6.28 times the speed of light. (pi x diameter)

Now consider the stars that are a million light years from earth. If they spun around the earth each day, they'd be traveling at millions and millions of times the speed of light in order to make that one circumference around earth.

And finally, let's pretend for a minute that the furthest star is infinitely far away. And it spins once around our earth once each and every day. That particular star would be traveling at infinity x 2 x 3.14 or 6.28 infinities per day. And that's still just infinity. In fact, infinity miles per day is infinity miles per second. Infinity is infinite. So far... I'm not liking the odds that the earth is standing still.

If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the theory in the OP is destroyed. If on the other hand we're wrong and the speed of light is not the fastest anything can travel, then the theory that the earth is not spinning is possible. But then... there's that pesky coriolis thing.

I don't even know why I went to the trouble to write this post. The whole discussion is ridiculous.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:24 AM by weedwhacker

reply to post by Salt of the Earth

Well, Salt....I see that you have 'edited' this post....I saw it prior to your *edit*....as I am sure many others did, as well....

Your original answer was, simply, an apology. NOW you change the first response....that is very disingenuous, and everyone can see it.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 03:36 AM by weedwhacker

Here'sreply to post by Salt of the Earth

THIS IS THE POST that you modified!!! Per my other post....!

I see you 'edited'....hmmm.....

Well, I'll let this discrepancy slide, as long as you realize that you are very, very, very wrong.

I have asked you many questions, which you conveniently didn't answer...

I asked if you had Satellite or Cable TV...no answer. What response I did get was a diatribe about the NWO....was that you? Or, was it someone else....

Doesn't matter....

Here's the problem....we are at an impasse....well, really, it's just YOU who seems to believe in the 'geocentric' model....I cannot wait to see how many others come around to this stupid concept....

I will wait....anyone else think that the Earth is the Center of the Universe???? You must also believe that EVERYTHING thusly revolves around a motionless Earth....AND, you have to dis-believe everything you've been taught about orbital Mechanics for the last century....OK, ready to come onboard??? Congratulations!!!! Welcome aboard!!!

Now, please, can we get your names?......????

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 08:36 AM by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by Albertarocks
If the earth were not spinning, there would be no coriolis affect on our planet. But the coriolis affect is in play on planet earth, it's measurable and it's real. That alone makes this theory quite silly.

www.youtube.com...

Another thing to consider is a little more "out there". For the sake of discussion, let's consider that the earth does not move and that the entire universe spins around the stationary earth. How far away is the nearest star other than our sun? Let's pretend it's only one light year away. And each day we see this star circle around our earth one time. And how far does that star travel in that one day? It would travel 6.28 light years in that one day. That folks, is 6.28 times the speed of light. (pi x diameter)

Now consider the stars that are a million light years from earth. If they spun around the earth each day, they'd be traveling at millions and millions of times the speed of light in order to make that one circumference around earth.

And finally, let's pretend for a minute that the furthest star is infinitely far away. And it spins once around our earth once each and every day. That particular star would be traveling at infinity x 2 x 3.14 or 6.28 infinities per day. And that's still just infinity. In fact, infinity miles per day is infinity miles per second. Infinity is infinite. So far... I'm not liking the odds that the earth is standing still.

If nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, the theory in the OP is destroyed. If on the other hand we're wrong and the speed of light is not the fastest anything can travel, then the theory that the earth is not spinning is possible. But then... there's that pesky coriolis thing.

I don't even know why I went to the trouble to write this post. The whole discussion is ridiculous.

No, it's not ridiculous. It means you must think outside the box and consider that what you've been told is just flat out wrong and open your mind up to other possibilities.

First off, God created the entire universe and everything in it in six days. In one day alone he created all the stars, planets, sun and moons and set them in their paths. The first day God "hung the earth in space."

God created every single atom in existance. If God was not holding those atoms together they would fly apart and disintegrate. Each and every atom is some kind of energy that comes straight from God. You talk about the universe being big -- consider each atom being a special creation of God and being personally held together by God. The Bible says God knows every thought and feeling we have and that the hairs on our heads are all numbered.

This is where creation comes from, from God. Creation does not come from nothing, and atoms do not have godlike powers or attributes of eternality or self-existance or ability to produce life from within itself.

