A challenge to mainstream science

newtonian · Sep 11, 2006

nevyn - Mainstream science does not claim infallibility - though sometimes (as with the evolution vs. creation debate) some scientists will state things as fact which are not proven and should indeed be challenged. Astronomers tend to be more humble than evolutionists and creationists - often admitting what they state as a correct model now may be changed quite drastically in the future. I would like to address your challenge of the law of conservation of matter and energy. I believe in said law, btw. Your point on there being no such thing as a closed system is not accurate but it is an excellent point. Scientists often assume our universe is a closed system - and in many ways it is. However, assuming dark energy is from within is one problem with this belief. It is better to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that the expansion of our universe, and the acceleration of expansion, may be evidence our universe is not totally a closed system - thermodynamically speaking. In short - it is good to question provided one is really interested in finding truth, finding accurate answers. Back to that law of conservation of matter and energy - all observations support this (contrast evolution vs creation where both sides cite obersvations in support of their favored model). However, and this is why your point is a good point: we do not directly observe the cause and effect mechanism involving the propagation of dark energy. Or gravity for that matter. We do not fully appreciate the gravity of the matter! [My sense of humor gravitates in.]

newtonian · Sep 11, 2006

nevyn - Mainstream science does not claim infallibility - though sometimes (as with the evolution vs. creation debate) some scientists will state things as fact which are not proven and should indeed be challenged. Astronomers tend to be more humble than evolutionists and creationists - often admitting what they state as a correct model now may be changed quite drastically in the future. I would like to address your challenge of the law of conservation of matter and energy. I believe in said law, btw. Your point on there being no such thing as a closed system is not accurate but it is an excellent point. Scientists often assume our universe is a closed system - and in many ways it is. However, assuming dark energy is from within is one problem with this belief. It is better to keep an open mind and consider the possibility that the expansion of our universe, and the acceleration of expansion, may be evidence our universe is not totally a closed system - thermodynamically speaking. In short - it is good to question provided one is really interested in finding truth, finding accurate answers. Back to that law of conservation of matter and energy - all observations support this (contrast evolution vs creation where both sides cite obersvations in support of their favored model). However, and this is why your point is a good point: we do not directly observe the cause and effect mechanism involving the propagation of dark energy. Or gravity for that matter. We do not fully appreciate the gravity of the matter! [My sense of humor gravitates in.]

Saiph · Sep 11, 2006

My approach isn't circular reasoning, as you didn't say I how to determine the mass. Gravitation is but one way of doing so. Also, it's not truly circular, as knowing earth's mass is not required to verify newtons law of gravity. Experiments with sensitive balances, and large masses (giant lead spheres for example) can be used to establish f=G*m*M/r^2. Once that's established, using gravity as a centripital force for orbiting objects can produce the mass of earth (or any object that has a satellite). Dark matter: So we can't see it, big deal. We can't see electricity, or magnetism, or even atoms, and yet you accept that they exist. Dark matter is merely matter that does not interact with light. The reason for this can be very simple: it's electrically neutral. Neutrinos, and neutrons for example, don't interact with light at all. It merely means we have to use some more indirect means of detecting it, and the only real method involves gravity as that is the strongest interaction Dark Matter has. We see matter that gives off or absorbs, or reflects light, and cannot account for it's motions based upon that alone. It isn't to hard to then say: What about the stuff there that doesn't emit light? How do we take that into account? What exactly is it? Even MOND proponents accept that there is some dark matter. They just tend to propose more mundane and understood sources (brown dwarfs, black holes, etc) As for the plethora of particles...I think it's a bit silly too (and I don't think some of them will ever be found, like the graviton). But particle physics is highly accurate and successful, so they must be doing something right. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I just believe there is a more simplistic idea that will do a better job.<hr /></blockquote>Enter the Grand Unified Theory <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 11, 2006

If you want to challenge mainstream science then you better start knowing the laws you want to discredit and the language used (mathematics). Same would go for somebody which would try to discredit a software program. First that person would have to know about programming and the language used. Actually, no. Exactly like science, reality is the final test. If a program does not do what it is supposed to do, then it has been discredited. You don't need to get into the code to see what it does or doesn't do. You only need to get into the code to fix the problem. As you say, when you encounter a snag in your software and you do not want to go back and redo all the work you just write something to fix the snag and move on. Well physics maths throughout history are full of "constants" and "theorems" if you want some comparison to your work. In a program I can do this, because at the end of the day, it is what the program does that is important, not how it does it. A theory is so much more than a program. A threory must provide insight into how it is done. It is not enough to say that the theory ends up with the correct answer, as the answer tells us nothing. It is the working out of the answer that its everything. As for answering your question(s) I do not think you really know what your question(s) is/are otherwise you would do a simple and specific question one at a time. What you are doing is trowing as much mudd into the wall to see if anything sticks and not allowing others to TRY to explain one thing at a time. It does not mean anyone will suceed but at least the chance is there. I have admitted that I could not answer these questions myself, and so this thread was created so that those with more knowledge in the areas could advise me. I am happy if that is just a URL. I don't see how I have not allowed anyone to answer any of these. If they want to tackle them one at a time, that's fine. If th

