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.

 

Exposing the Myths of Settled Science

page: 17
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


No light is not a particle as a baseball, basketball,rock,bowling ball, billiard ball, tennis ball, marble is a classical particle. It is not even close. It is a wave. If you look on wiki (I know...I know) it shows the accepted portrayal of light as an electric wave, which creates a magnetic wave, which creates an electric wave, which creates a magnetic wave, which creates an electric wave.... And this is how it is propelled through space. Light is always a wave, its just that usually radiation or light comes into existence or is experienced as 940396985943 waves a second. So the 'packet of waves' that is called a particle, is really just for convenience, a particle refers to 1 wave.

Never mind about the other question, my understanding of the accepted envisionment of em radiation being Electric and Magnetic field self propagating itself is lacking.
edit on 17-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


And so light slowing down when hitting a material, is it not weird how its wave is not disturbed? Like radio waves can travel through walls and air and such? Does this mean that the wave of information, (from a radio station) interacts with kijillions of electrons but maintains the same wave form?
edit on 17-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


No light is a particle this particle has 0 mass its called a photon. Now if i take an electron i can get the same exact behavior where it can act as a wave or a particle. We call this wave-particle duality, and is a fundamental tenet of the theory of quantum mechanics. Now a particle can be a wave at the same time there is no difference between the two.In fact a quantum non locality experiment showed light to be a particle and a wave simultaneously. Meaning we cant have a theory that treats light as just a propagation of a wave form. Also means we cant have a theory that treats light solely as a particle travelling though space its not. So in short we know alot about what particles do just not why?

I had to come back in here and edit this because i found what i was looking for you said light cant be used to create an object. Well thats no longer true we can bind light together to form well mass really.





Researchers have managed to coax photons into binding together to form molecules - a state of matter that, until recently, had been purely theoretical.



Im quoting this part to show you what happens when light travels through a medium.


As the photons enter the cloud of cold atoms, Lukin said, its energy excites atoms along its path, causing the photon to slow dramatically.

As the photon moves through the cloud, that energy is handed off from atom to atom, and eventually exits the cloud with the photon, researchers said.


www.ndtv.com...
edit on 10/17/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Oh, How much money did Hollywood and Wall street funnel into 1930's socialist Germany??

 


Yeah Go really hard on the kid.

You can tell the kid is trying to prove his self the whole time at Teen Ted Talk to people like you.

A kid with an Idea.... A dangerous combination!!

We are in a "Myths of settled Science" thread, because Nothing is settled!!


Socrates
I know one thing: that I know nothing

or

I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing.

or

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.




Dust, Wind, Dude - Bill & Teds Excellent adeventure, meeting socrates.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EwaFkPMdlY
www.youtube.com...


edit on 17-10-2013 by AbleEndangered because: additions



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AbleEndangered
 


Nothing in science is ever settled you get people that believe they know the answer i learned along time ago you have to go where the wind takes you. This was in honor of Bill and Ted pun intended. Any way there is all ways some new discovery that throws something out and gets replaced thats the magic of science. Like i just posted an article had you asked me if we could build a light saber like on star wars id have said no and explained why. Well thats changed now conceivably we could make one using the proper medium though my question would be what effects would it have.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

AbleEndangered

Yeah Go really hard on the kid.

You can tell the kid is trying to prove his self the whole time at Teen Ted Talk to people like you.

A kid with an Idea.... A dangerous combination!!


No, it's the risks a kid with wrong ideas who is convincing, thanks to his charisma, other people who don't know any better.

Fortunately now he is actually going to university to be educated and channel his ambition productively.



We are in a "Myths of settled Science" thread, because Nothing is settled!!


No, Not Everything is settled.


edit on 17-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


No light is not a particle under the definition of particle I am using. I dont want this to be a battle of semantics. If you define a particle as; Particle - A wave. Then yes, you are right. But if the deffiniton of particle is; Particle - that which is not a wave. Then that definition is true, and your claim is false.

