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.

 

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 89
39
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 





I never said I had no presuppositions. I have presuppositions that are practical and verified by scientists and engineers. These presuppositions have predicted new phenomena that have been proven accurate. Your presuppositions cannot be verified at all given current understanding (what new things does your theory predict?) and accordingly by the scientific method we cannot assume they are correct.

Is it or is it not a strawman to falsely state that they are arguing a false dilemma?


Your presuppositions are repeated by other scientists and engineers. That is the problem of verification, which is why scientific progress must be about falsification.

Quantum wave mechanics predict superposition, wave function collapse, interference patterns in DSE, and all the other phenomena in the physical world - logically without the speculative and epistemological gaps in the CI. You seem to think this is a radical idea, but I assure you it is not. It is the simplest and most comprehensive interpretation of the wave equations and associated quantum phenomena, and the intended interpretation by Schrodinger himself.

It would be a straw man, if you had ever taken the time to analyze all of the aspects of Rodin's model (which I haven't even managed to do yet either) and composed a coherent argument against them and his presuppositions. But to my knowledge, this hasn't happened in any meaningful way.




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
No, you don't seem to get it. They use particle theory to predict new behavior and the new behavior appears to fulfill deductions from the theory. If your theory cannot predict something new, it really is possible that you're arguing from ignorance. Essentially it's like saying that in the center of a star there's an apple flavored jelly bean, something you can't--well you might be able to, through chemistry--observe or verify.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Double post.
edit on 13-5-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 





No, you don't seem to get it. They use particle theory to predict new behavior and the new behavior appears to fulfill deductions from the theory. If your theory cannot predict something new, it really is possible that you're arguing from ignorance.


I get it. Particle theory.

Which behaves according to wave mechanics.

A cymatic interpretation also predicts non-zero energy levels of space, predicts harmonic and subharmonic divisions of systems (aka 'quantization'), predicts a phenomenon such as 'entanglement' through resonance or sympathy...

Basically, it is just overall more comprehensive and logical interpretation. Rather than the alternative of the CI, with all of the logical contradictions and anomalous behavior of the 'particles'.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by beebs
 


Yes, when we predict things and have findings that shows evidence the theory there is no reason to consider it superior to a theory you have no experimental evidence for nor can validate.


I propose I am superman, but for all observations I'm not, but I'm really superman. Philosophically my opinion is sound because to argue otherwise is an argument from ignorance. Just because you only observe me not being superman, doesn't mean it proves I am not superman. It's only your silly axioms that make it seem like I'm not superman.

Science deals with the scientific method, so if you don't like it stay with philosophy. I'm not going to argue philosophically with you because I don't agree with your axioms. As I said before with the right axioms you can even argue the moon is made of cheese.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
I found a lecture of his back some 4 years ago where he mentioned signal input specifically. I'll have to search more in depth to find it. Here's a decent place to begin:
What Lipton says about himself in that video, is basically exactly what I said about him: That he adhered to the scientific method to get his PhD and long enough to get a tenured position after that, and then after about 10 years, he went off the rails. He's not clear if he resigned voluntarily or if he was forced to resign, but in his own words, his university didn't appreciate his work and thought he was a heretic.

Regarding what he says about his work, that his colleagues thought genes were everything and nothing else mattered, and he argued that other things mattered besides genes, that's a "straw man" argument, which is a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide? It was banned in 1961, here are some pictures showing why it was banned: images.google.com...

To claim that nothing affects embryonic development except genes would be like denying Thalidomide was banned for affecting embryonic development. Obviously it was banned, and Lipton is painting a distorted picture of reality in that video, just like he did in his claim that the universe is a "mental construction" I referenced earlier.


As for the wi-tricity Telsa proposed... I'm sure you realize it was un-metered, so I don't consider this an attractive offer for the top 1%. Want to sit down and discuss loan options at JP Morgan Chase?
If it's not metered, what will the loan be repaid with?

Someone already started a tether company in January of this year:
www.tethers.com...

TUI Funded to Investigate Power Harvesting with ED Tethers: TUI has received a subcontract from Penn St. University to participate in a AFOSR funded effort to study power generation and power harvesting in space using electrodynamic tethers.
How about funding from The Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), instead of
JP Morgan Chase? However I can't help but notice, it's not the Department of Energy doing the funding.


NASA found their models weren't right when they deployed the STS-75 tether:
science.nasa.gov...

