We have our Brown Dwarf, interacting with and Bombarding asteroids of Oort against Pluto and Jupiter

page: 20
86
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 12 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


Thanks a lot, it is good to see some members are more open to the possibility of such a planet, and even a brown dwarf that even astronomers say are possible and could be close to us.




posted on May, 12 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
BTW... we THINK the Oort cloud stars at about 2,000 AU, we are not sure where it starts but we THINK it extends to 3 light years away from the Sun.

Let me quote one more thing from that last link I gave...



........
Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, DC, agrees that a passing star or dense cloud of gas is the more likely cause for Sednas strange travels. Boss said it would be "hard to imagine" forming an Earth-sized object out where the interaction would have taken place.

Region to explore

But Brown said there is one unexplored region of space left, amounting to about 20 percent of the sky, that hasnt been searched for an Earth-sized object that would be orbiting at 70 AU and presumably in the main plane of the solar system. It is the region toward the bright galactic center, which is harder to search.

www.space.com...


One more thing, some astronomers even think that Sedna is within the beginning of the Oort cloud and which is around 88AU which would mean the Oort cloud is closer than we think.

This also shows the claim from Chad that Uranus does not show any irregularities in it's orbit, or which were accounted for in 1993 is not true. Those astronomers THOUGHT it accounted for the irregularities of Uranus and Neptune, yet an astronomer, and his team, in this article from 2004 say differently.


Browns team said they thought Sedna should be counted as the first known object of the otherwise theoretical Oort Cloud. The distant reservoir of small icy objects is thought to exist based on the orbits of some comets that zoom through the inner solar system now and then, and then disappear into deep space.

Nobody knows what's actually in the Oort Cloud, however.

"I would say that is likely" Stern said in regards to possible Earth-sized planets in the Oort Cloud. In the early years of the solar system, he explained, objects as massive as Earth are thought to have hit Uranus and Neptune. Computer simulations show most of the hypothetical Earth-mass objects "would be ejected from the outer planets region, not accumulated in Uranus and Neptune, so we could someday find these frozen relics in the Oort Cloud."
....

www.space.com...



[edit on 12-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse


Ohh, so i am stupid because I am calling you AGAIN on your misquote that another member made and you claim it was mine?....




Stop trying to derail the thread, and admit you were wrong. I never said that diagram came from encyclopedia Britannica...


I NEVER SAID YOU SAID IT WAS FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA.

FFS I have tried to explain it to you.

WHAT STEREOLOGIST QUOTED ME SAYING WAS IN REPLY TO SOMEONE ELSE FROM ANOTHER THREAD

How bloody hard is that to comprehend???




BTW, the 1987 new Science and Invention encyclopedia" does exist even if it is rare.

This is not the first time you tried to attribute what another member said to me, and that's where you are lying.

If you are going to quote someone, make sure you do it right.


I NEVER SAID IT DIDN'T EXIST

NOW YOU ARE TRYING MAKE OUT THAT I'VE SAID SOMETHING I HAVEN'T.

I SAID:



Fourthly This diagram came from the New Science and Invention Encyclopedia, published in 1987, not Encyclopedia Britannica 1983.


FROM THIS THREAD:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Pathetic.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


If so, then the Oort cloud is closer to Alpha Centauri than us. The AC is about 4 light years away.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Just checking on what you posted on page 17, about the astronomical unit, the length of the solar system increasing from 3 studies done.

Have you seen this:


2012 Event Horizon: Prophecies and Science of a Golden Age, by David Wilcock — Part 2

The entire video is good, and discusses the leaps made in dna, and how its done. Also, stating at 38:53 in the video, he begins to discuss historically crop circles, and then discusses modern ones, and one in particular, in which the farmer was so furious, I believe he thought he was being vandalized, that he drove his tractor over the lines.

The makers came back and made another large one that barring HAARP could not have been done so quick as overnight, and they left et symbols for a signature.e

Now, the first one, had our solar system I think it was on the 2012 allignment I'm not sure, but likely, that was mentioned. But the most significant thing is our Star.

It was expanded in size, reaching Venus. And expanded solar system, which I've had some real downloads lately, and this would imply, a huge upgrade, dna change, conscisousness expanding, and even shifting channels. If the channel shifts, its for everyone, like many talk of the harvest, it means, the curtain is coming up for everyone.
Even tptb, and there will be a consequence to action, so its really recommended that anyone who actually pays attention to the 2012 and earth changes, understand that getting our houses in order, loving each other, writing to the leaders and letting them know they don't represent us, we have way better ideas, and if they want to they can write us back and ask for some, but we say no, to wars, starvation and nwo, to money and banks and scarsity. And that their karma for their actions only falls on them.
For we do not endorse them.

