Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

page: 45
55
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 10 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
You're talking about this theory that says everything pretty much cancels out on average in a vacuum?

en.wikipedia.org...

according to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

The theory considers vacuum to implicitly have the same properties as a particle, such as spin or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. According to the theory, most of these properties cancel out on average leaving the vacuum empty in the literal sense of the word.
I don't know how you expect to measure any electromagnetic fields inside the Faraday room even according to that theory, unless they are nearly static, like the nearly static magnetic field of the Earth.




posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
You're talking about this theory that says everything pretty much cancels out on average in a vacuum?

en.wikipedia.org...

according to the theory, even the vacuum has a vastly complex structure and all calculations of quantum field theory must be made in relation to this model of the vacuum.

The theory considers vacuum to implicitly have the same properties as a particle, such as spin or polarization in the case of light, energy, and so on. According to the theory, most of these properties cancel out on average leaving the vacuum empty in the literal sense of the word.
I don't know how you expect to measure any electromagnetic fields inside the Faraday room even according to that theory, unless they are nearly static, like the nearly static magnetic field of the Earth.


It doesnt matter about measuring! What matters is if they exist or not. If there is in fact, in truth, in and of reality, field component there. If there is, my line of questioning has been one of wondering, how might they exist there.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ImaFungi
Measuring always matters in science, and since that theory's prediction of vacuum energy disagrees with observation by 107 orders of magnitude, you might want to worry about resolving that not so little discrepancy before imagining EM fields you can't measure.
edit on 10-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

It doesnt matter about measuring! What matters is if they exist or not. If there is in fact, in truth, in and of reality, field component there. If there is, my line of questioning has been one of wondering, how might they exist there.



When you talk about 'existing' you are presupposing some interpretation of very tricky and unexamined philosophical constructions on your part.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
Measuring always matters in science, and since that theory's prediction of vacuum energy disagrees with observation by 107 orders of magnitude, you might want to worry about resolving that not so little discrepancy before imagining EM fields you can't measure.


So you are claiming.

1) Electrons exist.

2) Accelerated electrons create EM wave.

3) EM wave is self propagating electric and magnetic field.

4) (this is where we get hazy) The electron is 'coupled' to the EM field.

5) (this is me 'educationally guessing the ideas I feel you have been displaying') There is no EM field that exists beyond a certain point past the stationary electron.

6) The electron creates a local electric field. The electron has a magnetic moment, the electron creates a local magnetic field.

regarding 6), I must ask, where is the electric and magnetic field that locally exists in relation to the electron, 'coming from'? What are they made of?

So if we imagine the electron as an area... O ..... surrounded by nothing.

You would imagine the electric and magnetic field, generated by the electrons existence, to be as (in 2d) a circle around that circle. In 3d, some sort of shared sphere around a ~sphere of an electron.

When that electron is accelerated, the surrounding circle or sphere, is also fluctuated.

The fluctuation of which, is 'projected/ejected' forth, emanating away from the electron.

So do you believe, there is an infinite supply of electromagnetic field locally surrounding the electron, that it can just shoot outwards when its accelerated? An electron can be accelerated non stop for a day, and that local electromagnetic field ring just remains as it is, all the while shooting 'itself' outwards?



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

It doesnt matter about measuring! What matters is if they exist or not. If there is in fact, in truth, in and of reality, field component there. If there is, my line of questioning has been one of wondering, how might they exist there.



When you talk about 'existing' you are presupposing some interpretation of very tricky and unexamined philosophical constructions on your part.


Science shouldnt be concerned with things that dont exist in any way at all.

