Solar System Orbiting the Hammar Axis

page: 4
196
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

But the gravitational pull of the stars in the Galactic (Milky Way) plane is slowing down the Sun's escape.


A sine wave motion is also a 2d representation of a 3d spiral or corkscrew motion, and as an object reaches the apparent apex of the 2d spiral it slows, or appears to slow and then speeds tword the center. The gravity of the galactic plane might actually be minor. if the spiral was viewd "head on" the rotation would be a consistant speed around the proposed "hammar axis". Maybe, if our motion, or apparent motion from a 2d pespective is what makes many scientists believe the galaxy has more mass, hence the reasons for dark matter and such but with no real observations.


Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Are you suggesting that the sun is spiraling along the galactic arm like a charged particle along a magnetic line of force? - then all of the planets need to have the exact same degree of charge - otherwise ther would be wierd orbital anomalies.


This would help squash the Nemisis, or dark star theorys a well. This theory is sounding better and better. Do the outer planets not display "oddities" in thier orbits? Maybe check into vortex math as well?
edit on 1/15/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: to add
edit on 1/15/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Nassim Haramein - 3D Solar System, excerpt from Earth Pilgrim


The solar system's motion thru space by The Resonance Project / Nassim Haramein.avi





This simple animation was created by Nassim Haramein and The Resonance Project Foundation
edit on 15-1-2011 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Don't know if you realised that your last drawing strangely ressembles this:



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
hammaraxx, this theory makes so much complete sense, on a fractal self-similar level, that it is almost mind-boggling that nobody had noticed it before. why an up-and-down motion when EVERYTHING else is spinning!!??
thank you for putting us out of our misery


(oh hang on, true, nassim haramien... well, it's the idea, not who puts it to words...
)
edit on 15-1-2011 by darkcircle2009 because: oh yeh...



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hammaraxx

Originally posted by nataylor
The orbital plane of the moon will not change with precession of the earth. Its inclination is measured relative to the ecliptic, which is independent of any precession the earth may have.
&

Originally posted by nataylor

Originally posted by Hammaraxx
The Moon’s orbital plane is the cause of the positional relationship between the Sunrise and the Full Moon rise and how they ‘trade places’ during the year. That relationship would change if the tilt of the Earth's axis wobbled.
While the earth's precession would change the angle between the earth's axis of rotation, the plane of the ecliptic, and the plane of the moon's orbit, those two planes, because they are essentially fixed to one another, would change at the same rate. Since they'd change at the same rate, they would maintain their positional relation relative to one another.
The parts in the above quotes by you I have put in bold could appear like a bet both ways.
I have found no reasonable explanation for the two orbital planes to be 'fixed' to one another nor an attempt to explain that at all for that matter. Theories of wobbling axis tend to ignore the moon’s orbital plane.…wiki/Moons_orbit

How is it a bet both ways? The ecliptic plane exists independent of the location of the earth's axis of spin. The moon's orbital plane is measured in reference to the ecliptic plane. So you need to explain how any change in the earth's axis of spin would change the moon's orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Am asking a question, in this cycle what type of effects on suns and planets over 25 thousand yrs



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
You deserve more than one Star and Flag!


Thanks for this!



good one



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

How is it a bet both ways? The ecliptic plane exists independent of the location of the earth's axis of spin. The moon's orbital plane is measured in reference to the ecliptic plane. So you need to explain how any change in the earth's axis of spin would change the moon's orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.



Conservation of angular momentum. Earth's gravity acts on the moon in a far greater degree that the ecliptic, which has no mass of it's own. The ecliptic is the Earth's orbital plane, nothing more.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Thank you all, for your posts.

Here is another picture of the approximate position of the Sun in the Orion Spur:



Originally posted by zorgon
I did an article for kids some time ago
What is the Speed of the Earth?
www.thelivingmoon.com...
The portion of determining the motion of the solar system to include those vectors...