Time to be love and think love.

If the world doesn't end, no harm in any of those actions, they only lead to good things, really.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



Really? You claimed among many things that we know for certain the pioneer anomalies were because of the Sun, as in a sunward direction, and I showed that they THINK it is a sunward direction but they are not sure about the origin...

Please learn to read and comprehend. I did not say that the cause was the sun. That is your failed understanding of what I posted.


For crying out loud.. I already showed you and even increased the size of the quotes from one of the experts...

That is a lie because your quote came from a source other than the papers. Please stop this baloney. It is making you look bad.


Some astronomers even say it is possible that an Earth size planet, and even bigger could be within 70 AU. You obviously haven't been keeping up with this topic.

Actually that has been shown multiple times to be false.

16 March 2004

Obviously, relying on outdated material is a bad idea.


You denied the existance of any such large planet existing anywhere close to 320AU...or the existance of a brown dwarf anywhere close to 25,000AU... Yet there are MANY THEORIES of where such Solar System objects could be.

There are well known constraints. Misrepresenting articles, misrepresenting posts, and using outdated information is quite unbecoming.



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Ok Folks.

Let's leave out the personal sniping , Please.



TIA



posted on May, 12 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Here is an article that offers constraints.
Constraints on planet X/Nemesis from Solar System's inner dynamics
From the abstract we learn


A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70–85 au: such bounds are 147–175 au, 1006–1200 au, 4334–5170 au, 8113–9524 au and 10 222–12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.


The constraints do not mandate that the object is as close as 70AU if it is Mars sized. What the constraint means is that it can't be any closer.

Let me provide a simple example.

If condition A says d > 70
and if condition B says d > 300

then condition B sets a stronger constraint than condition A.

Iorio's computations show that a planet sized object is no where close to the sun. In fact, it is at best on the outer fringes of the Kuiper belt.

Whole sky surveys have shown even stronger restrictions since they have been done down to magnitude 24.

Are there larger bodies farther out? The only way to know is to see what better instruments such as WISE can tell us.

To see how information needs to be updated let's take a look at Jewett's page on Planet X.

Planet X - dated August 2005

Pluto became labelled a planet (because Tombaugh was searching for a planet he assumed that was what he had found) whereas we now appreciate it more clearly as the largest known Kuiper Belt Object.


In 2007 it is determined that Eris is larger. That was determined when Dysnomia was discovered.
The Mass of Dwarf Planet Eris

It is important to look at dates especially when so much new information is pouring in at us.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 



I am done responding to you... It is pathetic to see some people not being able to admit they were wrong... I showed EXACTLY what you said but you are now just derailing simply because you can't admit when you are wrong... You really need to grow up...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
If so, then the Oort cloud is closer to Alpha Centauri than us. The AC is about 4 light years away.


Yet I posted that a team of experts say the Oort cloud begins where Sedna is which is around 88AU. This is the reason why I increased the size of the word "they THINK" in my previous posts.

Let me post what the lead expert of the researchers has to say again.


Browns team said they thought Sedna should be counted as the first known object of the otherwise theoretical Oort Cloud. The distant reservoir of small icy objects is thought to exist based on the orbits of some comets that zoom through the inner solar system now and then, and then disappear into deep space.

Nobody knows what's actually in the Oort Cloud, however.

"I would say that is likely" Stern said in regards to possible Earth-sized planets in the Oort Cloud. In the early years of the solar system, he explained, objects as massive as Earth are thought to have hit Uranus and Neptune. Computer simulations show most of the hypothetical Earth-mass objects "would be ejected from the outer planets region, not accumulated in Uranus and Neptune, so we could someday find these frozen relics in the Oort Cloud."
....

www.space.com...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist

Please learn to read and comprehend. I did not say that the cause was the sun. That is your failed understanding of what I posted.


I know how to read and comprehend better than you, and it is obivous by now... You are another one who can't admit when being wrong...



Originally posted by stereologist

That is a lie because your quote came from a source other than the papers. Please stop this baloney. It is making you look bad.


BS, btw we are not in high school anymore. At Least I am not, so stop it with the stupid remarks already. I linked EXACTLY WHAT EXPERTS WERE SAYING...yet you keep claiming I am lying....


Originally posted by stereologist

Actually that has been shown multiple times to be false.

16 March 2004

Obviously, relying on outdated material is a bad idea.


Even the research paper you gave shows that you are the one lying, btw that link doesn't work but I found another...

Let me quote the end of the abstract from the research you gave us so kindly....