Unless of course. Absolute, pure, absolute, pure, true, real, lacking, naught, 0, true, pure, absolute, real real real real, nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, true nothing, true true, real nothingness, the absence of all, absolute nothingness, exists, and can exist in pockets in the universe, and this real true real pure true absolute nothingness, has real effects on the somethingness that immediately surrounds it. In that case, nothing is still nothing, as nothing is nothing, and nothing is nothing as nothing is nothing. One would just be noting, the affect true nothingness, of varying degrees, has on pieces of something.



posted on May, 10 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
4) (this is where we get hazy) The electron is 'coupled' to the EM field.
As I said before, gamma rays come from the nucleus instead of electrons so I take a broader view of EM radiation.


5) (this is me 'educationally guessing the ideas I feel you have been displaying') There is no EM field that exists beyond a certain point past the stationary electron.
I don't know why you would say that. We can see photons that have been traveling toward us since less than a billion years after the big bang, and as you already mentioned: "3) EM wave is self propagating electric and magnetic field. " So it seems like they keep going "forever" until they interact with something.

Speaking of things traveling long distances, the voyager and pioneer probes have inertia and will probably keep going "forever" until they hit something. They will run into a few hydrogen atoms along the way but I don't expect that will slow them down very much unless they hit a relatively dense patch. They don't need anything to push them along, nor does a photon, which is kind of interesting, but it seems that's how nature works.


6) The electron creates a local electric field. The electron has a magnetic moment, the electron creates a local magnetic field.

regarding 6), I must ask, where is the electric and magnetic field that locally exists in relation to the electron, 'coming from'? What are they made of?
This is why I was shocked when you said "It doesnt matter about measuring!". Everything I think I understand about the universe is based on some kind of measurement, and my understanding of 6 is based on what is measured, especially since for example, electron spin didn't turn out to be like classical spin. I understand classical spin intuitively, but my understanding of electron spin is limited to measurements of it and I don't claim to have an intuitive understanding of the electron magnetic moment, since apparently it's not exactly like classical spin.


So if we imagine the electron as an area... O ..... surrounded by nothing.

You would imagine the electric and magnetic field, generated by the electrons existence, to be as (in 2d) a circle around that circle. In 3d, some sort of shared sphere around a ~sphere of an electron.
inverse square law.


When that electron is accelerated, the surrounding circle or sphere, is also fluctuated.

The fluctuation of which, is 'projected/ejected' forth, emanating away from the electron.

So do you believe, there is an infinite supply of electromagnetic field locally surrounding the electron, that it can just shoot outwards when its accelerated? An electron can be accelerated non stop for a day, and that local electromagnetic field ring just remains as it is, all the while shooting 'itself' outwards?
whether I look at it more classically or more quantumly depends on the frequency. I sort of look at low frequencies like radio waves more classically, somewhat like that but this view doesn't require any "infinite supply of electromagnetic field locally surrounding the electron", all it requires is that the fields generated by the moving electron self-propagate. For higher frequencies, I tend to think less classically, and more in terms of quantum theory, since for example gamma rays appear to come from the quantum effects in the nucleus.

EM Radiation

The quantum nature of light becomes more apparent at high frequencies (thus high photon energy). Such photons behave more like particles than lower-frequency photons do.



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
As I said before, gamma rays come from the nucleus instead of electrons so I take a broader view of EM radiation.


Good for you, I am trying to comprehend vastly fundamental qualities of the greater EM nature, so yes of course, that case would fit into the fundamentality of EM nature, but if it does not progress my understanding of the EM field in this current discourse, bringing that up is nothing but a distraction to my discourse.



I don't know why you would say that. We can see photons that have been traveling toward us since less than a billion years after the big bang, and as you already mentioned: "3) EM wave is self propagating electric and magnetic field. " So it seems like they keep going "forever" until they interact with something.

Speaking of things traveling long distances, the voyager and pioneer probes have inertia and will probably keep going "forever" until they hit something. They will run into a few hydrogen atoms along the way but I don't expect that will slow them down very much unless they hit a relatively dense patch. They don't need anything to push them along, nor does a photon, which is kind of interesting, but it seems that's how nature works.


