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.

 

Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   

the system of the atom is matter and charge, charge creating electrical energy and matter causing gravitational energy..


i wrote that the wrong way around, whoops.. i meant to say that charge is the result not the cause of electrical energy interaction and matter is the result of gravitational energy interaction..




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I was trying to get you guys to see that you were just playing around with semantics all along. Even in science, energy is not one definition - we have potential, kinetic, and thermal energy and then all the various offshoots of the measurement of energetic effects like force, mass, velocity, heat, friction, gravity, etc... And if you didn't catch that, let me say it more simply: science is based on a subjective term - it is the philosophy of the stubborn minded. lol

As of now, the best definition of energy is the motion of matter, but what is motion if not information, and what is matter if not structured information? Does energy give structure or does structure give energy? Are they even separable? If not, they must be the same thing... So take your pick: energetic matter(energy) or structured information(Word).



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind


energy is only measurable when it acts on something, and is converted. i wouldn't say that it is the result of matter, rather matter is the result of energy, and energy is the result of the interaction of forces. a photon with higher energy is no longer a photon, it would have to become another kind of particle.


Energy may only be measurable when it acts on something, but is that to say that energy only exists when we measure it? What is theoretically measurable without 'it acting on something'? Is 'energy' some type of immaterial essence?

Google, Em radiation if you need an explanation as to why and how photons have different energy levels. What do you make of E=MC^2? What is the significance of the speed of light squared value, and what does it mean that multiplying that value to the mass of a 'matter' object yields the 'total energy' of that material object? And are the lines drawn arbitrarily? So your main definition of energy is 'motion'? Matter is not energy, because matter is not 'motioning' itself? The what that is moving matter is energy?






yup, but when using scientific terms, semantics are everything.. the gravity field of earth and indeed all planets do in fact have infinite reach, it drops off exponentially the further away you are from the centre of its mass, but no matter how far out you go, it never completely reaches zero.. we can only quantize and compare the conversion of energy that creates the "phenomenon", not the energy itself..


There is a difference between mathematical irrational numbers, and temporal values in equations and the idea of infinity being 'all' (in this case taking up all space). I agree that the gravitational field exists through out all space, but that does not mean the gravitational field/energy of the planet or a grain of sand is infinite, in that the energetic exchange or effects can be experienced or theoretical or realistically detected throughout all space, because more then most likely, they do not exist, they have boundaries, which implies quantitative restriction of their energetic extent at any given point in time/a series of points in time.


edit on 22-8-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by tachyonmind

the system of the atom is matter and charge, charge creating electrical energy and matter causing gravitational energy..


i wrote that the wrong way around, whoops.. i meant to say that charge is the result not the cause of electrical energy interaction and matter is the result of gravitational energy interaction..


Lol, No! This is exactly the problem. It cannot be determined what comes first, what causes what, it seems to be some sort of 3-d ying yang. 'Electrical energy interaction' is meaningless without first the concept and reality of charge. And this was a natural result, 'Charge' (whatever that truly is) and 'electrical energy' are one and the same thing, inseparable qualities, different perspectives of the same thing, there cannot be one without the other, because there is no other, they are the same thing.

Likewise how can gravity exist without matter? And then like you say, how can matter exist without gravity? Well matter can I suppose because of the strong and weak force, so I think you had that part right the first time.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Do you have a problem with gravity being an effect that a particular motion has on matter? (A particular motion that all matter can exhibit if said matter is in the proper form.) I keep seeing you mention fields, so I ask to determine what you think a "field" really is. Do you think gravity is something different than energy/motion of matter?

Do you think space exists where matter does not? Why believe space is more than the area matter consumes?(matter creates space - it doesn't exist in space)

And the Einstein equation is pretty funny if I may say so. He basically defines energy as being energy by way of saying mass(which is just an effect of energy - without certain energy you have no mass) times the squared speed of light(speed of light is controlled by the amount of energy in the photon/matter). Basically he defined energy with energy. It's almost illogical.
edit on 8/22/2013 by Bleeeeep because: edit to clarify a thought



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
You can't draw a good analogy between aural resonance and any concept from quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, there is no conducting medium (quantum theorists deny the existence of a conductive etheric medium) like air conducts sound. Also, quantum theory is based on "spinning particles" whereas sound resonances occur via vibrational motion at the source. (Actually, I think quantum mechanics should be discarded along with general relativity, "up with ether theory").