A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70-85 au: such bounds are 147-175 au, 1006-1200 au, 4334-5170 au, 8113-9524 au and 10 222-12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...

So there is no proof that no large Mars/Earth size planet can be anywhere close to 320 AU? and a bronw dwarf or red dwarf would have to be at 25,000AU?...




Originally posted by stereologist
There are well known constraints. Misrepresenting articles, misrepresenting posts, and using outdated information is quite unbecoming.


The only one misrepresenting every article he/she reads is you... even the article you gave a link to shows you to be wrong....


[edit on 13-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
So let's recap what research says that models predict other planet the size of Mars, an Earth-sized object, a Jupiter-sized body, a brown dwarf, a red dwarf, and even an object the mass of the Sun could be within the Solar System.



for a body with a mass equal to

a Mars-sized body = 70-85 au:

an Earth-sized planet = 147-175 au,

a Jupiter-sized planet = 1006-1200 au,

a brown dwarf = 4334-5170 au,

a red dwarf = 8113-9524 au

a Sun = 10 222-12 000 au respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...

But some people are claiming this is not true...even when the research they posted shows the contrary to what they claim...


BTW... I also posted excerpts from EXPERTS which say it is possible that a Mars-sized or Earth-sized planet, and some say even larger, could be at around 70AU....yet "stereologist" wants to claim the contrary...

I wonder what the expertise of "stereologist" is on this subject... More so when EXPERTS say the contrary to his claims...

BTW, the constrains mean that such objects CAN'T BE CLOSER than the distances given, but CAN BE within the distances shown....


A Mars-sized body can be found at not less than 70-85 au: such bounds are 147-175 au, 1006-1200 au, 4334-5170 au, 8113-9524 au and 10 222-12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...




[edit on 13-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Reading and comprehension and math are all requirements.

As I previously posted and demonstrated that the Iorio calculations provide a constraint there are stronger constraints. Please read and learn something extremely basic.


Let me provide a simple example.

If condition A says d > 70
and if condition B says d > 300

then condition B sets a stronger constraint than condition A.

Iorio's computations show that a planet sized object is no where close to the sun. In fact, it is at best on the outer fringes of the Kuiper belt.

Whole sky surveys have shown even stronger restrictions since they have been done down to magnitude 24.


This seems to be too difficult for you to learn, but I think you can figure this out.


So there is no proof that no large Mars/Earth size planet can be anywhere close to 320 AU? and a bronw dwarf or red dwarf would have to be at 25,000AU?...

Whole sky surveys provide stronger constraints than Iorio's calculations. Also, the constraint for a brown dwarf is not out to 25,000AU. That is a prediction of a possible object. Please read, understand, and comprehend these simple issues.
Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud
Constraining the Orbits of Planet X and Nemesis
Where Are You Hiding Planet X, Dr. Brown?
PROJECT PAN-STARRS AND THE OUTER SOLAR SYSTEM



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


You again make a huge mistake here with constraints.


So let's recap what research says that models predict other planet the size of Mars, an Earth-sized object, a Jupiter-sized body, a brown dwarf, a red dwarf, and even an object the mass of the Sun could be within the Solar System.


for a body with a mass equal to


a Mars-sized body = 70-85 au:
an Earth-sized planet = 147-175 au,
a Jupiter-sized planet = 1006-1200 au,
a brown dwarf = 4334-5170 au,
a red dwarf = 8113-9524 au
a Sun = 10 222-12 000 au respectively.


You used equal SIGNS. These should be > signs. Huge difference. These are constraints. These calculations do not state that objects are at those distances.


BTW... I also posted excerpts from EXPERTS which say it is possible that a Mars-sized or Earth-sized planet, and some say even larger, could be at around 70AU....yet "stereologist" wants to claim the contrary...


Again this is a huge failure on comprehension. This is a constraint.


BTW, the constrains mean that such objects CAN'T BE CLOSER than the distances given, but CAN BE within the distances shown....


There you go. You go it right and then on the very next line of the post you blow it.



Detectability of distant planets.
Planet V(1,1,0)1 R24(AU)2 Rgrav(AU)3
Earth −3.9 620 50
Jupiter −9.3 2140 340
Neptune −6.9 1230 130
Pluto −1.0 320 N/A
1 Absolute magnitude of the planet, equal to the V magnitude at unit heliocentric and geocentric distance and zero phase angle.
2 The distance at which the planet would have apparent magnitude mV = 24.
3 The distance at which the gravitational perturbation by the planet would just be detectable, as computed using Equation (4), Pluto is undetectable by this method at any distance for which Equation (4) is valid: See Hogg et al.
(1991).