The universe is not empty. It has weight. And God is literally everywhere at once. God can and does turn the universe around. God is not limited by time or space. God invents and creates all the laws of physics, and puts these laws within boundaries, but God himself is outside all the boundaries He creates.

There are experiments in physics which prove the aether does exist, even though Einstein said it does not. Einstein never tried to prove his assertion, but because Einstein said it that's enough for many materialists and atheists to accept it as being true. But experiments cited in links I've posted above demonstrate the aether exists, that the universe is moving aruond the earth, and that the earth itself is not goign anywhere, but is just as the Bible says, "hanging in space."

The coriolis effect is just as much a proof for geocentrism as heliocentrism and can be explained just as much by the turning of the universe around the earth as by any rotation or orbiting of the earth itself.

Whereas the "proofs" of the helios can go either way, the geocentrists have experiments in physics that prove the earth is not moving, and cannot be turned around to be used as a proof for the helio position.

So the geos are ahead of the game when it comes to proofs. The helios really have NO proofs, not even one.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 08:55 AM by Gawdzilla

The sound of a mind slamming shut echoes eerily.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 09:57 AM by ngchunter

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
First off, God created the entire universe and everything in it in six days. In one day alone he created all the stars, planets, sun and moons and set them in their paths. The first day God "hung the earth in space."

Talk about axiomatic... That doesn't mean the earth doesn't move. I hate to break it to you, but your rather interesting interpretation of the bible is not the predominant interpretation, nor are you a well-respected theologian who I'd come to for such an interpretation in the first place. That doesn't make you wrong, but it means you could be wrong and it doesn't make you right either. To determine whether you're right or wrong we have to look at your argument from a scientific perspective, not a biblical one, and the evidence clearly shows that the earth moves.

There are experiments in physics which prove the aether does exist, even though Einstein said it does not.

Just because you say so doesn't make it so. Your previous misunderstandings of Airy's experiment as well as geocentric parallax vs topocentric coordinates makes you less than credible when it comes to making incredible claims like this.

The coriolis effect is just as much a proof for geocentrism as heliocentrism and can be explained just as much by the turning of the universe around the earth as by any rotation or orbiting of the earth itself.

Wow, handwavium at its best. Honestly, the most ridiculous episodes of star trek are more believable. Even if the universe were rotating it would do exactly nothing to explain why the heck bullets appear to deflect from a straight path according to the coriolis effect, or why the shuttle doesn't fly over its own launch site on every single orbit, nor would it explain the jet stream, nor would it explain any effect from coriolis.

So the geos are ahead of the game when it comes to proofs. The helios really have NO proofs, not even one.

Says the person who ignored all my other posts debunking your "two proofs." I can see why you waited so long to say anything about the coriolis effect. Even you knew your hand waving would look silly.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 10:21 AM by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Salt of the Earth

Well, Salt....I see that you have 'edited' this post....I saw it prior to your *edit*....as I am sure many others did, as well....

Your original answer was, simply, an apology. NOW you change the first response....that is very disingenuous, and everyone can see it.

I wanted to be nice, but I decided you didn't deserve it. You'll get over it in time.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 10:27 AM by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I have asked you many questions, which you conveniently didn't answer...

I asked if you had Satellite or Cable TV...no answer.

I have said many, many times in my postings that I do not have TV or watch TV, that I want nothing to do with the controlled media whatsoever.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Here's the problem....we are at an impasse....well, really, it's just YOU who seems to believe in the 'geocentric' model....I cannot wait to see how many others come around to this stupid concept....

Truth is not a matter of majority rule. Truth stands on its own. I have the Bible backing up my position, also four experiments that prove the earth is not moving. You have nothing but theories, theories that don't even work very well for mathematical calculations to predict the movement of the planets (wandering star planets) or even for the placement of a GPS.

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 11:13 AM by Salt of the Earth

reply to post by ngchunter

Originally posted by ngchunter
Just because you say so [that there are experiments in physics which prove the aether does exist, even though Einstein said it does not] doesn't make it so. Your previous misunderstandings of Airy's experiment as well as geocentric parallax vs topocentric coordinates makes you less than credible when it comes to making incredible claims like this.

