Get Adobe Flash player
IntenseMuscle.com
   








Go Back   IntenseMuscle.com > Main Forums > General Conversation Forum

General Conversation Forum Casual talk for off-topic discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-10-2009, 06:48 AM   #101
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixthbeatle View Post
I have to say Mr. Archaeopteryx lithographica, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the whole RATE of time thing. If one second is defined as "the time it takes for cesium-133 atom to go back and forth 9,192,631,770 times," then how can the rate of time passage ever change? Shouldn't one second always be one second because it has been pre-defined... gravity or no gravity? Holy shit the left side of my face is starting to droop...
The rate of time can't change locally, it's only RELATIVE to someone else's measurement of time. That's the whole point of relativity, that measurements of spatial separation or time separation have no meaning unless they are compared to someone else's measurements. If two people are floating in space side-by-side, then they will measure time passing at the exact same rate. Everything will be normal to them. (Except the whole no atmosphere in space thing, but I digress...) If the two people were standing side-by-side on a planet with a VERY strong gravitational field, then they would STILL measure time passing at the exact same rate. However if youpu one person floating in space, far away from any gravitational fields, and the other person on the planet with the VERY strong gravitational field, then they will measure a difference in the rate of time passage RELATIVE to one another. Each person will still measure and perceive time passing at the exact same rate as before, but they will notice that the other person's time is passing abnormally. It is only RELATIVE to another observer that these things come in to play.

For example, let's say each person has a cesium atomic clock. The person on the planet will absolutely measure his clock as having 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second. The person in space will ALSO measure HIS clock as having 9,192,631,770 oscillations per second. But if you ask the person in space to measure the number of tics per second of the PLANET person's clock, he will measure FEWER than 9,192,631,770 tics, since a gravitational field slows down the passage of time of people in it RELATIVE to a far-away observer.

So locally, we can never detect our passage of time as being anything other than what we have always perceived. But if we observe the clock of someone for whom relativistic effects apply (like someone in a strong gravitational field or someone traveling close to the speed of light), then we will measure their clocks as running strangely.

Mathematically we can represent this as I have shown in the PDF below (I will post this when I finish it when I get to work).

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKfour seven View Post
I stand here today humbled by the task before bawwgt com]dofus kamas, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our bawwgt com]cheap dofus kamas I thank President bawwgt com]dofus power leveling for his service to bawwgt com]buy dofus kamas, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition
You are only talking like that because my cock is buried in your throat
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche

Last edited by Sammich; 11-10-2009 at 07:29 AM.
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 08:12 AM   #102
Smack
Bantamweight Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Britain
Posts: 189
Excellent thread. You can probably expect some questions from me in the near future, if it isn't too much hassle, since my degree is heavily based on physics.
Smack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 11:11 AM   #103
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixthbeatle View Post
I have to say Mr. Archaeopteryx lithographica, I am having trouble wrapping my mind around the whole RATE of time thing. If one second is defined as "the time it takes for cesium-133 atom to go back and forth 9,192,631,770 times," then how can the rate of time passage ever change? Shouldn't one second always be one second because it has been pre-defined... gravity or no gravity? Holy shit the left side of my face is starting to droop...
I just realized I really can't explain why it is mathematically without resorting to some pretty advanced math. That means I don't know enough about it yet to answer your question completely. But hopefully I got across my point when I said above that any person will always measure one second as one second, and that only the RELATIVE passage of time changes when relativistic effects are present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smack View Post
Excellent thread. You can probably expect some questions from me in the near future, if it isn't too much hassle, since my degree is heavily based on physics.
Bring it on; I need all the practice I can get.
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 11:22 AM   #104
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
dino i think i might be able to explain it in a verry elementary way.

as far as the cesium thing is concerned thats how we define a second. so lets go backwards alittle bit to the discussion about the twins, where one is on a space ship traveling near the speed of light. lets say that both twins have a cesium atom. if you are on the ship with the one twin his will vibrate at the exact rate that has been stated, but so will the other twins on the ground, but only if your on the ground with him. if you were looking at the twin that never left earth from the space ship his would appear to vibrate much slower than the one your looking at on the ship. this is how relativity works. time is relative to the observer. now knowing that gravity effects the passage of time you can use the same model but instead noone is moving just one is in a gravitational field and one isnt. the actual mechinism for this as i understand it, i might...i mean im probably wrong.....is that gravity changes the shape of space. and as far as i know space and time are interwoven unless there is a singularity where the space-time curvature becomes infinate and seperates. to fully understand how this works beyond an elementary explaination like mine would require an understanding of the mathematics involved. dino, please correct me if im wrong in any of this...im still trying to get through the road to reality with alot of difficulty....lol
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 12:37 PM   #105
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
You are right, butI am looking for a way to explain the reason WHY gravitational time dilation IS to someone without having to resort to tensor analysis, which is the only way I can think of doing it right now.