I think you are displaying cognitive dissonance. I asked very clear and specific questions, and there is one very specific idea I am over and over again pointing at, can we not get on the same page that you even comprehend what I am pointing at and asking for? Are these correct assumptions of your point of view;

You do not believe EM field exists everywhere in space.

You believe EM field only exists (prior to any radiation) very close to the electron.

You believe when the electron is accelerated, the EM field that exists very close to the electron is 'shot out/projected/ejected' from being very close to the electron.

You believe that physical energy field that is shot out from the local area surrounding the electrons continues to travel until absorbed. (I guess thats where light cone comes in, as there are 360 degrees surrounding an electron and radiation is emitted in all of those degrees so radiation acts as a diameter growing circle over time (and space))

If that is accurate, my assumptions of your views, now this is my turn to ask further questions about them, so I can further understand how you see things.

How does the electron produce this local field, is the energy that is the local field, contained in the electron 'at first'? Meaning is the field an intrinsic substance like quality of the electron, that it and only it itself, produces, from itself?

The stationary electron, depending on the answer to that above question, is somehow producing a real value energy field surrounding itself. The value of that energy field can be increased if the relative energy value of the electron is increased, via acceleration, but the local fields gain in energy cant remain there, thus it travels away at the speed of light.

I guess here is where at least one of my conundrums is. The seemingly eternal renewable source of energy field the electron has at its disposal, that it can send its physical energy field away from itself, and still always have its local energy field?

I am willing to suspend all belief and consider that this is the most accurate theory, I dont know why I was under the impression from past discussions, that the consensus was that fields fundamentally pervaded all total space of the universe.

So to adjust my view, is it proper to imagine discrete groupings of substance, energy, and their subsequent local energy fields, existing over/on top of, a pure space of real true pure absolute nothingness?



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
if it does not progress my understanding of the EM field in this current discourse, bringing that up is nothing but a distraction to my discourse.
The problem is, it seems like every time nature presents you with a measurement that disagrees with your expectations, you treat it as a distraction. If you really want to understand EM fields better, you'll never achieve that by ignoring certain aspects of them.


You do not believe EM field exists everywhere in space.
As I said by and large they cannot be measured inside a Faraday room or cage. The purpose of the Faraday room is to block external EM radiation from entering. So what's inside the room? Well if you want to use a crude sound analogy for vacuum field theory, you could say the room is filled with harps, but if you try to measure the sound coming from the harps, there isn't any sound, just like if you try to measure any EM fields inside the room, there aren't any coming from the vacuum fields which have mostly canceled out each other (with few exceptions).

Outside the Faraday room, you could compare the EM fields traveling along to sound waves jumping from harp to harp, sort of like a vibration of the harp strings, except this isn't technically accurate, I'm just trying to dumb it down in a way that might help you to visualize something for which there may be no adequate visual model. If the harps are vibrated, they're making sound. If not, they're just sitting there, waiting to be vibrated if a vibration comes along. So in this analogy I'm saying sound from the harp string vibrating is like the EM field propagating through the quantum vacuum, well not really, it's not a good analogy but I can't think of a better one. There's a ball-bearing on a spring analogy but Feynman pointed out it's not such a great analogy either. I don't think there is an accurate analogy.


You believe EM field only exists (prior to any radiation) very close to the electron.

You believe when the electron is accelerated, the EM field that exists very close to the electron is 'shot out/projected/ejected' from being very close to the electron.
You keep saying this and I keep saying no. We launch voyager and inertia will keep it going, right? Now take your laser pointer and aim it to a relatively empty section of space. The photons in the laser light will keep traveling for billions of years, far from the laser source. They don't need a propulsion source any more than the voyager probe did.