What is the speed of the Solar System?
(by Amara Graps)
Or, how fast is the Sun (Solar System) hurling towards the constellation Hercules?
From the book: _Guide to the Galaxy_, 1994; Henbest and Couper; Cambridge University Press.

The Sun is moving towards Lambda Herculis at 20 kilometers per second or 12 miles per second. Or in units "per hour": 72,000 kilometers per hour or 45,000 miles per hour. This speed is in a frame of rest if the other stars were all standing still.

The three-dimensional picture of the Sun's movement through the Galaxy is a little more complicated.

The Sun is moving upwards, out of the plane of the Milky Way, at a speed of 7 kilometers per second. Currently the Sun lies 50 light-years above the mid-plane of the galaxy, and its motion is steadily carrying it further away...


Stanford University
solar-center.stanford.edu...
Thank you zorgon, I’ve had great pleasure reading through your threads. The strange direction of the Sun’s path is another mystery I believe the Hammar Axis solves.
"the Sun's resultant velocity with respect to the CMB is about 370 km/s in the direction of Crater or Leo." ~ From ...wiki/Sun

Zero Ghost’s chart of the oscillation of the solar system is beautiful. I found the post by ZeroGhost in your Milky Way - Welcome to your New Home Thread and his quote:

Originally posted by ZeroGhost
As far as our position on a theoretical plane of the galaxy, we are always moving away and towards and pass up and over, under and up the plain every few thousand years. In this illustration we can see how we would look if our planetary track was lit as we oscillate in our orbit. Notice the very slight curve of the sun? That would be the oscillatory point weaving up and down along the orbit.
This fits in with what I believe also. I think we’re on the same path to some extent and I would love Zero Ghost come join us here too. As he says “I eat this stuff for lunch
”.


Originally posted by QuantumDisciple
Who was first? The zero G oscilation or the Hammar axis?
I can’t speak for Zero Ghost, but the answer of the rotating arms of the galaxy came to me like a flash at 6:20AM Wednesday the 20th of January 2010. I jokingly named the axis the Hammar Axis as a play on my name later that same day and decided to keep using it.


Originally posted by JohhnyBGood
Are you suggesting that the sun is spiraling along the galactic arm like a charged particle along a magnetic line of force? - then all of the planets need to have the exact same degree of charge - otherwise ther would be wierd orbital anomalies.
No No - No, Johhny, No.
(not the first time hey?), I’m only suggesting the galactic arms rotate like a spiralling whirlpool.
Try and picture this:
Your sink = space, the drain hole = the centre of the galaxy, the rotating Earth below you = the orbiting galaxy.
If you fill your sink with water then pull the plug, gravity causes the water to go down the drain (towards the galactic centre). The coriolis effect, causes a whirlpool to form. Drop a few grains of rice into the side of the whirlpool watch them spin around like the stars on their way to the centre of the galaxy. The galaxy is much larger but I’m pretty convinced it is the same principal.


Originally posted by Trafalgar1805
 
The solar system is certainly more interesting than is widely thought, but reality is known about by a select few who do their best to keep it a secret. Try the factors shown in this video to plug into your theory:
www.youtube.com...
Our solar system orbits a black hole of at least 120 solar masses, at about 450AUs (fifteen times the distance of Neptune).
Woah, Fast moving video. It took me a few watches to get it. A binary star system... I toyed with this idea myself for a while but discounted it in the end through faith in the ancients and their observations. I’m sure they would have picked that up. As all stars in the galactic arm orbit the Hammar Axis it may appear from one, that it is orbiting another.



Originally posted by Wolfenz
Nassim Haramein - 3D Solar System, excerpt from Earth Pilgrim
Thank you for sharing, I have seen these videos before. Yes, spirals everywhere. Great animation, although I think the direction the Sun is travelling in the animation is “up”. I believe it is more to the side, like the Moon’s orbit of the Earth as the Earth orbits the Sun.


Originally posted by Vio1ion
Don't know if you realised that your last drawing strangely ressembles this:
 
Wow! I hadn’t realised that. It was not intended and I think any resemblance is purely coincidental. Thanks for posting it though.