"The models were a factor of two or three off because they don't include the effects of orbital motion through the plasma (electrified gas) of the ionosphere," Stone said.
How can the agency which should be one of the world foremost experts on orbital motion, not include the effects of orbital motion in their model? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me. Anyway, it generated more current than they expected, which I guess is a good thing if you want to consider using it to generate power.

The wiki is more thorough than I expected and lists 15 other applications in addition to power generation, the first one on the list:
Electrodynamic tether
Some of those other possible applications, I didn't know about.

It's interesting stuff, but I still say it's easier to build windmills, and we're far too early in tether research to know how the economics will work out, but my guess is it might be comparable to windmill economics, which isn't that great right now as they are heavily subsidized. As fuel prices increase, alternatives like windmills (and possibly tethers, if research shows we can develop practical applications) will make more economic sense.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist

Regarding what he says about his work, that his colleagues thought genes were everything and nothing else mattered, and he argued that other things mattered besides genes, that's a "straw man" argument, which is a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide? It was banned in 1961, here are some pictures showing why it was banned: images.google.com...

To claim that nothing affects embryonic development except genes would be like denying Thalidomide was banned for affecting embryonic development. Obviously it was banned, and Lipton is painting a distorted picture of reality in that video, just like he did in his claim that the universe is a "mental construction" I referenced earlier.


edit on 13-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


The universe is a mental construction, what you think in your mind is what you will see. This has a lot to do with quantum physics. The thoughts that manifest your mind will manifest your reality. For example, white people in the past have been socially and mentally engineered to believe that blacks were inferior. So, of course that is what they saw and believed allowing it to manifest reality. Your mind is like a library that construct your reality. If the information isn't there than you won't understand things that challenge your belief. I see it happen all the time with liberals and conservatives.

People who think life is good will see life as good. People who see life as bad will see life as bad.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   
www.naturalnews.com...




(NaturalNews) The response to the release of our new mini-documentary, The God Within, has been extraordinary. In just the first 16 hours after its release, we have received an inflow of positive comments from people who are elated that we have helped pull back the veil of secrecy and expose the mindless, soulless core philosophies of the conventional scientific community.



IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others


edit on Sat May 14 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: removed HUGE quote



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
The universe is a mental construction, what you think in your mind is what you will see. This has a lot to do with quantum physics. The thoughts that manifest your mind will manifest your reality. For example, white people in the past have been socially and mentally engineered to believe that blacks were inferior.
You're confusing what's in your mind with what's in the universe.

What's in your mind is a mental construction. What's in the universe is separate from what's in your mind. For example, the light observed coming from the Andromeda galaxy left 2 million years ago. You weren't even born then, so your mind couldn't have created that part of the universe.

And the video you asked me to watch makes the same mistake. He shows that physical reality is a subset of consciousness but it's the other way around. Granted, there are psychological aspects to how we perceive reality, but again I use the example of light coming from Andromeda. It sounds pretty silly to say our consciousness had anything to do with that light leaving 2 million years ago.

And distorting the interpretation of quantum mechanics is just silly. The people doing this either don't understand quantum mechanics, in which case they are ignorant, or they do understand it and are intentionally misrepresenting it, which makes them hoaxers. It's not credible in either case.

Remember that video series you posted by Thomas Campbell?

Here's the physicsforums thread on it, there's not much more to say; it's not science:

www.physicsforums.com...



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



Well our mind represents the inner universe which is connected to the larger universe. I have heard many scientist who say they know about spiritualism and believe it. Yet, experiencing it first hand is different fron knowing. The universe is inside me. No wonder conventional science don't believe in spirit, freewill, and consciousness as the article suggested.
edit on Sat May 14 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
Well our mind represents the inner universe which is connected to the larger universe.
This is dictionary abuse. What you're calling "the larger universe" is apparently the universe. What you are calling "inner universe" you then refer to as "mind". If you mean "mind", then just say "mind". Or at the very least, always use theadjective "inner" so we know you mean something other than what the dictionary calls "universe" when you use "universe" in that context.


I have heard many scientist who say they know about spiritualism and believe it.
Did you see my signature? In includes a quote from Carl Sagan about spirituality.


Yet, experiencing it first hand is different fron knowing. The universe is inside me.
What you mean is, your mind is inside you, right? We've established you had nothing to do with light leaving the Andromeda galaxy 2 million years before you were born, haven't we?


No wonder conventional science don't believe in spirit, freewill, and consciousness as the article suggested.
Which article was that?