A wave of water is not a particle, though it is composed of many particles? Though the particles it is composed of are not really particles, they are waves?

The em field works like water waves works, except the orders of magnitude of size and speed and mobility and nature are just of such smaller and subtler and foreign degrees, it seems completely different, and it is completely different, but more similar and comparable then most other things.

If every time you touched your finger into a still pool of water and ripples shot out from the point of finger contact at the speed of light, and there was a slit in one direction at some distance away from your finger, the ripple that shot away from your finger at the speed of light would be broken as it enters the slit, and that wave function would change dramatically if you can imagine, and it would be an exact discrete value of energy that would be in some proportion to the total energy that went into your finger touching the water (and idk what else, maybe some recoil affect from hitting the slit or resistance), anyway, that is a particle. But its not! its purely semantics, it is always a wave, it is always energy rippling and waving, but in order to quantize waves, it helps people like you to imagine them as balls of varying incremental quantity.

If I send a radio signal to a radio, and it involves vibrating an electron at a certain frequency, which translates by way of programing to retrievable information, imagine the wave form something like;

Electron 0 vibrated....Now! (crest of wave)Uppp Downnn Uppp Downnn Up Downnn up down upp downnn

I just tried to express a not stable wave pattern, but something containing information so its jolty, its not an even up down up down up down up down with the same frequency.

Any way say I want to send a radio message for the least possible amount of time as physically possible in the universe. That is a particle, but really its a wave, because there are no such things as particles at that level, which is the argument im trying to make. When you listen to a song on the radio that song consists of quintillion particles of EM information, but really it is quintillions of continuous and potentially discontinuous waves.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

pauldude000
reply to post by peter vlar
 





Astrophysicists hypothesized dark matter due to discrepancies between the mass of large astronomical objects determined from their gravitational effects and the mass calculated from the "luminous matter" they contain: stars, gas, and dust.


And that does not give you the clue that science is flawed? The initial problem stems from the fact that the calculations did not match the current theory. Instead of logical examination of the theory according to is legitimacy or accuracy, the scientists in question instead hypothesize something akin to "it's magic".


You see it as flawed science whereas I see it as scientists doing what they do best, rechecking data and trying to understand why things aren't working. It really is a matter of semantics when you get to the crux of your point. You claim the theory is flawed so scientists did what was necessary to make the data work where I see it as juducious application of critical thinking, seeing why something didn't work and adjusting for it by retesting to see why they were off. Science is only as flawed as the humans interpreting the data.


Like it or not, theory has become sacrosanct in science. Instead of theory following its definition of being the best available explanation, many theories have taken the logical position of physical law in the minds of said scientists... IE it is proven to be true under specific conditions. Science is slowly turning back to it's roots; basically it is reverting back into a religion.


No, you're just wrong on that assumption. In science a theory is something that can be independently verified via peer review process or independent testing and reproduction of results. What is stated but never heard by those who don't want to hear is that current theories are the sum of the best information we currently have. this is why theories occasionally change and sometimes are retired as new discoveries are made or new data is produced. While there are certainly some closed minded dogmatists in various scientific disciplines, it is the exception not the rule. Believe it or not, most scientists would love to be "the one" to alter our current paradigms and turn the world on its ears with a mind blowing new discovery or hypothesis. Unfortunately for the doubters, science only deals in what it can prove and support when it comes to "Theory". there are plenty of people in labs hypothesizing any number of things, you just don't hear about it because there currently isn't hard evidence to support said hypothesis. When there is real evidence to support fringe hypothesis you can bet it'll be front page material. There's a fine line between science and dreams its up to the individual to find where it is.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


Its not really semantics a particle is the base form of light. Then these photons create waves all a wave is energy being transferred from one point to another. Now if your talking about transfer of energy yes thats a wave but thats not what creates light. I see your point but you quickly tried to correct me when i said light is a particle no different from an electron. The only aspect that makes them different is they have no mass therefore very little interaction with other particles unless we force them to.Now if we want to discuss wave packets and the transfer of energy that was not what i was explaining at the time but we can talk about how that works.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by peter vlar
 