Originally posted by nataylor
How is it a bet both ways? The ecliptic plane exists independent of the location of the earth's axis of spin. The moon's orbital plane is measured in reference to the ecliptic plane. So you need to explain how any change in the earth's axis of spin would change the moon's orbital plane with respect to the ecliptic.


You don't see it?
In one post you say The orbital plane of the moon is independent of any precession the earth may have.
In the next you say the plane of the ecliptic, and the plane of the moon's orbit are essentially fixed to one another and would change at the same rate.
Anyway, not to worry.

Have a Look at these comparisons:


And


The plane of the Moon’s orbit remains the same in all the pictures above. The only thing that has changed is the tilt of the Earth’s North South axis. This would NOT have gone unnoticed.


Originally posted by nenothtu
Conservation of angular momentum. Earth's gravity acts on the moon in a far greater degree that the ecliptic, which has no mass of it's own. The ecliptic is the Earth's orbital plane, nothing more.
Well put nenothtu, thank you.


Originally posted by bone13
Am asking a question, in this cycle what type of effects on suns and planets over 25 thousand yrs
Great question, I wish I had an answer for you but would only be guessing.

Thank you, all, once again.
I look forward to reading more of your posts.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Two thoughts.

One, if the ams spiral in the same direction, at the hub objects in different arms would constantly collide. If arms were gears they'd have to turn in opposite directions for the gears to mesh. The only image in nature that would be close would be a drain where arms of waves circle the drain, and each wave might have an internal spiral. Hopefully our galaxy is not a drain.

Two, if the end of the 13,000 year cycle normally results in global trama, the cause would be crossing some galactic centerline or plane consisting of some (radiation / magnetic / physical) concentration. Maybe north always points to the horizontal plane of the galaxy, and our magnetic poles seek alignment while we cross that plane. Maybe intense gamma or cosmic rays are emanated in a thin plane across the galaxy and that has a global impact. Maybe there's a higher density of asteroids or comets along the galactic plane, resulting in higher odds of calamity. If we're in a spiraling arm, then the plane is less likely to have concentrated anything. The end of the 13,000 year cycle will be as much of a bust as Y2K.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
I had some related insights, but in the feild of particle physics a few years ago.
as above, so below?

It seems to me that a binary star (dark matter star?) model makes this even more plausible. Imagine a strand of DNA spiraling through space along the Hammer axis. What makes it spiral this way? The other side of the DNA strand, and the "ladder" in between, or the axis, holding it together, if you will. One star, or DNA strand, is positively charged, and the other is negatively charged, held together by electromagnetic force (or love, maybe).
This is just a little initial insight without much thought or research, but I felt that something seemed missing. Namely, what IS the Hammaraxis, what force, holds it onto this trajectory. An equal and opposite force? What holds DNA together?
Just a little brain storming. Thank you for your post. It got my motors running again



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
could this be what your looking for news.nationalgeographic.com... a link from a new thread by www.abovetopsecret.com...
yes interesting dark matter or black hole ,come on give this member some credit in this link truly brilliant find,just have a look it may all tie in,binary star sytem or...check it out just of the press national geographic.
edit on 16-1-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)

As for nassim ,hawking,kaku, and others put them all in the same room and let it rip,theres some truth in all of it.Fractals definetly plays its part.
edit on 16-1-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)
Yound do obviously realize that haramein has taken the orbits and merely put them vertical instead of horizontal,has this been scientifically proven by observation outside are we travelling through space vertically instead of horizontally,or on a cd disc for those too confused,which is true ?
edit on 16-1-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2011 by gringoboy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Thank you for all your replies.
I will attempt my answers in order of your posts:

Originally posted by ngchunter
If the galactic arms spiraling and corkscrewing is what causes the appearance of precession, then precession should not affect the positions of distant galaxies. The stars should appear to precess, but entire galaxies separate from ours should not (save for their own internal spiraling motion), so that should cause a rather large apparent motion of galaxies relative to stars within our galaxy, should it not?
Exactly! I think the idea helps explain some of the strange and mysterious ‘movements’ of many interstellar objects viewed from Earth that can not be accounted for using the ‘old’ wobbling Earth’s axis theory.