Saiph · Sep 11, 2006

In order to say that science is bunk, you must understand what science is saying, and how it works. This involves math, as it is the language by which science describes reality. Saying science is wrong, without understanding the how it works, serves nothing, as people can and will chalk the comment up to pure ignorance. Now, since your asking how it works, I don't consider it ignorance, just a missunderstanding. One thing to remember about science: It isn't complete, heck, it can't be complete as science is really more of a process and appraoch than an answer or explaination. Science produces answers, uncovers knowledge...but it isn't either of those. So when you have an issue with say, lots of particles, that's an issue with some fo the results, some of the theories, but not with science itself. Your complaints about the scientific method, theories and laws, now that's a concern about science itself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 12, 2006

If there is another way to determine the mass of the earth, then that answers my question. Thankyou. Dark matter: So we can't see it, big deal. We can't see electricity, or magnetism, or even atoms, and yet you accept that they exist. Dark matter is merely matter that does not interact with light. The reason for this can be very simple: it's electrically neutral. Neutrinos, and neutrons for example, don't interact with light at all. Not only can we not see dark matter, but we also don't see holes in the sky where is supposedly is. So are you saying that there is something there that has gravity, but allows light to pass straight through it? Without even gravitational lensing? As for accepting electricity, magnetism and atoms as existing, I don't. They are useful concepts, but that does not make them real. I agree that what we view as electricity, magnetism and atoms are real, but there may be a better explanation than what we have. Same goes for neutrinos and neutrons. I don't make the assumption that science can create facts. It can only ever create concepts to explain facts. And you must always remember that there may be a better, simpler concept out there. At the same time, we must live with what we have and make the best of it.

vandivx · Sep 12, 2006

I am curious, do you have some ground breaking discovery that you can't push accross to be even considered? if we wouldn't have 'laws', we would hang onto theories that would replace them, it would be just matter of semantics, don't fool yourself that changing terminology would somehow shake the foundation of science allowing everybody and his uncle to be heard equally as Newtons and Einsteins got hearing, because that's what you seem to be after that said, I can see your concerns, problem is in people though, not in some strong terminology that cements things into status quo although things have never been ideal and perhaps physicists are more of a heard nowadays then ever before that never listens to anything new, still things are not too bad, considering in old pre Einstein days and including partly those, science was almost sole domain of bearded gentlemen of means in stiff collars (there is that famous photo of Einstein attending his first (I think) Solovay conference photo , still further back in Newton's days and earlier, if you didn't know your Latin, you were nobody today we have internet and you can publish your work and we can get together like here to discuss things and if you can talk sense you will be part of company here no matter if you are in your teens or abraham years, poor or wealthy, as long as you can get internet and know your English and you might find people siding with your ideas and that's some start, in older days if you didn't make your road into some real scientific position or wasn't weathy at least, you had almost no chance even to get some ideas (for lack of access to literature for one etc), much less expect some hearing for them also I think you are infected with unhealthy philosophy that will doom your science efforts (those ideas vs facts) I am not saying philosophy is bad for scie <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

nevyn · Sep 12, 2006

Yes, things are getting a bit mixed up here. This started out with a want to clear up some questions I had come across and could not answer. In the process, it has brought in some other areas. This always happens when people are trying to explain things as we often use examples which lead to more questions or discussions. However, I am not convinced that math is the answer. I know modern science is built upon it, but it is the concepts underneath the math that matters. It is great to have formulas, but to think that everything in the universe can be put into some formula is non-sensical. And to think that because some formula predicts a fact, and then that fact is found, therefore showing that the formula is fact, or even the concept behind the formula is fact is just ludicrous. Concepts are concepts. Facts are facts. Never shall the two meet. What we must strive for is a concept that extremely closely resembles all the facts we have. But by acknowleging it as a concept, we know that it can be wrong, and can change it if new facts become available.