You believe that physical energy field that is shot out from the local area surrounding the electrons continues to travel until absorbed. (I guess thats where light cone comes in, as there are 360 degrees surrounding an electron and radiation is emitted in all of those degrees so radiation acts as a diameter growing circle over time (and space))
You can look at this in classical field theory or quantum field theory. If you do the latter, you get some effects not seen in the former, such as, when we look at an extremely distant star, we may only get one photon from that star striking our optical or infrared sensor every 10 minutes on average. Classical field theory doesn't predict this, but it's what we observe. But when you deal with low frequencies like radio waves, it's harder to observe these quantum effects, which doesn't mean it's inconsistent with QED, it's just the way it works out according to the theory.


How does the electron produce this local field, is the energy that is the local field, contained in the electron 'at first'? Meaning is the field an intrinsic substance like quality of the electron, that it and only it itself, produces, from itself?
You say you don't want me to answer that according to your rules, because to do so I will need to express ideas that are contrary to your preconceived notions, which you told me not to do, and besides, I already explained this in this post


The stationary electron, depending on the answer to that above question, is somehow producing a real value energy field surrounding itself. The value of that energy field can be increased if the relative energy value of the electron is increased, via acceleration, but the local fields gain in energy cant remain there, thus it travels away at the speed of light.

I guess here is where at least one of my conundrums is. The seemingly eternal renewable source of energy field the electron has at its disposal, that it can send its physical energy field away from itself, and still always have its local energy field?
Again you need to read the earlier post to put this in context, but lets take some examples. You have to burn coal or something like that to create additional heat that will make a metal glow to emit more blackbody radiation, so the electron doesn't have any infinite energy supply, it's getting its energy from the chemical energy stored in the coal that you burned.

In another example, the photoelectric effect, the electron's additional energy is coming from an external photon rather than burning coal, so again when this excited electron gets extra energy and is ejected, it's not coming from some inexhaustible energy reserve, it originally came from the incoming photon.


I am willing to suspend all belief and consider that this is the most accurate theory, I dont know why I was under the impression from past discussions, that the consensus was that fields fundamentally pervaded all total space of the universe.

So to adjust my view, is it proper to imagine discrete groupings of substance, energy, and their subsequent local energy fields, existing over/on top of, a pure space of real true pure absolute nothingness?
Quantum field theory is a model and as I said the vacuum catastrophe indicates it could use a little tweaking or further understanding, but my focus is on what can be measured, and inside the Faraday room if you can't measure any electromagnetic fields I don't think it's useful to say electromagnetic fields are in the room. What I think would be more accurate would be to say that the Faraday room contains vacuum energy, or zero-point energy (which is not exclusively electromagnetic and would also include other fields like the Higgs field). I don't think we fully understand this vacuum energy:

phys.org...

The problems in understanding the true nature of the “vacuum” of space were discussed by theoretical physicist Alvaro de Rújula from CERN (the European Council for Nuclear Research) in Geneva, Switzerland, and a professor of physics at Boston University at the EPL symposium, “Physics In Our Times” held today (10 May) at the Fondation Del Duca de l’Institut de France, Paris.

“As it turns out, the vacuum is not empty - there is a difference between the vacuum and nothingness,” he stated. “Surprisingly, of all known ‘substances’, the vacuum is the least well understood.”

From the point of view of cosmology, the vacuum appears to have an energy density, which is sometimes called “dark energy” or the “cosmological constant”, responsible for the observed accelerated expansion of the universe. From a particle physics viewpoint, the vacuum is permeated by a “Higgs Field” - named after physicist Peter Higgs.
edit on 11-5-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 11 2014 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your right we dont fully understand higs bosons and there interactions.Vacuum energy we can detect it we have a theory but lack the proof.This is why we built Cern and why will build the next even larger.Its the start of an adventure and where the science leads us who knows.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
" The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction." - wiki

In an area of the universe where there is no radiation, is there EM field there?

If yes. How (meaning in what way, describe how it appears, how it exists, what it is) does it exist there?

Are there electric lines. And are there magnetic lines. And are these lines attached, stacked on top of one another?

Do the lines make a grid? Are the lines made of photons, virtual or otherwise?

Is the EM field a dense medium made of photons?