Four experiments in physics that prove the earth is not rotating or orbiting from Malcolm Bowden's website (see below):

"(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004)
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the earth round the sun was about 30km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be "explained away".

"(b) The Michelson-Gale experiment.
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

"(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

"(d) The Sagnac experiment(Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors and camera with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. The rotation of the whole apparatus was detected by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus."

More proofs that nullify the so-called "proofs" of the helios of the Coriolis forces and the Foucault pendulum: (also from Malcolm's website):

"THE ROTATION OF THE UNIVERSE

"Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity! This paper gives several other confirmations of the superiority of the geocentric model.

"Thus, there is evidence that the earth is NOT moving around the sun, but either the aether is moving around the earth carrying the planets with it, or the earth is spinning on its axis. The most likely model is that the aether is rotating around the earth as calculations show that if it did not, it would rapidly collapse upon itself."

www.mbowden.surf3.net...

check out his video here:
homepage.ntlworld.com...

nghunter, you claim my interpretation of the creation account in Genesis is not the majority, but the words in Genesis speak for themself. I'm not looking to change the words or put any interpretation on them other than to take them for what they say.

Nobody knows better how creation happened than the One who did the creating. Since none of us were there at the time, this is the very best proof of all. Those people who claim to believe the Bible but choose to believe those who, without any proof at all, claim the Bible is wrong about origins, should examine themselves to see if they are really "in the faith." As to believing science instead of the Bible, the two cannot and must not contradict each other.

The Bible itself speaks of "science so-called," and we see a lot of that kind of "science," with the global warming chicken little BS, the eugencists who want to kill 90 percent of us off, the ones who want to improve on God's design of men and inject some bug, animal and reptile genes into the human DNA to maybe cook up some X-men or Spidermen, or who knows. The ones who think adding industrial waste (ie fluoride) to the drinking water is going to make us all healthier, who think we need Prozac and ritalin and statin drugs and that we should be injecting little babies with mercury, formaldehyde and aluminum laced with cancer viruses and other ghastly microbes --

"Science-so-called" that supposes we can fly around the universe in a treehouse made of roofing paper, scotch tape and gold foil, and buzz on through the Van Allen belts without any damage 12 times. Yet these same brilliant people claim think we need to spray the skies to keep the sun out, and slather ourselves with sunblock to keep the sun away too -- all this kind of "science so-called," not to mention the kind of science that thinks matter has godlike properties of self-existance, eternality, and ability to form infinite life forms and infuse life into them.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

reply posted on 12-4-2009 @ 09:59 PM by ngchunter

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
reply to post by ngchunter

"(a) The Michelson-Morley experiment (Enlarged 19 June 2004)
Most scientists know about the Michelson-Morely experiment. It was carried out to check that the velocity of the earth round the sun was about 30km/sec as it moved through the aether. When it found hardly any movement at all, the result stunned the scientific community! Little of this reached the ears of the public and this result had to be "explained away".

Actually it disproved the aether theory. You started with the assumption that your "aether" handwavium was correct, and then tried to use an experiment that didn't detect movement through a non-existent aether as evidence that the earth wasn't moving instead. Cart before the horse, thinly veiled at that.

"(b) The Michelson-Gale experiment.
(Reference - Astrophysical Journal 1925 v 61 pp 140-5 - I forgot to put this reference in my book!) This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity.

LOL, you just posted an experiment that helped prove the rotation of the earth. Once again, you're assuming aether exists to begin with, because this experiment did absolutely nothing to prove or disprove aether. All it did was detect the angular rotational velocity of the earth. Their result was consistent with special relativity, and did nothing for the aether theory one way or the other:
en.wikipedia.org...
Effectively all they did was find another consequence of the coriolis effect. Their previous experiment failed because there is no equivalent for the coriolis effect with regards to the earth's orbital motion around the sun. That's because there is no aether, so just as shuttle astronauts can't feel their own incredible speed around the earth, the earth can't feel its incredible speed around the sun.