derekmcd · Sep 12, 2006

One thing to remember about science: It isn't complete, heck, it can't be complete as science is really more of a process and appraoch than an answer or explaination. I, personally, think science is more about the answers and explainations. It's that the process and approach can last for centuries when trying to answer and explain the really big questions. Science does, in answer alot of questions. The answers just don't make it to the mass media on a regular basis because its probably not very interesting to but a fairly small audience. Scienstist, certainly do want those answers to the big questions and many dedicate every waking moment in the search. For most of them, it is a very long journey taking generations from teacher to student. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

newtonian · Sep 12, 2006

nevyn - Yes, threads do sometimes get mixed up with tangents and even sometimes achieve escape velocity from thread theme. So, how did you feel about my post concerning the law of conservation of matter and energy? That was one of your original questions, btw. On math in our universe - have you ever wondered why so many things follow precise math rations - like e=mc^2? My take on this is that it is evidence that our Creator is a mathematician (and scientist par excellance). See my upcoming thread in free space (shortly) on the Fibonacci number (sequence) as evidence of intelligent design - just one of many examples of beautiful (in this case literally) numbers and ratios manifest in creation. It would be nonsensical, as you say, for everything in our universe to put into a formula - unless, of course, the Creator of our universe used math. And everything isn't following a specific formula - there are random (cp. chaos) factors added to programmed properties which, due to said created properties, end up beautiful also. [Compare 'random' mutations based on complex, restricting, informational templates in genetics - note not all mutations are random - compare, for example epigenetic coding based on acetyl and methyl links to histones in the chromotin {of the chromosome}] Remember, also, that science is not actually creating the formulas - merely discovering them - they already exist in creation waiting to be discovered. Thus science is actually built on discovery by observation - the formulas are a result of these discoveries, and, granted, sometimes - in view of the past experience - the formulas are though of first and then checked in creation to see if they are indeed already manifest there. The history of science, as you probably realize, is full of errors and humble scientists recognize this and are willing to adjust their theories to harmonize with new observation

vandivx · Sep 12, 2006

<"I am not convinced that math is the answer. I know modern science is built upon it, but it is the concepts underneath the math that matters."> the way I see it, it is both, math and the physical picture which latter is mostly missing nowadays these days there are plenty people to do math side of physics but physics qua physical physics is badly lacking and that's why I am personally interested only in physical picture of things and work on it with some success if I may say so, still as I said I see the importance of mathematical physics too, the two complement each other reason why mathematical formulas so wonderfully sometimes describe physics is for now beyond our true grasp, I have some tenuous incling why that is so but real understanding I think will have to wait for future generation of scientists when understanding will be on somewhat higher levels in general, for now we should just go ahead and make formulas, guess them and see if they will work and when they do, accept them, however I see that 'math guessing at formulas' approach as nearing end of fruitfullness since physics has developed big, nay huge deficit of physical understanding during past century and that's why the mathematical approach bears less and less fruits as decades pass us by, one can only get so far on mathematics alone and we are now way past that point vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

search · Sep 12, 2006

Nevyn Wanna rescue science? Why not call it that?! Lets give it a go. What is your question? Can you ask in two lines the most important question you have? Note: You seem to be more interested in philosophy combined with cosmology than with pure cosmology (if that is ever possible) so if that is the case there is something about that (note; sdc forum shows to be very open to all kinds of approaches compared with other forums out there but this is just in case you want something more related with philosophy): http://allphilosophy.com/tag/show/cosmology

Saiph · Sep 12, 2006

alrighty, lots of posts here. One way to detect the presence and amount of dark matter is the gravitational lensing. Dark matter won't block light...it does not interact with light, in any way. If it did, we'd just see large dust lanes, and take those into account for a galaxies mass (as we already do). On atoms, etc...fair enough. It's fine not to accept things at face value, however we can image and manipulate individual atoms now, and there's tons of experimental data backing up our image of the structure of an atom. This isn't just something taken for granted in science, it's explored extensively, even today. On math: You say it isn't an answer, and I agree completely. It isn't an answer, but a language. It's a highly structured, logically self-consistent language. You cannot tell a lie with math, unless you make a mistake. You can be wrong, but that's because you're basing the work upon faulty assumptions, data, etc. So if you say math cannot, or may not, be able to describe reality...then you're saying that reality does not behave in a logical fashion. As for how math is used: A formula is derived/hypothesized and used to predict. The prediction is checked. If the result matches observation, then the formula is not considered fact, merely an accurate description. Then lots of predictions are made to determine the scope of the formula's accuracy, and lots of thought is put into why it's accurate. Science and math, and it's tools are not nearly as simplistic as you're making them out to be. Science only treats observations as facts, and even then we are concerned about the accuracy of the observations. Formulas, concepts, and theories are really considered valid and accurate, or not. Some formulae have withstood a huge barrage of testing and analysis, and so they're often treated as "facts" but physics classes, especially graduate classes, str <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