In any case, science doesn't claim to have all the answers to everything. I never heard a scientist claim that science has verified a single set of moral guidelines by which we all should live. This and other topics are beyond the scope of science, but as Sagan said, that doesn't necessarily imply that it conflicts with science.

I do recall one study where science did attempt to study one aspect of spirituality, namely, prayer. One reason I remember it, is because it involved both a prestigious university (Harvard) and it involved quite a bit of money ($2 million).

newsweek.washingtonpost.com...


To me, medicine and spirituality are not like two divorced parents; rather they are like two unmet lovers. Seeking their union drives me to study the effectiveness of prayer, the workings of the soul and the path to God, using scientific tools. I was a co-investigator on the largest study on the therapeutic effect of intercessory prayer -- an 1,800-patient, six-center, $2 million study led by the Benson-Henry Institute for Mind-Body Medicine, now at Harvard Medical School's affiliate Massachusetts General Hospital.

Our findings, published in 2006 in the American Heart Journal, surprised me. They showed that being prayed for not only did not improve outcomes, but it seemed to have a negative effect when patients knew they were the subject of prayers from afar. How could this be? How could knowledge or awareness of intercessory prayer lead to an 8 percent increase in complications after bypass surgery? Nobody knows, but we can speculate.
He then goes on to speculate how the study may have been flawed, and it may have been flawed. But it's not that easy to get $2 million for a study so I don't know how many different times they'll get to repeat the study until they identify the flaw, if there is one.

My point is that aside from scientific studies like this which scientifically study topics related to spirituality, I don't think science has much of an opinion in spirituality. And even when science does form an opinion as it did when publishing the results of this study, some people, like the author of that article, don't want to believe the science anyway.

So maybe it's best to just leave the science out of it, if you want to believe in something that's not scientific, and just admit you're believing it for reasons that aren't scientific.

For example, I have a belief that it's ok to kill rats that enter my home, but that it's not OK to kill other humans. I can't point to any scientific study that supports my belief, nor do I need one as I make no claim that these beliefs are founded in science. I just leave it at that, I don't feel I need science to justify those beliefs.

By the way, there's no need to quote an entire post when replying to it, in fact ATS frowns on that:

ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote
I must admit I'm no saint about following those rules perfectly, and I don't really agree with the policy against nested quotes, as I feel sometimes they're needed.

But I almost never quote an entire post, unless it's really short. I did get warned for that one time and the post I quoted wasn't nearly as long as the post you quoted.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by MIDNIGHTSUN
I have heard many scientist who say they know about spiritualism and believe it.


I have in my notes for research for another thread that Johns Hopkins physicist Professor R.C. Henry is quoted as saying, "The universe is immaterial - mental and spiritual" in an article entitled "The Mental Universe" in the journal Nature, 2005. The article is not available free online, however, as far as I know.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 





What's in the universe is separate from what's in your mind.


Please elaborate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You will have to consider: 1. that you are not the first person to make such a claim, 2. that the claim is not an inherent or a priori truth, and 3. that you are revealing one of your philosophical presuppositions. I have already argued against that position a long time ago, predicting that you believed in such separateness. Finally you have made it explicit.
Dualism wiki
Dualism (SEP)
Chew on this too, esp. sections on ontological vs. epistemological realism and 'Heisenberg Cut'.



For example, the light observed coming from the Andromeda galaxy left 2 million years ago. You weren't even born then, so your mind couldn't have created that part of the universe.


You are running around with whatever definition of 'mind' you fancy. Again, we should perhaps agree upon some common terms for the purposes of clarity in the discussion. If you want to throw out some controversial philosophical claims then please be prepared to back them up. But anyways:


For the past two decades, though, he has pursued a far more provocative idea for an idea, something he calls genesis by observership. Our observations, he suggests, might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality. To Wheeler we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe.

Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well. To illustrate his idea, he devised what he calls his "delayed-choice experiment," which adds a startling, cosmic variation to a cornerstone of quantum physics: the classic two-slit experiment.



Wheeler has come up with a cosmic-scale version of this experiment that has even weirder implications. Where the classic experiment demonstrates that physicists' observations determine the behavior of a photon in the present, Wheeler's version shows that our observations in the present can affect how a photon behaved in the past.