I'm not following you. I'm not sure what you mean by strange movements of interstellar objects. My point was that this theory can't be true if other galaxies we observe move with precession. Indeed, unless galaxies all appear to move with respect to stars within our galaxy at a high rate equal to precession, the theory is false. All you have to do is compare images of a given galaxy taken a few years apart to see that it's not true.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hammaraxx

You don't see it?
In one post you say The orbital plane of the moon is independent of any precession the earth may have.
In the next you say the plane of the ecliptic, and the plane of the moon's orbit are essentially fixed to one another and would change at the same rate.


No, I still don't see it.

Say we have nice big concrete slab, build on a hill with a 5 degree tilt. We'll say this is the plane of ecliptic. Then we have a one of those inflatable kiddie pools sitting on the slab, filled with water. The level of the water is the plane of the moon's orbit. The water, since it is level, will be at a 5 degree angle to the slab. Then we put a beach ball in the center of the pool. The beach ball is the earth. Now we can rotate the beach ball any way we want to and that's not going to change the level of the water compared to the level of the slab.

From an observer on the earth, any precession is going to change the apparent location of the ecliptic, but the apparent location of the moon's orbit will change by the exact same amount, meaning their relative positional relationship will not change.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Conservation of angular momentum. Earth's gravity acts on the moon in a far greater degree that the ecliptic, which has no mass of it's own. The ecliptic is the Earth's orbital plane, nothing more.

While there might be some very small influence due to the oblateness of the earth, the earth's gravity can generally be considered a point source. Thus, any rotation won't have an effect of the moon's orbit.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


sure. We're a magnet within the field of another magnet. When we move from the north pole to the south pole of the larger magnet, you would expect us (the smaller magnet) to reposition.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Introduction:
What I have so far presented is widely accepted. Without an obvious cause to a matching change to the Moon’s orbital plane (for which I have found none to date), this alone, is enough to discredit the idea that the Earth’s axial tilt wobbles else it would render structures like Stonehenge useless for determining the position of the Sun and the Moon throughout the year after only a hundred years or so.


Wordsome.. This is what I have been thinking about for years.

Those places, which are accurately built in relation to the sun, so that sun can be seen every year from a certain point (that is allways the same).. would not have those points in which the sun is always sitting at, if it indeed was so that the earth was wobbling.

I am yet to be confirmed on this, but this seems so far most sensible to me. (..ie. it is the whole solarsystems movement that causes the precessional movements - more&most likely..)

Back to reading..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hammaraxx
 


Hmm, and now after reading.. I must say, this is well possible - and it could be so. Only that personally I feel that I still need some confirmation, how to confirm that one point of observation is actually real..

Thank you, interesting thoughts.

Personally I agree about the sun thingy regarding the complexes built to correlate with sun movements. But a friend of mine gave a question which I have not yet had the understanding to answer:

"would the movement of the sun actually be that big - when observed from the earth - if indeed the precession was due to earths precessional wobble?"

This is what I think I would need a seriously in depth 3D presentation, to understand it for..



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hammaraxx
Introduction:


The stars actually DO rotate around our solar system during the Precession of the Stars.


The Galactic arms are in motion, twisting, spiralling or rotating as well as orbiting the galactic centre.



Hammeraxx’s theory is creative but contradictory in several places. Disregarding the contradictions, it still fails the basic test of observational science; reproducibility.

If Hammeraxx is saying the sun and stars in our local galactic arm swirl around an axis (as he did in one post) then this might produce a precession type of observable (from earth) relative to VLBI reference points and very distant stars but you would see no precession relative to stars that are moving in the swirl along with the sun; thereby Hammeraxx’s proposition is false, because it does not produce the precession observable relative to local stars.