Had to star your post that i have to say was an excellent run down of the scientific process. I wont tell you how many times i thought a theory to be correct new information showed it to be false and you have to adjust to current observations. As i said just happened to me about two weeks ago when i read that article on light. I all ways assumed theoretically it was possible to make light act as a solid particle but i didnt think it was possible for us to do. Well know i know otherwise now i can say light acts exactly like any other particle and i so what a light saber.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   

peter vlar

pauldude000
reply to post by peter vlar
 





Believe it or not, most scientists would love to be "the one" to alter our current paradigms and turn the world on its ears with a mind blowing new discovery or hypothesis. Unfortunately for the doubters, science only deals in what it can prove and support when it comes to "Theory". there are plenty of people in labs hypothesizing any number of things, you just don't hear about it because there currently isn't hard evidence to support said hypothesis. When there is real evidence to support fringe hypothesis you can bet it'll be front page material. There's a fine line between science and dreams its up to the individual to find where it is.


Could be, but some dogmas that have taken firm hold on science,
for whatever reason or for whosoevers agenda,cannot be shaken
anytime soon, if at all



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

peter vlar
Believe it or not, most scientists would love to be "the one" to alter our current paradigms and turn the world on its ears with a mind blowing new discovery or hypothesis. Unfortunately for the doubters, science only deals in what it can prove and support when it comes to "Theory". there are plenty of people in labs hypothesizing any number of things, you just don't hear about it because there currently isn't hard evidence to support said hypothesis. When there is real evidence to support fringe hypothesis you can bet it'll be front page material. There's a fine line between science and dreams its up to the individual to find where it is.


That may well be, but some dogmas that, have taken firm hold of science,
for whatever reason or for whosoevers agenda, may not be shaken anytime soon,
if at all.

Cheers



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection

peter vlar
Believe it or not, most scientists would love to be "the one" to alter our current paradigms and turn the world on its ears with a mind blowing new discovery or hypothesis. Unfortunately for the doubters, science only deals in what it can prove and support when it comes to "Theory". there are plenty of people in labs hypothesizing any number of things, you just don't hear about it because there currently isn't hard evidence to support said hypothesis. When there is real evidence to support fringe hypothesis you can bet it'll be front page material. There's a fine line between science and dreams its up to the individual to find where it is.


That may well be, but some dogmas that, have taken firm hold of science,
for whatever reason or for whosoevers agenda, may not be shaken anytime soon,
if at all.

Cheers


Not true in fact exactly the opposite do you remember the flap that was created when it was thought neutrinos traveled faster then the speed of light. Physicists were all over the news explaining to the public how this would throw out relativity and and rewrite science books as we know it. Scientists were skeptical of the results granted but as i said they were well aware of the consequences of the observation. Now if science was ready to throw out relativity the backbone of physics what ideas do you think there holding on to that contradicts observations?

The problem is when people cant come up with proof for there ideas they immediately assume science is biased because it doesnt agree with them.But science isnt a debate or popularity contest you need to prove your theory. I can say wild and crazy things like the sun is a portal to another dimension or time is an allusion but i need to prove it.
edit on 10/17/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Angelic Resurrection

peter vlar
Believe it or not, most scientists would love to be "the one" to alter our current paradigms and turn the world on its ears with a mind blowing new discovery or hypothesis. Unfortunately for the doubters, science only deals in what it can prove and support when it comes to "Theory". there are plenty of people in labs hypothesizing any number of things, you just don't hear about it because there currently isn't hard evidence to support said hypothesis. When there is real evidence to support fringe hypothesis you can bet it'll be front page material. There's a fine line between science and dreams its up to the individual to find where it is.