nevyn · Sep 12, 2006

I am curious, do you have some ground breaking discovery that you can't push accross to be even considered? I don't have one personally, but I've come across some in my search and they seem to throw these sorts of questions out there as justification for a new theory. Personally, I don't need that justification. I think new ways of thinking about things are always welcome, even if they turn out wrong they can bring along other new ideas. You are probably right about terminology. I get pedantic about terminology. To me, a word has a precise meaning and I use it as that. At least when I'm being careful with my words. While I think the internet is a great thing and can be used for good like you say, it can also be a confusing place to find the truth. Like someone said earlier, you need to filter the information. I think you are infected with unhealthy philosophy that will doom your science efforts (those ideas vs facts) I just like to make that distinction because they are different things. A lot of science is portrayed as fact when it is in fact not. I think it is bad for science to tell the public that something is fact because the public rely on science to provide answers and do not have the ability to discern between the two. The distinction was made for me between religion and science. Religion relies on belief while science (in theory) relies on fact. But unless you can speak advanced mathematics and have the time to go through it all, then you are following science on belief. I'm just trying to find my way through it all.

nevyn · Sep 12, 2006

So, how did you feel about my post concerning the law of conservation of matter and energy? I understand where it came from. My problem is that it totally removes certain ways of thinking. When reading new theories you need to understand the context of them and not bring in your own laws and ideas (until you totally understand the theory). To me, laws have always been the foundations of a theory. They are the structure that allows the theory to form around them. But they are limited to that theory. Of course somethings are very common and will be found across many theories, but in the end, we can only work off observations. We can not truelly know certain things and I don't like to limit my thinking. You will never see something as creating energy or matter if you believe that it is impossible. And if energy and matter can not be created, then cosmology is a waste of time because we need to assume that the energy and matter that we see now has always existed. So while I keep the law of conservation of energy and matter in mind, I don't allow it to take root. And it's the same problem with gravity. By saying that gravity is a property of matter or curvature of spacetime, you are saying that nothing can be done about it. Most of our technology uses so much energy to overcome gravity because science says we can't do anything about it. I'm just interested in other ideas that may allow us to use gravity or remove it (locally). This one single technology would truelly revolutionize humanity. Imagine all the people that could be helped if this sort of technology was not kept secret and only sold for big bucks. An immediate release from a total reliance on oil. Actually, that could spell economic disaster now that I think about it. Anyway, moving on. On math in our universe - have you ever wondered why so many things follow precise math rations - like e=mc^2? My take on this is that it is evidence tha

nevyn · Sep 12, 2006

I am personally interested only in physical picture of things and work on it with some success Interesting, can you provide some info or links or what this is and how you are going about it?

nevyn · Sep 12, 2006

What is your question? Can you ask in two lines the most important question you have? I think the most important question I have is concerning gravity. But I think the nature of light is also a very important question and there may very well be a link between the two. I've seen hints at this when I found out that light diminished with an inverse square law. Given that Newton was trying to mathematically connect Kepler's inverse square law for orbits with the inverse square law for gravity, then if light also shows this relationship, then the connection should be looked at. After all, Newton revolutionized science with the first connection. What will the second connection bring? Sorry, that's more than 2 lines. And it probably more shows what I'm trying to find than the problems with science or its laws and theories. I didn't start this thread for that exactly, just a side portion of it dealing with some of the current underlying principles that science gives us. To try again, I think the question is, is there proof that gravity is a property of matter or spacetime. You seem to be more interested in philosophy combined with cosmology than with pure cosmology (if that is ever possible) Yes, I am interested in philosophy and cosmology and I agree that cosmology is really just philosophy because we can't test its ideas. My interests exceed science, but they do include it. I will look into that link when I have a bit more time. So many things to reply to and not enough time to do it. The story of life, eh?

harmonicaman · Sep 12, 2006

"...is there proof that gravity is a property of matter or spacetime." There is strong anecdotal evidence that gravity is a function of the conflict between the static and unchanging matter, and the infinitely advancing time and expanding space in the universe. Time and space cannot co-exist with matter; they have to eddy around mass and this creates a curvature of space which we experience as gravity. I think it's more interesting to examine phenomenon that don't follow the inverse square law which light and gravity appear to observe; such as, why doesn't magnetism also follow the inverse square law?