If Hammeraxx is saying the stars in our galactic arm are circling around the sun (as he states in another post) then this might produce a precession type observable relative to these local stars but you would see no precession relative to the VLBI reference points (extra-galactic quasars, which astronomers use to measure precession); thereby Hammeraxx’s proposition is false again because it fails to produce the precession observable relative to distant stars.

For a theory of precession to be correct it must meet all of the precession observables without any conflicts. Only the binary model of precession meets such criteria. (The lunisolar model of precession also fails even though it is the theory still used by most astronomers at this time, but it is a subject too complex to discuss in this space).



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Once again thank you all for the wonderful questions and suggestions for me to make what I am trying to say more clearly understood.
I’ll answer you posts in order:


Originally posted by dbriefed
If the ams spiral in the same direction, at the hub objects in different arms would constantly collide. If arms were gears they'd have to turn in opposite directions for the gears to mesh. The only image in nature that would be close would be a drain where arms of waves circle the drain, and each wave might have an internal spiral. Hopefully our galaxy is not a drain.
I don’t think it will be a problem by the time ‘we’ got to the centre anyway. I tend to believe the centre is a black hole that concentrates all that goes in and spurts it out the top and bottom at a great rate. Most of the ejected stuff will find itself ‘falling’ back into one of the spiral arms and start a new cycle.

Originally posted by dbriefedIf we're in a spiraling arm, then the plane is less likely to have concentrated anything. The end of the 13,000 year cycle will be as much of a bust as Y2K.
I’d agree with that.


Originally posted by exactlydivyn
It seems to me that a binary star (dark matter star?) model makes this even more plausible. Imagine a strand of DNA spiraling through space along the Hammer axis. What makes it spiral this way? The other side of the DNA strand, and the "ladder" in between, or the axis, holding it together, if you will. One star, or DNA strand, is positively charged, and the other is negatively charged, held together by electromagnetic force (or love, maybe).
Love is all there is!

A binary star system can also work in the same model. It would make things a little more complicated to calculate times and distances travelled, but sure, I don’t see why not. If you picture the animation (a bit further down in this post) as Earth within a binary star system it still works. The main point of the idea is that the Earth’s axial tilt is not wobbling.


Originally posted by gringoboy
could this be what your looking for news.nationalgeographic.com... a link from a new thread by www.abovetopsecret.com...
yes interesting dark matter or black hole ,come on give this member some credit in this link truly brilliant find,just have a look it may all tie in,binary star sytem or...check it out just of the press national geographic.
Thank you for posting that gringoboy. I ‘m not sure how to fit that in though but it was an interesting read never the less.


Originally posted by ngchunter
I'm not following you. I'm not sure what you mean by strange movements of interstellar objects. My point was that this theory can't be true if other galaxies we observe move with precession. Indeed, unless galaxies all appear to move with respect to stars within our galaxy at a high rate equal to precession, the theory is false. All you have to do is compare images of a given galaxy taken a few years apart to see that it's not true.
Here is a rough animation I prepared for you to explain what I meant. The coloured dots within the circle represent star constellations that spiral around the Hammar Axis.


The arrow is pointing out from the night time view from Earth at any given December 22nd. Can you see how the Galaxy in the top right would appear to travel in one direction then appear to travel in reverse, over and over as we go around the Hammar Axis? All the while the stars orbiting the Hammar Axis will appear to be rotating around Earth.


Originally posted by nataylor
Say we have nice big concrete slab, build on a hill with a 5 degree tilt. We'll say this is the plane of ecliptic. Then we have a one of those inflatable kiddie pools sitting on the slab, filled with water. The level of the water is the plane of the moon's orbit. The water, since it is level, will be at a 5 degree angle to the slab. Then we put a beach ball in the center of the pool. The beach ball is the earth. Now we can rotate the beach ball any way we want to and that's not going to change the level of the water compared to the level of the slab.