That may well be, but some dogmas that, have taken firm hold of science,
for whatever reason or for whosoevers agenda, may not be shaken anytime soon,
if at all.

Cheers


Could you give me some examples of the perceived dogmas? I stand by my statement. I've never studied under anyone who wasn't like a wide eyed child on Christmas morning when talking about human evolution, for example cohabitation of anatomically modern humans and Neanderthal in the Levantine valley. Believe it or not, half the fun of science is being wrong because knowing the wrong answer can often open up new doors to correct answers. More often than not, hypothesis go through many revisions before you accumulate enough correct answers to get to the peer review process and publish your results. Sure, there are times when arrogance can creep in when having to continuously defend a position that is clearly evident but that's more human nature than poor science. As I said in my earlier post, the largest flaw in scientific data is in human interpretation. this is even moreso when a prevailing theory hits a mainstream publication like Discover and has to be put into simplified terms for the average reader to grasp. This leads to errors in interpretation by a multitude of individuals who really aren't qualified to be interpreting the readers digest version of the data if they've never read the source material let alone the abstract.



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Thank you. I'm patiently awaiting access to a lightsaber myself. My kids would think I'm the coolest dad ever if I brought that out at Christmas dinner haha



posted on Oct, 17 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

peter vlar
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Thank you. I'm patiently awaiting access to a lightsaber myself. My kids would think I'm the coolest dad ever if I brought that out at Christmas dinner haha


Just imagine Thankgiving ah the possibilities and for parties be much cooler hitting a pinata with a light saber.And hopefully they can package one of those cool blindfolds Luke used.
In total seriousness though isnt it funny how science fiction becomes science fact. Like Dick Tracys watch well currently on sale through aple only alot more features.
edit on 10/17/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 



My argument is that photons are not particles, but waves. A wave packet is not a particle. If I have a swimming pool and a shovel and move the shovel up and down and then stop I just created a localized wave packet, it is not a particle. When an electron creates a photon, it is creating a localized wave packet, this is not a particle. The reason many photons, or wave packets make up larger collections of waves, is because when these groupings of photons and subsequent wave of light is created it is usually created from billions of electrons.

I guess the way I understand the EM field, I didnt think it was composed of particles, like layer of sand on the beach or ocean of water. I didnt think the EM field had separate parts, and if it does, what is the substance that is connecting the parts? Are you saying right now there is a finite number of photon particles which are tied together creating the EM field, like there is a finite number of particles of sand touching one another making a beach? This is the crux of our arguement, is the fundamental structure and construction of the universe solid whole, individual particles of matter, or are the fields which I admittedly no little about composed of no solid particles, but one whole connected weird and foreign and dynamic substance which is somehow coupled to certain state of fundamental charged particle. And is that particle the electron, does that have a field that is composed of solid individual particles, or is it more like a singular dynamic substance?


edit on 18-10-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   

ImaFungi
My argument is that photons are not particles, but waves. A wave packet is not a particle. If I have a swimming pool and a shovel and move the shovel up and down and then stop I just created a localized wave packet, it is not a particle.
It's not what we might typically think of as a "particle" in layman's terms, I agree.

But remember physicists have specific meanings for the words they use. You can push against a train to try to move it until you are sweating profusely and every muscle in your body is aching, but a physicist will tell you that you did no work. A layperson thinks if they are sweating that hard they must have done some work, and no doubt the muscles exerted a lot of effort.

The very fact you are calling it a "wave packet" admits it is a "particle" the way physicists use the term, because the "packet" part of that term is what physicists say makes it a particle. And if you could quantize a specific amount of wave energy going into a swimming pool, I guess you could call that a packet of energy too, but I doubt you could quantize it precisely enough.

It may surprise you to know I understand your viewpoint...as I had similar questions, and I think resolved them by learning what physicists mean when they say "particle" which isn't really what I thought.

If you want to ignore the physicists definitions, you could also say you feel like you did some "work" after you were sweating and breathing heavy from pushing on the train. But if the train didn't move, you're not communicating with physicists if you say that.