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


I was trying to get you guys to see that you were just playing around with semantics all along. Even in science, energy is not one definition - we have potential, kinetic, and thermal energy and then all the various offshoots of the measurement of energetic effects like force, mass, velocity, heat, friction, gravity, etc... And if you didn't catch that, let me say it more simply: science is based on a subjective term - it is the philosophy of the stubborn minded. lol


i'm afraid you are mistaken, science is not subjective at all.. the terms define mathematical formulae, when you start mixing them up like i have seen in these threads, all sense is lost..



As of now, the best definition of energy is the motion of matter, but what is motion if not information, and what is matter if not structured information? Does energy give structure or does structure give energy? Are they even separable? If not, they must be the same thing... So take your pick: energetic matter(energy) or structured information(Word).


untrue, the best definition of energy is the observable interaction of force. matter only comes into it when studying certain forms of energy conversion.. for instance, electromagnetic energy has less to do with the amount of mass and is more about spin and vibrational polarisation.

energy gives structure.. energy and matter are by definition separate.. all matter is energetic, energy is separate from "structured information", that would be force.


Energy may only be measurable when it acts on something, but is that to say that energy only exists when we measure it? What is theoretically measurable without 'it acting on something'? Is 'energy' some type of immaterial essence? Google, Em radiation if you need an explanation as to why and how photons have different energy levels. What do you make of E=MC^2? What is the significance of the speed of light squared value, and what does it mean that multiplying that value to the mass of a 'matter' object yields the 'total energy' of that material object? And are the lines drawn arbitrarily? So your main definition of energy is 'motion'? Matter is not energy, because matter is not 'motioning' itself? The what that is moving matter is energy?


more or less, yes.. energy is our definition of the observable interactions of forces.. energy, in physics, only exists as evidence of fundamental forces.. photons have an energy range, outside of that range, they are no longer photons.. matter is only in existence by virtue of it's energetic vibrational density, which is observable and measurable, and the energetic vibration is only in existence by virtue of the fundamental forces that create and govern all particles..


There is a difference between mathematical irrational numbers, and temporal values in equations and the idea of infinity being 'all' (in this case taking up all space).


nothing takes up all space, space/flux/ether is in itself everything..


I agree that the gravitational field exists through out all space, but that does not mean the gravitational field/energy of the planet or a grain of sand is infinite, in that the energetic exchange or effects can be experienced or theoretical or realistically detected throughout all space, because more then most likely, they do not exist, they have boundaries, which implies quantitative restriction of their energetic extent at any given point in time/a series of points in time.


there is no boundary to gravity.. sure, when you get far enough away from an object's centre of mass, its affects drops to undetectable levels by our measurements, and the affect appears to cease, but it never completely reaches zero.. nothing ever reaches zero, if it did it wouldn't exist.. the whole universe is held together by the forces of gravity of every single atom in existence, working as a whole system of inexorable attractions..


Lol, No! This is exactly the problem. It cannot be determined what comes first, what causes what, it seems to be some sort of 3-d ying yang.


umm.. yes it can.. it goes like this; big bang > gravity waves > spinning/vibrating particles (matter) > electrically polarised charge > exchange of electromagnetic energy > evolving matter..
edit on 22-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

'Electrical energy interaction' is meaningless without first the concept and reality of charge. And this was a natural result, 'Charge' (whatever that truly is) and 'electrical energy' are one and the same thing, inseparable qualities, different perspectives of the same thing, there cannot be one without the other, because there is no other, they are the same thing. Likewise how can gravity exist without matter? And then like you say, how can matter exist without gravity? Well matter can I suppose because of the strong and weak force, so I think you had that part right the first time.


electrical energy interaction is described in our scientific terms as the behaviour of charge, yes..

matter is the result of gravitational energy waves rippling through the electromagnetically charged quark-gulon plasma soup released by the big bang.. matter is both created by gravity and charge, gravity waves compress ether into vibrating particles, which generate charge by their rotation/vibration, exchange of charge is what formed atoms, which have a larger mass and therefore a higher gravitational attraction, which pulls more particles into itself and eventually forms molecules, and so on..


You can't draw a good analogy between aural resonance and any concept from quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics, there is no conducting medium (quantum theorists deny the existence of a conductive etheric medium) like air conducts sound.


this makes no sense my friend.. aural resonance is the vibration of particles detectable by our ears or equipment.. quantum mechanics of course accepts the existence of a medium, it is referred to as the "quantum field", or more recently, "the higgs field"..