To demonstrate, he sketches a diagram on a scrap of paper. Imagine, he says, a quasar— a very luminous and very remote young galaxy. Now imagine that there are two other large galaxies between Earth and the quasar. The gravity from massive objects like galaxies can bend light, just as conventional glass lenses do. In Wheeler's experiment the two huge galaxies substitute for the pair of slits; the quasar is the light source. Just as in the two-slit experiment, light— photons— from the quasar can follow two different paths, past one galaxy or the other.

Suppose that on Earth, some astronomers decide to observe the quasars. In this case a telescope plays the role of the photon detector in the two-slit experiment. If the astronomers point a telescope in the direction of one of the two intervening galaxies, they will see photons from the quasar that were deflected by that galaxy; they would get the same result by looking at the other galaxy. But the astronomers could also mimic the second part of the two-slit experiment. By carefully arranging mirrors, they could make photons arriving from the routes around both galaxies strike a piece of photographic film simultaneously. Alternating light and dark bands would appear on the film, identical to the pattern found when photons passed through the two slits.

Here's the odd part. The quasar could be very distant from Earth, with light so faint that its photons hit the piece of film only one at a time. But the results of the experiment wouldn't change. The striped pattern would still show up, meaning that a lone photon not observed by the telescope traveled both paths toward Earth, even if those paths were separated by many light-years. And that's not all.

By the time the astronomers decide which measurement to make— whether to pin down the photon to one definite route or to have it follow both paths simultaneously— the photon could have already journeyed for billions of years, long before life appeared on Earth. The measurements made now, says Wheeler, determine the photon's past. In one case the astronomers create a past in which a photon took both possible routes from the quasar to Earth. Alternatively, they retroactively force the photon onto one straight trail toward their detector, even though the photon began its jaunt long before any detectors existed.

It would be tempting to dismiss Wheeler's thought experiment as a curious idea, except for one thing: It has been demonstrated in a laboratory. In 1984 physicists at the University of Maryland set up a tabletop version of the delayed-choice scenario. Using a light source and an arrangement of mirrors to provide a number of possible photon routes, the physicists were able to show that the paths the photons took were not fixed until the physicists made their measurements, even though those measurements were made after the photons had already left the light source and begun their circuit through the course of mirrors.

Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself— and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking?

So observations have an impact upon the universe, the issue then is what relationship, if any, does 'mind' (or a different term such as 'consciousness') have with observations.


edit on 14-5-2011 by beebs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Please elaborate. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


For example, the light observed coming from the Andromeda galaxy left 2 million years ago. You weren't even born then, so your mind couldn't have created that part of the universe.
You ask me to elaborate and then you quote the very example I cited about the light leaving the Andromeda Galaxy before you were born. I don't see how any of the junk you posted explains how your mind caused light to leave Andromeda in the past before you were born.

You cited a link but did you read it? You're apparently not aware that modern scientific experiments have shed some light on some of these concepts, or you are aware and you choose to ignore it so you can create your own universe inside your mind which is inconsistent with the real universe outside your mind.

This is from your link:
Argument from brain damage


If the mind were a completely separate substance from the brain, how could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured? Indeed, it is very frequently the case that one can even predict and explain the kind of mental or psychological deterioration or change that human beings will undergo when specific parts of their brains are damaged. So the question for the dualist to try to confront is how can all of this be explained if the mind is a separate and immaterial substance from, or if its properties are ontologically independent of, the brain...

Moreover, in more modern experiments, it can be demonstrated that the relation is much more than simple correlation. By damaging, or manipulating, specific areas of the brain repeatedly under controlled conditions, for example in monkeys, and obtaining the same results in terms of changes in mental state each time, neuroscientists have shown that the relation between damage to the brain and mental deterioration is causal.
So is this why you're always quoting a bunch of guys who died a long time ago, because you don't want to admit that we've learned some things since they died, in modern experiments?

The goal of a critical thinker is to recognize that while the internal perception in our mind of the external universe is imperfect, we can strive to improve the agreement between the two. We perceive the universe though limited senses, and even the modern instruments we use which extend observations beyond our senses, have their own limitations. Partly because of these, and other limitations, the universe as we perceive it in our minds may never reach the point of perfectly representing the actual universe outside our minds, but it seems pretty clear to me that the history of science shows that the general trend is that our understanding generally increases as scientific knowledge is gained, even if it never reaches perfection.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think I made the point.
Unfortunately I didn't get to read it before it was deleted.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Apparently Arb didn't catch the memo...



For example, the light observed coming from the Andromeda galaxy left 2 million years ago. You weren't even born then, so your mind couldn't have created that part of the universe.