There you have it a Pluto sized object could be detected out to 320AU with the magnitude 24 sky surveys. And that's a far better constraint that the constraints you posted.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


For crying out loud...stop making your own conclusions when REAL EXPERTS say the contrary to your claims... Just be a man, or woman and accept the fact that you were WRONG....

And don't tell me about who is having a reading comprehension problem...



A Mars-sized body ]can be found at not less than 70-85 au: such bounds are 147-175 au, 1006-1200 au, 4334-5170 au, 8113-9524 au and 10 222-12 000 au for a body with a mass equal to that of the Earth, Jupiter, a brown dwarf, red dwarf and the Sun, respectively.

www.ingentaconnect.com...




[edit on 13-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


The experts have provided lots of constraints. The strongest constraint is the best. I posted the strongest constraint I could find. It trumps your constraints by a factor of 8.

While you are reviewing your articles I see that you still have not found in any of the peer reviewed articles on anomalies that you posted any place where the experts suggest the existence of a point gravitational source. Please cite the article, the page, and if you want the text suggesting that is the case.



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


Reading and comprehension and math are all requirements.


Yeah...the fact that there are many different THEORIES and many of them put such object/s much closer than you claim is something you obviously don't understand...


Originally posted by stereologist
This seems to be too difficult for you to learn, but I think you can figure this out.


Huh humm....



Browns team said they thought Sedna should be counted as the first known object of the otherwise theoretical Oort Cloud. The distant reservoir of small icy objects is thought to exist based on the orbits of some comets that zoom through the inner solar system now and then, and then disappear into deep space.

Nobody knows what's actually in the Oort Cloud, however.

"I would say that is likely" Stern said in regards to possible Earth-sized planets in the Oort Cloud. In the early years of the solar system, he explained, objects as massive as Earth are thought to have hit Uranus and Neptune. Computer simulations show most of the hypothetical Earth-mass objects "would be ejected from the outer planets region, not accumulated in Uranus and Neptune, so we could someday find these frozen relics in the Oort Cloud."
....

www.space.com...


Alan Boss, a planet-formation theorist at the Carnegie Institute in Washington, DC, agrees that a passing star or dense cloud of gas is the more likely cause for Sednas strange travels. Boss said it would be "hard to imagine" forming an Earth-sized object out where the interaction would have taken place.

Region to explore

But Brown said there is one unexplored region of space left, amounting to about 20 percent of the sky, that hasnt been searched for an Earth-sized object that would be orbiting at 70 AU and presumably in the main plane of the solar system. It is the region toward the bright galactic center, which is harder to search.

www.space.com...



[edit on 13-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Yeah...the fact that there are many different THEORIES and many of them put such object/s much closer than you claim is something you obviously don't understand...


I do understand what a constraint is. Just because one technique does result in as strong a constraint as another does not mean it has precedence. It means it is of less value. So repeating failed results does not make it so.


Let me make this easier to understand by going to an article on the subject - not peer reviewed.

Constraining the Orbits of Planet X and Nemesis


Lorenzo Iorio from the National Institute of Nuclear Physics in Pisa (Italy) has taken orbital data from many years of precise observations and used his computations to predict the closest possible distance at which a massive planet could orbit if it was out there.

It turns out that all the planets the mass of Mars and above have been discovered within the Solar System. Iorio computes that the minimum possible distances at which a Mars-mass, Earth-mass, Jupiter-mass and Sun-mass object can orbit around the Sun are 62 AU, 430 AU, 886 AU and 8995 AU respectively. To put this into perspective, Pluto orbits the Sun at an average distance of 39 AU.

So if we used our imaginations a bit, we could say that a sufficiently sized Planet X could be patrolling a snail-paced orbit somewhere beyond Pluto. But there's an additional problem for Planet X conspiracy theorists. If there was any object of sufficient size (and by "sufficient" I mean Pluto-mass, I'm being generous), according to a 2004 publication by David Jewitt, from the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, we would have observed such an object by now if it orbited within 320 AU from the Sun.


See how this author on astronomical issue uses constraints properly?



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
........
While you are reviewing your articles I see that you still have not found in any of the peer reviewed articles on anomalies that you posted any place where the experts suggest the existence of a point gravitational source. Please cite the article, the page, and if you want the text suggesting that is the case.


For crying out loud if YOU want to present your own papers claiming the things you claim DO SO, but there are still MANY experts who disagree with your claims...

The OP was about one such paper you claim don't exist...