Also, quantum theory is based on "spinning particles" whereas sound resonances occur via vibrational motion at the source. (Actually, I think quantum mechanics should be discarded along with general relativity, "up with ether theory").


sound is scientifically described as spinning/vibrating particles.. sound is the conversion or transference of audibly detectable vibration through a medium of particles.. in the "vacuum" of space, the particles/atoms are so far apart that the detectable vibration of sound can't be transferred between them, other vibrational/gravitational and electromagnetic modes do however interact..

if you think we should throw out relativity and quantum mechanics, you'll have to stop using their defining terms as a reference for your argument.. also, without either, we have basically nothing left to study, we'd have to start all over again from the top, and that makes no sense, since what we know is proven!. i mean seriously, if what we know is wrong, how has it worked so well for so long?

the eras of the universe, from the time of the big bang, are as follows;

- planck era (all four known forces are unified) : 10^-43 seconds after the big bang

- g.u.t (grand unified theory) era (gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct) : 10^-43 to 10^-38 seconds after b.b.

- electroweak era (the nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct) : 10^-38 to 10^-10 seconds after b.b.

- particle era (particles begin to form) : 0.001 seconds (1 millisecond) after b.b.

- era of nucleosynthesis (nuclear fusion creates helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements) : 3 minutes to 500,000 years after b.b.

- era of nuclei (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei) : 500,000 years after b.b. (note: when we look out into the universe, we can never see back in time beyond 500,000 years, which is the time of last scattering of photons.. earlier than this, we can only see the hot surface of the universe..)

- era of atoms (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born) : 500,000 - 1billion years after b.b

- era of galaxies (galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present) : 1 billion years after b.b. to present
edit on 22-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by ImaFungi
 

I keep seeing you mention fields, so I ask to determine what you think a "field" really is. Do you think gravity is something different than energy/motion of matter?


second this question! although gravity is not a "different energy/motion of matter", it is a force unto itself, which governs all matter..


Do you think space exists where matter does not? Why believe space is more than the area matter consumes?(matter creates space - it doesn't exist in space)


agreed, it was space/ether that created matter.. in a sense, it is (currently) an unmeasurable form of matter.. one theory is that black holes stretch "space condensed into matter" into an "infinite singularity" of totally uncompressed space, emitting "clean, uncompressed" space back into the universe around it, which is immediately recycled into matter again..


And the Einstein equation is pretty funny if I may say so. He basically defines energy as being energy by way of saying mass(which is just an effect of energy - without certain energy you have no mass) times the squared speed of light(speed of light is controlled by the amount of energy in the photon/matter). Basically he defined energy with energy. It's almost illogical.


well, not quite.. he defined the energy of a body of mass as that body's mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.. he didn't define energy, just a formula for working out the energy of a known entity..
edit on 22-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


It seems like you've memorized a bunch of other people's terms for various motions/forms but you are unable to see that they do not fit together properly. You should write out a glossary of physics terms and make a flow chart from them.

Start with matter.

Your definition will probably be something with mass + volume; but what is something? aether? Is aether not matter?

Gravity, as another example, should be closer to gravitons(a particular motion/resonance of matter), but you think it's something like a universal force (of what aether?) And what is aether and how does it have a universal force? With energy/motion of matter or more aether because you better not call it energy?

Does your aether not = the common vernacular for energy and you're just being stubborn about it?

In short, you are being pesky by playing semantics but your own terms do not fit together logically.

p.s. aether is the information of energy as read by matter.
:gab gab:



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


It seems like you've memorized a bunch of other people's terms for various motions/forms but you are unable to see that they do not fit together properly. You should write out a glossary of physics terms and make a flow chart from them.


i memorised what i learnt in high school and university, but those ideas do not belong to anyone, they are self evident scientific facts that anyone could discover if they took the time to observe the world around them..


Start with matter.

Your definition will probably be something with mass + volume; but what is something? aether? Is aether not matter?


well... no.. matter is mass.. volume is a measurement of density.. aether is i suppose you could say without getting technical; uncompressed matter..


Gravity, as another example, should be closer to gravitons(a particular motion/resonance of matter), but you think it's something like a universal force (of what aether?) And what is aether and how does it have a universal force? With energy/motion of matter or more aether because you better not call it energy?


gravitons are hypothetical particles, which may or may not govern gravitation.. whether they exist or not, gravity is still a universal force which interacts with all matter, even that which has as low a density as aether/space.. what created the original gravity waves that started the formation of matter is, to the best of our knowledge, the big bang.. the b.b. released a superdense volume of plasma, and the force of this creation sent gravity waves rippling through it, causing the first particles to be formed out of the plasma, which then developed charge.. there really is no such thing as empty space, only differing densities of space itself..

i already said you can call it whatever you want, just be mindful of what your terms mean in a scientific context..