From an observer on the earth, any precession is going to change the apparent location of the ecliptic, but the apparent location of the moon's orbit will change by the exact same amount, meaning their relative positional relationship will not change.
I’ve created a picture for you using your description as a guide but I’ve swapped a couple of things around so I could draw them. I’ve also added a house to represent the Sun and a second pool with the same features so we can have one for December and one for June. The smaller beach balls represent the Full Moon.
Angle of the slab & pool is 5 degrees and represents the Moon's orbital plane, the water level as the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun.

Pools are angled at 5 degrees and the Earths are tilted to 26 degrees in this picture.
Positions A & D represent the angle of the Full Moon closest to June 22nd.
Positions B & C represent the angle of the Full Moon closest to December 22nd.

The Sun will always rise on the horizon according to the month/season where it is expected to under both models.
Observe the difference in the June distances A & D, and the December distances B & C.
As demonstrated in the above picture, if the tilt of the Earth’s axis wobbled, the relationship between the position of Sunrise and a Full Moonrise on the horizon would change as the Moon's position on the horizon would drastically change over time. At an approximated 1 degree change in 72 years it wouldn’t take too many generations to notice that their stone monuments, used to track the Sun and the Moon, would no longer function as intended.


Originally posted by Jussi
Wordsome.. This is what I have been thinking about for years.

Those places, which are accurately built in relation to the sun, so that sun can be seen every year from a certain point (that is allways the same).. would not have those points in which the sun is always sitting at, if it indeed was so that the earth was wobbling.
I’ve cringed at that paragraph a couple of times since I posted it too. How about:
So far, I’ve not seen an explanation for how the Moon’s orbital plane could move with the wobble of the earth’s axial tilt. Nor have I even seen mention of it doing so for that matter. Without an obvious cause for the Moon’s orbital plane to change with the Earth’s axial tilt, structures like Stonehenge would be rendered useless for calculating the position of the Full Moonrise in a few generations.
The Sun will rise where expected even if the axial tilt wobbled. It is the position of the Full Moon that would be most effected.


Originally posted by Jussi
I would need a seriously in depth 3D presentation, to understand it
I'd love to have a 3D animation of this to show you but it’s not a specialty of mine to do so. I did ask a friend almost a year ago, but he’s a busy fella and hasn’t had the time to do it yet. (hey Frank?
)


Originally posted by Polestar
Hammeraxx’s theory is creative but contradictory in several places. Disregarding the contradictions, it still fails the basic test of observational science; reproducibility.

If Hammeraxx is saying the sun and stars in our local galactic arm swirl around an axis (as he did in one post) then this might produce a precession type of observable (from earth) relative to VLBI reference points and very distant stars but you would see no precession relative to stars that are moving in the swirl along with the sun; thereby Hammeraxx’s proposition is false, because it does not produce the precession observable relative to local stars.

If Hammeraxx is saying the stars in our galactic arm are circling around the sun (as he states in another post) then this might produce a precession type observable relative to these local stars but you would see no precession relative to the VLBI reference points (extra-galactic quasars, which astronomers use to measure precession); thereby Hammeraxx’s proposition is false again because it fails to produce the precession observable relative to distant stars.

For a theory of precession to be correct it must meet all of the precession observables without any conflicts.
Thank you Polestar, you’re forcing me to be clearer.
Please look at the rough animation I prepared for ngchunter above. Does that clear things up? It shows how the local stars swirling around the Hammar Axis. Can you see how the stars are ‘rotating’ around our solar system? The galaxy in the top right corner can represent the extra-galactic quasars you mentioned, they are not part of the precession of the stars but have an altogether different behaviour which has been a mystery, well, up ‘till now.
It is more likely that I have failed to explain myself clearly if you see a contradiction in my idea. I’m open to have errors pointed out once I’ve removed all confusion from my explanation. Right now, I’m still trying to put the idea into the right words so it is clear to everyone.

Again I thank you for the wonderful contributions.
Together we'll either crack this for all to understand or put it to bed once and for all.
Many kind regards for now.





new topics
top topics
 
196
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join