"(c) "Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35)... This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth

Hmm, funny that he didn't account for drag from the water itself, which can be experimentally detected and recreated without looking at any stars:
http ://books.google.com/books?id=1RV0AysEN4oC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=speed+of+light+in+water+airy's+experiment&source=bl&ots=9XGrDCk65p&sig=JqyPGtgqfGfgyD3i hlKVv4-E2P0&hl=en&ei=ZKPiSey4LMOEmQf-7JWGDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
Flowing water drags light proportional to the material's refractive index. Airy thought he was detecting parallax, he wasn't, nor could he with his telescope.

"(d) The Sagnac experiment(Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether.

LOL, no, it proves that angular velocity can be detected in interferometry as in the second michaelson experiment, consisten with special relativity. It does nothing to disprove special relativity or prove aether exists. This is just a confirmation of the principle behind Michaelson-Gale, not Michaelson-Morley.

It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists.

LOL! Hardly, scientists have exploited this effect for years to create laser gyroscopes for inertial guidance systems. Such guidance systems were used in Apollo and are still used today on the space shuttle.

More proofs that nullify the so-called "proofs" of the helios of the Coriolis forces and the Foucault pendulum: (also from Malcolm's website):

Maybe you should stop quoting external websites and try to learn something on your own. You are apparently incapable of articulating your own argument for yourself.

"Ernst Mach proposed that it is the weight of the stars circling the earth that drags Foucault pendulums around, creates Coriolis forces in the air that give the cyclones to our weather etc. Barbour and Bertotti (Il Nuovo Cimento 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977) proved that a hollow sphere (the universe) rotating around a solid sphere inside (the earth) produced exactly the same results of Coriolis forces, dragging of Foucault pendulums etc. that are put forward as "proofs" of heliocentricity!

Their model also predicts effects for spherical bodies that simply do not exist. The predicted precession of perihelion for mercury predicted by their model is 16 orders of magnitude too high. It would have similar problems predicting the precession of the shuttle's periapsis by the same ridiculous magnitude. The theory of relativity, on the other hand, correctly predicts the amount of precession by mercury. Not to mention it can't account for stellar parallax or the distance to galaxies as determined by cepheid variable brightness. Superior, it is not.

I'm not looking to change the words or put any interpretation on them other than to take them for what they say.

If you took them for what they said rather than overinterpreted and read things into them that aren't there you wouldn't be postulating this already-debunked and ridiculous theory in the first place. That's neither here nor there though as your theory falls apart on its own lack of merits.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply posted on 13-4-2009 @ 08:24 AM by ngchunter

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
You have nothing but theories, theories that don't even work very well for mathematical calculations to predict the movement of the planets (wandering star planets) or even for the placement of a GPS.

I already debunked that nonsense about the JPL site to you already, you misinterpreted their use of the word geocentric as it applied to the coordinate system and I gave you a link to a program that properly predicts the locations of the planets in a purely heliocentric model. Here's another one that will do the same job:
www.shatters.net...
As for GPS, my heliocentricly computerized telescope can find any GPS sat I have line of sight to just fine; will pictures convince you that you're wrong?

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 04:42 PM by chan_chap

hers a real simple experiment to settle this argument:

2 cars with the same model,fuel and speed start of at 1 point and start driving in opposite directions, the car driving against the earths suposed rotation should cover LESS distance before its fuel runs out......
if both cars cover the same distance the earth is not spinning!

this can be done with a boat,plane etc

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 04:56 PM by Gawdzilla

reply to post by chan_chap

You'd need a much bigger planet to get an accurate measurement. I doubt they could drive far enough at highway speed to make a noticeable difference.

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 05:05 PM by chan_chap

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by chan_chap

You'd need a much bigger planet to get an accurate measurement. I doubt they could drive far enough at highway speed to make a noticeable difference.

just going from 0 to 100 should take much more energy for the car going against the earths suposed rotation,
they should do drag races in opposite directions, the car going against the earths suposed rotation should always loose..

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 06:11 PM by weedwhacker

reply to post by chan_chap

Oy!!!

No, no, no....the motion is relative. You are missing out on the logic here. Ask your Science professor at school, if you must.

I'll try....both vehicles (in your example) start out stationary relative to each other, and relative to the Earth's surface. With me? From the viewpoint of both cars, the earth is 'stationary'.... so the only 'relative' motion at work here is between the two cars. The Earth is essentially 'neutral'.