Does your aether not = the common vernacular for energy and you're just being stubborn about it?

In short, you are being pesky by playing semantics but your own terms do not fit together logically.

p.s. aether is the information of energy as read by matter.
:gab gab:


aether does not equal energy.. force drives energy to be converted between particles, aether is the substance of particles but it is separate from both energy and particles.. just as waves are made of ocean but it's the tidal energy of the ocean that creates them, so the ocean and its waves and the tidal force could be considered separate, so it is with aether and matter and energy..

i'm not being stubborn at all, just trying to clarify and give an understanding of the terms you people are throwing around.. i believe i am qualified, having a degree in physics, and having lectured regularly on such principles..
edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 



just as waves are made of ocean but it's the tidal energy of the ocean that creates them, so the ocean and its waves and the tidal force could be considered separate, so it is with aether and matter and energy..


Waves are ocean water with abundant energy. If you separate the abundant energy from the wave it goes back to becoming ocean. This is the sentiment I mentioned earlier, and then imafungi echoed directly afterwards... you lose the form if you remove the energy. Thus energy is apart of the form.

At the fundamental level, you cannot remove energy and keep the form of aether or whatever you want to call it - thus we call it energy, Word, strings - yet you cling to aether.

Credentials are meaningless if you do not understand what you have memorized. For example, your denial of energy's subjectivity versus this explanation of energy. You say you teach physics, and that guy does as well, yet both of you have a difference of opinion; and for the record I side with him, yet his credentials aren't the reason, I side with him - it's his understanding I side with.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tachyonmind
 



just as waves are made of ocean but it's the tidal energy of the ocean that creates them, so the ocean and its waves and the tidal force could be considered separate, so it is with aether and matter and energy..


Waves are ocean water with abundant energy. If you separate the abundant energy from the wave it goes back to becoming ocean. This is the sentiment I mentioned earlier, and then imafungi echoed directly afterwards... you lose the form if you remove the energy. Thus energy is a part of the form.


yes.


At the fundamental level, you cannot remove energy and keep the form of aether or whatever you want to call it - thus we call it energy, Word, strings - yet you cling to aether.


my point was that you are not defining your terms correctly, that's all.. reading from a scientific perspective, calling it energy is needlessly confusing and inappropriate.. this is how things like e.u. theory come about.. someone says, "oh, all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration", and start forming ideas and models of the universe which are far removed from what science has actually discovered.. i don't really have a personal preference, but aether does the job just as well as energy, without the terminological confusion.


Credentials are meaningless if you do not understand what you have memorized. For example, your denial of energy's subjectivity versus this explanation of energy. You say you teach physics, and that guy does as well, yet both of you have a difference of opinion; and for the record I side with him, yet his credentials aren't the reason, I side with him - it's his understanding I side with.


??
i actually said that science is not subjective, not energy..
but even if i did, such a denial of energy's subjectivity doesn't disagree with the linked explanation at all.. this link makes no claim to subjective energy and describes energy as it is understood by current standards..
edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


Don't yes me. That was not your sentiment, that was ours. It's the reason we started on this debate. Go back and reread everything we have said so far. You were saying energy is strictly one thing and must be thought of as removed from aether/condensed aether and now you want to change your song. The energy/motion of matter/resonance of matter creates the form and is not to be separated without destroying the form.

And that is just the first problem with everything you're saying - never mind all the other stuff you've said that doesn't fit together logically. Go make that flow chart - it will really help you see what I see.

More, do you know what abstract means? It means it's subjective...Should I have kept googling until I found a physicist who literally said subjective instead of expressly saying it byway of abstract? Would you even understand then? Are you just trolling? I can't tell - seriously.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


Don't yes me. That was not your sentiment, that was ours. It's the reason we started on this debate. Go back and reread everything we have said so far. You were saying energy is strictly one thing and must be thought of as removed from aether/condensed aether and now you want to change your song. The energy/motion of matter/resonance of matter creates the form and is not to be separated without destroying the form.


what? i'm not allowed to agree with you?

energy, according to definition, is a property of aether/matter, a measurement of one particular aspect of it.. it does not constitute its entire being or character.. therefore it is separate in the sense of the ocean/tidal current metaphor..


And that is just the first problem with everything you're saying - never mind all the other stuff you've said that doesn't fit together logically. Go make that flow chart - it will really help you see what I see.


k..