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi
" The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction." - wiki

It does, but eventually you get to a point where it's not zero, but small enough that it can't influence anything. Like trowing a peble in the ocean you cause the ocean level to rise just try to prove it.



In an area of the universe where there is no radiation, is there EM field there?


The universe wont let you get zero but as i said try to detect it so for all practical purposes there is no field

If yes. How (meaning in what way, describe how it appears, how it exists, what it is) does it exist there?

There needs to be an interaction to cause a magnetic field it doesnt already exist it needs to be created.



Are there electric lines. And are there magnetic lines. And are these lines attached, stacked on top of one another?


one can create the other and its more like right angles to each other instead of a continuous line


Do the lines make a grid? Are the lines made of photons, virtual or otherwise?


No humans make a grid to better understand the interactions sort of like asking about the number 4 its a representation humans use.


Is the EM field a dense medium made of photons?


No your still stuck on an ether no medium required, Its more a matter of conservation of energy an object in motion remains in motion.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

It does, but eventually you get to a point where it's not zero, but small enough that it can't influence anything. Like trowing a peble in the ocean you cause the ocean level to rise just try to prove it.


yes, thats exactly what and why im wondering about it...its not zero. Then what is it? how does it exist. WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS IMPORTANT MYSTERIOUS (at least to me, i am trying to eliminate the mysteriousness of this) aspect of the universe?

How does the EM field exist where there is no radiation? If you know the answer, tell me. If you dont, tell me you dont know. Stop beating around the bush.






The universe wont let you get zero but as i said try to detect it so for all practical purposes there is no field


This is the least scientific (meaning, search for knowledge) statement you can make. You are disgusting. 'to detect it for all practical purposes there is no field' .... but its not zero...so there is a field. Why are you lieing to yourself and me?

Either the field exists or not. THIS IS IMPORTANT, for knowledge.




There needs to be an interaction to cause a magnetic field it doesnt already exist it needs to be created.


I thought the electron has a magnetic moment, intrinsic, thus is always creating a magnetic field, and anyway, a moving electric field creates magnetic field, and electron is usually/always moving.








one can create the other and its more like right angles to each other instead of a continuous line


So which is primary? Which exists first?






No humans make a grid to better understand the interactions sort of like asking about the number 4 its a representation humans use.


When I say grid, I mean not the grid, but the values the grid represents. So do the values the grid represent. Are those values real? Are those values the field? Are those values Photons that exist at all points of space, and are the EM field?

At every planck length is there non 0 value of EM?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: KrzYma
Time to throw the old theories away for new ones !

I'm afraid the MS scientists will "discover" some new kind of boundary-energy or invisible boundary-matter spooky thing that fits the old model and explain the new observations...



Just to be clear, our observations and discoveries have proved this model wrong many times over.

A hydrogen bomb, does exactly what we observe the sun doing, the sun is where we got the idea BTW.

This works, it is proven, it is observable and can be created in a lab at will.

The electric universe theory depends entirely on "the fringe" of science.

Just because the standard model doesn't exactly create the same conclusion as the observational material, doesn't mean it is wrong and the electric universe is right.

They may be both wrong or both right.

The standard model only works if it can use all the variables. The more accurate you want the answer, the more things it has to know, up front, to make an accurate prediction.

Name one real world time the electric universe has put a man in space or made a car, or a plane or ship, or power plant, or bomb or anything which wasn't already proved accurate in the standard model.

The electric universe has not yet ever made one single innovation, or changed anyones life for the better in anyway, not once ever.

The standard model has, in agriculture medicine energy transportation..............I could go on all day here, our entire world is built on something that obviously works.

Maybe the electric universe theory is the next step forward, compelling into new directions our thoughts and endeavors. I don't think so though.

As the standard model has given us everything we have now, cars comps satellites planes food transportation of goods on a mass scale.......

Just think about the world your in and what the standard model has done and is proven to do.