Same with airplanes, boats, horses, people....etc.

If I had a picture, it's be easier. Shoot a cannonball....it will travel a distance at the same time as it falls....it describes a motion known as an 'arc'. Put the cannon on the highest mountain you can find (in your imagination) and the cannonball will still follow an arc, but it has longer to fall, so travels farther downrange before hitting the ground.

Keep going higher and higher and eventually it is high enough that as the cannonball falls in an arc the Earth's surface curves away at the same time....THAT is an 'orbit'. It requires a certain velocity of the cannonball, depending on the size of the planet and the height of the orbit.

The movement of the planet IN THIS CASE helps to add velocity to acheive orbit. THAT is the principle....

Certainly rockets could be launched without that assist....it's just that a compromise would be made, namely, more fuel needed to increase thrust and velocity, thus sacrificing payload....

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 06:14 PM by Gawdzilla

reply to post by chan_chap

"just going from 0 to 100 should take much more energy for the car going against the earths suposed rotation,
they should do drag races in opposite directions, the car going against the earths suposed rotation should always loose.."

So, you're saying it's MUCH MORE harder to go east-to-west than west-to-east? Why come you're the only one who noticed this?

reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 02:16 AM by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by chan_chap

Oy!!!

No, no, no....the motion is relative. You are missing out on the logic here. Ask your Science professor at school, if you must.

I'll try....both vehicles (in your example) start out stationary relative to each other, and relative to the Earth's surface. With me? From the viewpoint of both cars, the earth is 'stationary'.... so the only 'relative' motion at work here is between the two cars. The Earth is essentially 'neutral'.

Same with airplanes, boats, horses, people....etc.

If I had a picture, it's be easier. Shoot a cannonball....it will travel a distance at the same time as it falls....it describes a motion known as an 'arc'. Put the cannon on the highest mountain you can find (in your imagination) and the cannonball will still follow an arc, but it has longer to fall, so travels farther downrange before hitting the ground.

Keep going higher and higher and eventually it is high enough that as the cannonball falls in an arc the Earth's surface curves away at the same time....THAT is an 'orbit'. It requires a certain velocity of the cannonball, depending on the size of the planet and the height of the orbit.

The movement of the planet IN THIS CASE helps to add velocity to acheive orbit. THAT is the principle....

Certainly rockets could be launched without that assist....it's just that a compromise would be made, namely, more fuel needed to increase thrust and velocity, thus sacrificing payload....

Hey, Weed, good post. You're right.

ngHunter should take note of your post. He thinks we need the thrust from the earth's rotation to get the shuttle going also.

reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 08:54 AM by ngchunter

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
ngHunter should take note of your post. He thinks we need the thrust from the earth's rotation to get the shuttle going also.

I didn't say you needed the earth's thrust to get the shuttle going, I said the rotation of the earth can be exploited to lower the delta-v requirements to reach orbit. If the earth weren't rotating the required speed to reach orbit would be significantly higher and the shuttle's current performance profile would be insufficient to reach orbit. A car driving on the road or a boat on the water doesn't need to be concerned with what the required orbital speed is for any direction they're traveling in at any point in time.

You people seem to have a failure in understanding the difference between relative velocity of two objects on the ground, and the required orbital velocity of a given orbit. You're in orbit when you have enough velocity relative to earth's center point, so that you fall around the earth constantly. Since the earth is already rotating to the east, it takes less energy to reach the required velocity if you launch towards the east from a low latitude. Your final velocity relative to the rotating ground below will therefore depend on your chosen orbital inclination.

[edit on 16-4-2009 by ngchunter]

reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 08:59 AM by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
ngHunter should take note of your post. He thinks we need the thrust from the earth's rotation to get the shuttle going also.

I didn't say you needed the earth's thrust to get the shuttle going, I said the rotation of the earth can be exploited to lower the delta-v requirements to reach orbit. If the earth weren't rotating the required speed to reach orbit would be significantly higher. A car driving on the road or a boat on the water doesn't need to be concerned with what the required orbital speed is for any direction they're traveling in at any point in time.

Weed, do you agree with this?

reply posted on 16-4-2009 @ 09:28 AM by ngchunter