More, do you know what abstract means? It means it's subjective...Should I have kept googling until I found a physicist who literally said subjective instead of expressly saying it byway of abstract? Would you even understand then? Are you just trolling? I can't tell - seriously.


??

ab·stract /abˈstrakt/

Adjective
Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

Verb
Consider (something) theoretically or separately from something else.


Noun
A summary or statement of the contents of a book, article, or formal speech.


being abstract does not make it subjective. subjectivity does not mean abstract.. there is no way they mean the same thing, unless you have written your own subjective dictionary..


sub·jec·tive /səbˈjektiv/

Adjective
Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Noun
The subjective case.

edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 
Since the critique of my Post saying quantum mechanics and General Realtivity should be discarded argued by referring to standard theory from quantum mechanics itself, it might be pointless to debate. -My departure from standard theory ("Big Bang," Higgs field, spin forces, etc.) starts with first cause, which differs from the Big Bang idea. Initially space self-compatibly oscillated and this led to vibrational elemental etheric units (vibrational etheric units as derived from oscillational space). Energic resonance is mediated by these first causal elemental etheric energic units, which makes for a uniform, orderly, pattern of resonance for the universe (since all resonance ultimately involves the same elemental ether units. -I can address various theoretic implications but I just wanted to clarify where my previous Post was coming from.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


They both mean that a thing is not bound to a single objective definition, as said thing holds multiple definitions/meanings. Theretofore, science is based on a subjective thought, and not an objective thought. That was the joke I made - the point of the joke was that because it is subjective, we can freely define energy however we please, as its vernacular is not objective, even within mainstream science.

Why are you so fixated on energy not being the motion of matter/aether which gives it form - the very essence of form? At the most fundamental level and the most complex level, where there is form/matter/aether there is energy. How can you separate them without destroying the matter/form/aether? If energy cannot be destroyed or created but matter/form can, then isn't it better to say that energy is the root?

- just trying to get you to think.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


They both mean that a thing is not bound to a single objective definition, as said thing holds multiple definitions/meanings. Theretofore, science is based on a subjective thought, and not an objective thought. That was the joke I made - the point of the joke was that because it is subjective, we can freely define energy however we please, as its vernacular is not objective, even within mainstream science.


neither of them mean that at all.. i gave you the definitions of both in the last post.. it sounds like you mean "polysemy", still that wouldn't make it subjective..

energy has one definition, and different forms.. science is based on objective fact.. there is nothing subjective about it.. you cannot "freely define energy however you please", if you are going to remain scientifically critical..

pseudoscience on the other hand is completely subjective..


Why are you so fixated on energy not being the motion of matter/aether which gives it form - the very essence of form? At the most fundamental level and the most complex level, where there is form/matter/aether there is energy. How can you separate them without destroying the matter/form/aether? If energy cannot be destroyed or created but matter/form can, then isn't it better to say that energy is the root?


i'm fixated on energy not being the motion of matter/aether which gives it form because that is not the scientific definition of what energy is... i can add energy to a tennis ball by loading it in a slingshot and pulling it back, but does this change the form?

at the most fundamental level, no energy interaction is detectable at all, nor matter, but something still exists.. where there is form/matter/aether there is energy, yes, but to measure it you have to separate/isolate/abstract it from the mass you are studying.. energy cannot be destroyed nor created, only converted, yes, but it is not the root of all mater, more it is part of the behaviour of matter..


- just trying to get you to think.


likewise =)
edit on 23-8-2013 by tachyonmind because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by michaelanteski
reply to post by tachyonmind
 
Since the critique of my Post saying quantum mechanics and General Realtivity should be discarded argued by referring to standard theory from quantum mechanics itself, it might be pointless to debate. -My departure from standard theory ("Big Bang," Higgs field, spin forces, etc.) starts with first cause, which differs from the Big Bang idea. Initially space self-compatibly oscillated and this led to vibrational elemental etheric units (vibrational etheric units as derived from oscillational space). Energic resonance is mediated by these first causal elemental etheric energic units, which makes for a uniform, orderly, pattern of resonance for the universe (since all resonance ultimately involves the same elemental ether units. -I can address various theoretic implications but I just wanted to clarify where my previous Post was coming from.


why the departure? where does the current model fail?



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tachyonmind
 


Had you taken the first two definitions, from most sites, for each of the terms, you would better see their related meanings. I saw you had picked from the most differed definitions of the terms but didn't care to mention your deliberate misconstruing because I knew you knew what you had done.

The tennis ball would indeed change forms if the right energy was applied. If an energy was too chaotic for the ball's resonance, the ball would lose its form.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join