Then rethink the electric universe theory, ask what it has done or proven that made a single difference ever.

There are no examples, they don't exist.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: oblvion

what electricity is doing for us ??
are you really asking this ??

do you really think Einstein's space-time is driving your computer ??
or any quantum fuel running your car ??
ever heard of chemical reactions, how they happen and why ??
You are alive because of the Earth's electric core producing electric and magnetic fields.
Do you know about the fourth state of water ? how important it is for cell life or mussel contractions ?
Do you know that the simplest energy supply is not more then 2 different metals put together ?

Everything is driven by electric potential difference, always was and ever will be !!!!


edit on 14-5-2014 by KrzYma because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

ever hear of neutrinos?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma

ever hear of neutrinos?


the waste of radioactive decay? sure, so what?



The neutrino has half-integer spin (ħ⁄2) and is therefore a fermion. Neutrinos interact primarily through the weak force. The discovery of neutrino flavor oscillations implies that neutrinos have mass. The existence of a neutrino mass strongly suggests the existence of a tiny neutrino magnetic moment[16] of the order of 10−19 [[μB]], allowing the possibility that neutrinos may interact electromagnetically as well



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: KrzYma

waste? hmmmm not sure id class it as waste, and more as a particle.

So given as you once again suggest, despite many may pages of people attempting to plea some sense... then why do we observe the sun in neutrino detectors? what is producing them? Why do they have an energy spectrum that matches the solar model as a model saying that the sun is driven by fusion.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

It does, but eventually you get to a point where it's not zero, but small enough that it can't influence anything. Like trowing a peble in the ocean you cause the ocean level to rise just try to prove it.


yes, thats exactly what and why im wondering about it...its not zero. Then what is it? how does it exist. WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THIS IMPORTANT MYSTERIOUS (at least to me, i am trying to eliminate the mysteriousness of this) aspect of the universe?

How does the EM field exist where there is no radiation? If you know the answer, tell me. If you dont, tell me you dont know. Stop beating around the bush.


As I've repeated over and over you are fixated on this word "exist" which has to be made more concrete in order to answer the question in a scientific way, and there is endless complex philosophy surrounding the concept for 3,000 years which you do not show evidence of addressing or recognizing if you aren't satisfied with the pragmatic operational viewpoint successfully adopted by physics.

Counterquestion: how would humans device an experiment which could distinguish an electromagnetic field which "didn't exist" from one which had zero value and exerting no changes on observable parts of Nature? I think that isn't possible.

Next, the operationally and mathematically simplest description is to use fields based on function theory which say that (classical) values of zero are acceptable, and yield simple linear differential equations called the Maxwell equations over all space-time. So the mathematical structures (where mathemeticians have *defined* what it means to have a function with value zero vs exist or not) are simplest, and compatible with experiment, when you say field values are defined to exist everywhere for all time. This is a choice for human needs, and it works.

This structure & equations of motion (Standard Model) appears to be operational and unchanged since the birth of the Universe by all observational evidence.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: KrzYma

waste? hmmmm not sure id class it as waste, and more as a particle.

So given as you once again suggest, despite many may pages of people attempting to plea some sense... then why do we observe the sun in neutrino detectors? what is producing them? Why do they have an energy spectrum that matches the solar model as a model saying that the sun is driven by fusion.


I need to correct you, Electric Sun is a theory.
I said often in this thread I'm not 100% sure of this theory, I think we need something in between.
I never said the Sun is electric only. That may also be a combination of much more that we know now.

There is not enough gamma radiation for fusion and the standard model keeps this inside the Sun as explanation.
If the fusion is not in the core but in the Photosphere things look different.

I never made any measurements to the Sun so I can only tell what other people are saying.

What I have heard is that the Sun is a perfect sphere. This is strange if gravitation is on work, remembering that the rotation is different on the equator and the polls of the Sun.

All I have seen myself is that electricity is the driving force to all.
( of course not this from the wall socket we use
)





new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join