Discovery that quasars don't show time dilation mystifies astronomers



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Americanist
I found a lecture of his back some 4 years ago where he mentioned signal input specifically. I'll have to search more in depth to find it. Here's a decent place to begin:
What Lipton says about himself in that video, is basically exactly what I said about him: That he adhered to the scientific method to get his PhD and long enough to get a tenured position after that, and then after about 10 years, he went off the rails. He's not clear if he resigned voluntarily or if he was forced to resign, but in his own words, his university didn't appreciate his work and thought he was a heretic.

Regarding what he says about his work, that his colleagues thought genes were everything and nothing else mattered, and he argued that other things mattered besides genes, that's a "straw man" argument, which is a misrepresentation of the opponent's position. Have you ever heard of Thalidomide? It was banned in 1961, here are some pictures showing why it was banned: images.google.com...

To claim that nothing affects embryonic development except genes would be like denying Thalidomide was banned for affecting embryonic development. Obviously it was banned, and Lipton is painting a distorted picture of reality in that video, just like he did in his claim that the universe is a "mental construction" I referenced earlier.


As for the wi-tricity Telsa proposed... I'm sure you realize it was un-metered, so I don't consider this an attractive offer for the top 1%. Want to sit down and discuss loan options at JP Morgan Chase?
If it's not metered, what will the loan be repaid with?

Someone already started a tether company in January of this year:
www.tethers.com...

TUI Funded to Investigate Power Harvesting with ED Tethers: TUI has received a subcontract from Penn St. University to participate in a AFOSR funded effort to study power generation and power harvesting in space using electrodynamic tethers.
How about funding from The Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), instead of
JP Morgan Chase? However I can't help but notice, it's not the Department of Energy doing the funding.


NASA found their models weren't right when they deployed the STS-75 tether:
science.nasa.gov...

"The models were a factor of two or three off because they don't include the effects of orbital motion through the plasma (electrified gas) of the ionosphere," Stone said.
How can the agency which should be one of the world foremost experts on orbital motion, not include the effects of orbital motion in their model? Someone's going to have to explain that one to me. Anyway, it generated more current than they expected, which I guess is a good thing if you want to consider using it to generate power.

The wiki is more thorough than I expected and lists 15 other applications in addition to power generation, the first one on the list:
Electrodynamic tether
Some of those other possible applications, I didn't know about.

It's interesting stuff, but I still say it's easier to build windmills, and we're far too early in tether research to know how the economics will work out, but my guess is it might be comparable to windmill economics, which isn't that great right now as they are heavily subsidized. As fuel prices increase, alternatives like windmills (and possibly tethers, if research shows we can develop practical applications) will make more economic sense.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


I could name call... Hawking is a heretic for trash talking aliens. Weak point you're trying to push.

If you didn't notice the video title, it clearly states Epi-Genetics. Have you done research in this field? Not only it is valid, it is substantial in understanding how our system as a whole evolves.

I'd also skip right to geothermal, if you want to make more economic sense... Cold fusion as the chaser. Eventually we'll get to the dreams of Tesla profit or not-for-profit.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
An article I'm reading made me think of this thread: "Native Wisdom in a Quantum World" by Glenn Aparicio Parry:


. . . Bohm had already observed communication problems within Western science. Consider the case of Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr. Einstein could not accept Bohr's position that physical concepts could be ambiguous. Although they were close friends for some time and had extended discussions on this matter, they never resolved anything. In the end, they had nothing left to say to each other. What occurred between Bohr and Einstein was not a dialogue but more of an ordinary conversation or debate. The difference between ordinary conversation and dialogue, according to Bohm, is that in the former a relatively fixed position is maintained and one party tries to convince the other of its correctness. In dialogue, both parties hold in abeyance their own personal and cultural thoughts and beliefs--their "tacit infrastructure"--while listening deeply to what is being said and endeavoring to understand it fully. Listening is more important than speaking. Understanding is more important than persuading another of one's position. There is no agenda in dialogue, nor is there an expectation of a result.

I believe that Bohm became interested in the spirit of dialogue, at least initially, to resolve the differences within Western science. He understood that those differences often arose out of philosophical assumptions that would normally be considered outside the purview of science--that the way science is used depends upon one's worldview.

Every worldview, like every paradigm, is partial. It unconsciously includes certain types of experience while unconsciously eliminating others. Western science makes somewhat arbitrary decisions all the time about what is permitted within the purview of science and what is considered pseudoscience. . . .




top topics



 
39
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join