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I now understand the way in which they use that term, but the problem is when it is said light behaves as a particle and a wave. Because then they are making a distinction between all wave like things, and all particle like things. If in their terms and understanding a light particle is a wave, then where is its particleness (particleness as compared to other particles)? Like you know the heart monitors in hospitals that have frequency of heart beat, and there is usually space between each beat, each beat would be able to be quantized as a particle, a singular beat, but that singular beat is really composed of a frequency, a wave (what a while ago in our conversations I thought a very keen analogy was with music, the idea music is written in particles, notes, which are discrete whole values, though are composed of frequency, vibration). This discussion and query I believe has to do with with the nature and composition of things in and of themselves, and the time rates at which things move, transfer energy, collide and interact, and the fact that we dont know when and how this began, the movement and wavement and particleness, and we dont truly know the underlying most fundamental structure and aspect of reality.

So to make 1 single wave in a field or substance, a mass must move up and down once right? What if a mass was still, and then just moved up a little bit, or would it eventually coming to a stop produce the other movement to create the continuum up down of a wave?

Could it be that the nature of the EM field is so 'quick...speed of light' because it is very densely compressed? Which potentially would imply some outer barrier of the universe which keeps it so densely compressed? And perhaps this dense compressed EM field also plays a role in giving matter mass, maybe it is the higgs field?



posted on Oct, 18 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

ImaFungi
we dont truly know the underlying most fundamental structure and aspect of reality.
Right. So if someone could say they really know it (without being a crackpot) they would have a Nobel prize, and obviously nobody has that Nobel prize yet.


So to make 1 single wave in a field or substance, a mass must move up and down once right? What if a mass was still, and then just moved up a little bit, or would it eventually coming to a stop produce the other movement to create the continuum up down of a wave?

We were just talking about photons, but now you're talking about classical behavior, which doesn't fit very well with photons. Numerous people have tried to explain quantum behavior classically, and all have failed.

Could it be that the nature of the EM field is so 'quick...speed of light' because it is very densely compressed? Which potentially would imply some outer barrier of the universe which keeps it so densely compressed? And perhaps this dense compressed EM field also plays a role in giving matter mass, maybe it is the higgs field?
Quick is a relative term. The fact we have to wait 13 billion years to see some photons might make it seem kind of slow. Or if the nearest inhabited solar system is 150 light years away, that's a tiny distance by cosmological standards, but the fact that going the speed of light or just under means you can't get there in a lifetime means it doesn't seem so fast in that case.

I never heard of the EM field giving matter mass before, nor have I seen any evidence for this. As with any idea, the burden of proof would be with the claimant to prove the claim true.

If the universe has an end (is not infinite) then it's beyond the observable universe, meaning we can't really know about it. So all you can do is speculate...is there and end to space time as we know it, at an "edge" of the universe and if so what is past that end? Another universe/different space/time bubble? A void of nothingness with no space-time as we know it? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? How many leprechauns guard the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? These are all questions that no matter how many times you ask them, you will never know the answer.

Isn't it better to ponder more important questions we can hope to know the answer to, like for example, what is the other ~95% of the universe made of, besides the ~5% baryonic matter we know about?



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by dragonridr
 


No light is not a particle under the definition of particle I am using. I dont want this to be a battle of semantics. If you define a particle as; Particle - A wave. Then yes, you are right. But if the deffiniton of particle is; Particle - that which is not a wave. Then that definition is true, and your claim is false.


If you actually go by quantum mechanics, which is how the physics actually works it has a clear and non-contradictory meaning. The 'particle basis' and 'wave-like' bases are different coordinate systems for quantum field theory of E&M (quantum optics). In the particle basis you are in an eigenstate of particle number so you can count them, that's particles/photons. In a wave-like basis you aren't in such an eigenstate.

It's just regular QM, you know you can represent the same state in different coordinate systems.