Persistent Evidence of a Jovian Mass Solar Companion in the Oort Cloud
Authors: John J. Matese, Daniel P. Whitmire
(Submitted on 26 Apr 2010)

Abstract: We present an updated dynamical and statistical analysis of outer Oort cloud cometary evidence suggesting the sun has a wide-binary Jovian mass companion. The results support a conjecture that there exists a companion of mass ~ 1-4 M_Jup orbiting in the innermost region of the outer Oort cloud. Our most restrictive prediction is that the orientation angles of the orbit normal in galactic coordinates are centered on the galactic longitude of the ascending node Omega = 319 degree and the galactic inclination i = 103 degree (or the opposite direction) with an uncertainty in the normal direction subtending ~ 2% of the sky. A Bayesian statistical analysis suggests that the probability of the companion hypothesis is comparable to or greater than the probability of the null hypothesis of a statistical fluke. Such a companion could also have produced the detached Kuiper Belt object Sedna. The putative companion could be easily detected by the recently launched Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE).
Comments: 41 pages, 9 figures, submitted to ICARUS
Subjects: Earth and Planetary Astrophysics (astro-ph.EP)
Cite as: arXiv:1004.4584v1 [astro-ph.EP]

Submission history
From: Daniel Whitmire Ph.D. [view email]
[v1] Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:00:59 GMT (570kb)

xxx.lanl.gov...

In the following they state that the large eccentricity of Sedna is probalby because of an undiscovered planet, or even an stellar object in the Oort cloud region...

www.gps.caltech.edu...

Actually here is another example of the above paper.


Discovery of a Candidate Inner Oort Cloud Planetoid

Michael E. Brown
Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; mbrown@caltech.edu
Chadwick Trujillo
Gemini Observatory, 670 North A`ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720; trujillo@gemini.edu
and
David Rabinowitz
Department of Physics, Yale University, P.O. Box 208121, New Haven, CT 06520; david.rabinowitz@yale.edu


Received 2004 March 16; accepted 2004 April 21

ABSTRACT

We report the discovery of the minor planet (90377) Sedna, the most distant object ever seen in the solar system. Prediscovery images from 2001, 2002, and 2003 have allowed us to refine the orbit sufficiently to conclude that Sedna is on a highly eccentric orbit that permanently resides well beyond the Kuiper Belt with a semimajor axis of 480 ± 40 AU and a perihelion of 76 ± 4 AU. Such an orbit is unexpected in our current understanding of the solar system but could be the result of scattering by a yet-to-be-discovered planet, perturbation by an anomalously close stellar encounter, or formation of the solar system within a cluster of stars. In all of these cases a significant additional population is likely present, and in the two most likely cases Sedna is best considered a member of the inner Oort Cloud, which then extends to much smaller semimajor axes than previously expected. Continued discovery and orbital characterization of objects in this inner Oort Cloud will verify the genesis of this unexpected population.


But wait, there is more on that paper...


1. INTRODUCTION

The planetary region of the solar system, defined as the region that includes nearly circular low-inclination orbits, appears to end at a distance of about 50 AU from the Sun at the edge of the classical Kuiper Belt (Allen et al. 2002; Trujillo & Brown 2001). Many high-eccentricity bodies from the planetary region comets and scattered Kuiper Belt objects cross this boundary, but all have perihelia well within the planetary region. Far beyond this edge lies the realm of comets, which are hypothesized to be stored at distances of 104 AU in the Oort Cloud. While many objects presumably reside in this Oort Cloud indefinitely, perturbation by passing stars or Galactic tides occasionally modifies the orbit of a small number of these Oort Cloud objects, causing them to reenter the inner solar system, where they are detected as dynamically new comets (Oort 1950; Duncan et al. 1987), allowing a dynamical glimpse into the distant region from which they came. Every known and expected object in the solar system has either a perihelion in the planetary region, an aphelion in the Oort Cloud region, or both.

iopscience.iop.org...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

While you are reviewing your articles I see that you still have not found in any of the peer reviewed articles on anomalies that you posted any place where the experts suggest the existence of a point gravitational source. Please cite the article, the page, and if you want the text suggesting that is the case.


You made the claim many times that the anomaly papers supported a point source gravitational object. Now you are backing off of this claim. Thank you.


The OP was about one such paper you claim don't exist...

This paper suggests an object 25,000AU away.

Then you switch to Brown's 2004 paper. Then you post the obvious and there is no conclusion.

OK. So what are you suggesting now? You should post it. I know these papers well. What is your conclusion?

I am still waiting for you to show where in all of the anomaly papers there is talk of a point source gravitational object. You posted dozens of times claiming support in those papers and you still haven't shown where you saw the experts say that this was the case. It is possible I missed it - extremely doubtful, but possible. So please show us where that exists.



top topics
 
86
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join