search · Sep 13, 2006

Nevyn Your question took only one line, and I hope I can understand it. It is very profound question and it was put forward from a different perspective (dark matter/dark energy) in another thread which I will link below and it was subject of a recent discovery GM London moment. But first the "possible" answer (remebember that nobody really knows and Einstein is no longer with us): NOTE (this is a simple reminder): Remember that Gravity is "labeled" as a week, long distance force in the Universe and one of the ways to measure its effect at long distances is to measure the effect on light in Supernovae. The possible answer: "Gravetomagnetic force" In summary from first link below: "So instead of thinking of gravity as just a depression in the "fabric" of space-time, we must think of it -- for spinning objects -- as a whirling depression -- kind of an upside-down tornado. Extremely massive objects, Cui says, "distort the shape -- the warp of space-time." To The Why Files, the frame-dragging data mean that space is no longer flat, or even just warped. Now it is twisted as well. And as a matter of principle, The Why Files likes twisted. The twisting, Cui says, seems to create a "gravetomagnetic force" which only exists when a massive object rotates. And since space-time affects matter, this gravetomagnetic force will cause other matter to move." The website where the summary comes from: http://whyfiles.org/052einstein/frame_drag4.html The other thread link (Dark matter/dark energy: GM London moment): http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=

vandivx · Sep 13, 2006

<"nevyn: can you provide some info or links or what this is and how you are going about it?"> I sort of like your overall aproach to physics as you describe it here but at the same time some parts of it I have to criticize and refuse, still I can see where you are coming from with your concerns about that peer review etc etc I had a website for several years in mid 1990s where I started to publish my stuff untill the hosting company went under and it went offline (perhaps around 1998 I think) can't say it got many visitors and even though I now have my own home webserver and domain I can't find the will/motivation to go online again with it at the time I had only couple math papers finished, one called 'Infinity and Infinitesimals' and the other 'Foundation of complex numbers', also had writen a paper dealing with gyroscopic motion that explained the whole complex motion of it (nutation and precession) solely in terms of momentum and totally without any math whatsoever and described it in a way that even people with only basic understanding of vector momentum could say after reading it 'now I finally understand how spinning wheel can stay up when suspended by its axle on one side only and why it precesses and nutates' but I never published that one, I wrote it partly while I was still figuring the whole thing up and was too involved in it and the paper was perhaps too unwieldy to read because of that, at least that was my impression and so I never published it and never rewrote it either, again reason being motivation, those few people who visited my pages were just peeping toms, I think I only got once a note from somebody in all those years when it was out there asking if I was in academia (which I am not and go figure what was the reason for asking that) and that was that during years since then, I once found on internet perhaps some five years hence that somebody else also figured out the physical principle behi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Saiph · Sep 14, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Given that Newton was trying to mathematically connect Kepler's inverse square law for orbits with the inverse square law for gravity,<hr /></blockquote>What inverse square law for orbits? Kepler certainly didn't propose one. Newton derived keplers laws using conservation of momentum and gravity as a centripetal force though. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />is there proof that gravity is a property of matter or spacetime.<hr /></blockquote>Yes, there is some pretty good proof. First, where we find matter, we find gravity...so there's that connection. It's as much a property of that matter as is any other characteristic (color, shape, hardness, etc). As for it's connection to spacetime, there is the resounding success of GR in describing various phenomena and orbits using gravity and spacetime relationships. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Sep 14, 2006

The biggies for a relationship between gravity and spacetime are gravitational lensing and frame-dragging. The latter I do not really understand at all, but as a software engineer, I have been exposed to the algorithms you have to build into GPS devices to account for frame-dragging. The Earth's mass distorts space, and drags space around with it as it rotates. This has a measurable effect on the signals from GPS satellites, enough to completely screw up your navigation. If you don't account for frame-dragging, GPS devices don't work. That's an everyday piece of evidence in favor of it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Sep 14, 2006

You know...I've never actually seen (or at least I don't recall) an explaination of why frame dragging occurs...just statements that it does... I think, I might just look into that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

derekmcd · Sep 15, 2006

"I think, I might just look into that" Good luck. Let me know if you figure it out... i'll be sure to nominate ya for a Nobel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

search · Sep 15, 2006

Frame-dragging or Gravitomagnetism are the same. Read the latest findings regarding GM London moment. There is already a thread on this subject, check this (sdc link) Theory: http://blackholethermodyn.site.voila.fr/enter.html Search for Gravitomagnetism: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/19apr_gravitomagnetism.htm frame-dragging http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog10/node9.html

A challenge to mainstream science

newtonian

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

vandivx

Guest

nevyn

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

newtonian

Guest

vandivx

Guest

search

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nevyn

Guest

nevyn

Guest

nevyn

Guest

nevyn

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

search

Guest

vandivx

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

search

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page