This is the core of Heisenberg + Bohr's matrix mechanics breakthrough.




Any way say I want to send a radio message for the least possible amount of time as physically possible in the universe. That is a particle, but really its a wave, because there are no such things as particles at that level, which is the argument im trying to make. When you listen to a song on the radio that song consists of quintillion particles of EM information, but really it is quintillions of continuous and potentially discontinuous waves.


E&M is for most purposes very 'wavelike' because of the longer wavelengths and the fact that there is no conservation law for photons, unlike say electrons and protons which in nearly all practical circumstances (i.e. chemistry) stay as units and aren't created or destroyed.

Down deep in the QM, everything is a quantum mechanical 'thing' which can be represented in wave-like or particle-like bases.
edit on 19-10-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2013 @ 12:30 AM
link   

ImaFungi
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I now understand the way in which they use that term, but the problem is when it is said light behaves as a particle and a wave. Because then they are making a distinction between all wave like things, and all particle like things. If in their terms and understanding a light particle is a wave, then where is its particleness (particleness as compared to other particles)? Like you know the heart monitors in hospitals that have frequency of heart beat, and there is usually space between each beat, each beat would be able to be quantized as a particle, a singular beat, but that singular beat is really composed of a frequency, a wave (what a while ago in our conversations I thought a very keen analogy was with music, the idea music is written in particles, notes, which are discrete whole values, though are composed of frequency, vibration). This discussion and query I believe has to do with with the nature and composition of things in and of themselves, and the time rates at which things move, transfer energy, collide and interact, and the fact that we dont know when and how this began, the movement and wavement and particleness, and we dont truly know the underlying most fundamental structure and aspect of reality.

So to make 1 single wave in a field or substance, a mass must move up and down once right? What if a mass was still, and then just moved up a little bit, or would it eventually coming to a stop produce the other movement to create the continuum up down of a wave?

Could it be that the nature of the EM field is so 'quick...speed of light' because it is very densely compressed? Which potentially would imply some outer barrier of the universe which keeps it so densely compressed? And perhaps this dense compressed EM field also plays a role in giving matter mass, maybe it is the higgs field?


Ok i think i see what your having a problem with lets try a completely different approach. In physics everything breaks down to the transfer of information. Information itself is the thing that controls the universe. Energy is transferred or changed to an em field for example but bottom line its information. So you can say information can never be created or destroyed. Now when we break it down this way information can cause waves or particle interactions depending on what we are trying to influence.If were trying to influence gravity we need particles. If we are trying to influence light we need energy but there both still just information.

This is why Steven Hawkins first argued that Black holes destroy information physicists spent 10 years trying to prove he was wrong. Because information is energy and as we know conservation of energy doesnt allow this.Eventually it was shown a blackhole doesnt destroy information its merely inaccessible to us. Its merely cut off from are universe for a time. Well the reason i mention this is at the edge of our universe the same thing happens there is an event horizon very similar to a black hole information cant cross it. This is often referred to as visible universe. Eventually space is expanding so much that light cannot reach us in fact eventually thats whats going to happen to our universe it will just go dark.

Ok we have background now to explain a possible theory of the universe As we know inflation is pushing everything apart in some parts of the universe its stopped.The end of inflation is triggered by quantum, probabilistic processes and does not occur everywhere at once.Are local area it was 13.7 billion years ago however even in distant parts of our universe still continues today. This creates tiny bubbles which again expands in to a universe. Now the reason they become separate universes is information cant be exchanged between them because space is being created to quickly for even light .The term for this is eternal inflation and this process can go on forever.So theres all ways being new universes created they all have there own big bang and all seem very much like ours. Now the reason i explained this is 2 points you seem to be wondering about inflation and why universes were moving apart. And Once you look at the universe as information it can be less confusing. When physicist says energy or particle or wave there just talking about different ways to transfer information. Thats why in certain circumstances they are interchangeable the math doesnt care.
edit on 10/19/13 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join