You just restated what I said which is that it exists, but we haven't said why.

Let me try to explain WHY in this manner. It's how I explain something called the invariant spacetime interval. I will state a few things without proving or representing them mathematically, and if you can just take them as fact the whole explanation will go a lot smoother.

I have already said before that space and time are NOT separate entities, nor are they even divisible. In relativity, they become smushed together into spacetime. Now here is the thing you have to take on faith: everything in the universe is moving through spacetime at a total speed that is equal to the speed of light. That means the speed you are moving through space plus the speed that you are moving through time is always equal to the speed of light. Thus WE always measure our own speed through time as the speed of light, since we can always say that we are not moving.

We have said that when someone else is moving relative you you, that it appears that time slows down for them. This is a result of the fact that if someone has a speed through space, then their speed through time must slow down enough so that the sum of the two speeds is equal to the speed of light. But again, it's relative, since they can just as easily say that they are staying still and we are moving.

Does that help any?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
dino i think i might be able to explain it in a verry elementary way.

as far as the cesium thing is concerned thats how we define a second. so lets go backwards alittle bit to the discussion about the twins, where one is on a space ship traveling near the speed of light. lets say that both twins have a cesium atom. if you are on the ship with the one twin his will vibrate at the exact rate that has been stated, but so will the other twins on the ground, but only if your on the ground with him. if you were looking at the twin that never left earth from the space ship his would appear to vibrate much slower than the one your looking at on the ship. this is how relativity works. time is relative to the observer. now knowing that gravity effects the passage of time you can use the same model but instead noone is moving just one is in a gravitational field and one isnt. the actual mechinism for this as i understand it, i might...i mean im probably wrong.....is that gravity changes the shape of space. and as far as i know space and time are interwoven unless there is a singularity where the space-time curvature becomes infinate and seperates. to fully understand how this works beyond an elementary explaination like mine would require an understanding of the mathematics involved. dino, please correct me if im wrong in any of this...im still trying to get through the road to reality with alot of difficulty....lol
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 12:38 PM   #106
Smack
Bantamweight Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Britain
Posts: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
Bring it on; I need all the practice I can get.
Come exam time you'll regret that statement. It seems you're quite a good mathematician as well...
Smack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 01:03 PM   #107
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
You are right, butI am looking for a way to explain the reason WHY gravitational time dilation IS to someone without having to resort to tensor analysis, which is the only way I can think of doing it right now.

You just restated what I said which is that it exists, but we haven't said why.

Let me try to explain WHY in this manner. It's how I explain something called the invariant spacetime interval. I will state a few things without proving or representing them mathematically, and if you can just take them as fact the whole explanation will go a lot smoother.

I have already said before that space and time are NOT separate entities, nor are they even divisible. In relativity, they become smushed together into spacetime. Now here is the thing you have to take on faith: everything in the universe is moving through spacetime at a total speed that is equal to the speed of light. That means the speed you are moving through space plus the speed that you are moving through time is always equal to the speed of light. Thus WE always measure our own speed through time as the speed of light, since we can always say that we are not moving.

We have said that when someone else is moving relative you you, that it appears that time slows down for them. This is a result of the fact that if someone has a speed through space, then their speed through time must slow down enough so that the sum of the two speeds is equal to the speed of light. But again, it's relative, since they can just as easily say that they are staying still and we are moving.

Does that help any?
i totally understand.
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2009, 05:20 PM   #108
Jeff Grant
Intense Muscle Competitor
 
Jeff Grant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toledo, Ohio
Posts: 811
This is starting to make more sense. I'm definately going to be doing some more research and re-reading these posts again tonite to see if I can really wrap my mind around it. Kind of a lot of information to process all in a matter of minutes... whatever minutes even are... lmao Thanks guys for taking the time to explain some of this stuff!
__________________
It takes work to get things done, but in reality not getting things done is a lot more painful. -Knickerbocker24

Start doing and believing in the stuff that works, and do it today and forever. You want science and studies? Fuck you. Iíve got scars and blood and vomit. -Jim Wendler



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jeff Grant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2009, 02:10 PM   #109
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
just a thought.....could gravitational acceleration be used to break C? the alcubierre metric works by creating a wave and requires negative mass energy. well normal everyday energy can create the front part of that wave where space is being squashed. instead of propelling yourself along a wave like a surfer, why not just slide down the slope like a luge?
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2009, 02:34 PM   #110
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
just a thought.....could gravitational acceleration be used to break C? the alcubierre metric works by creating a wave and requires negative mass energy. well normal everyday energy can create the front part of that wave where space is being squashed. instead of propelling yourself along a wave like a surfer, why not just slide down the slope like a luge?
Nope. Velocity asymptotically approaches c in gravitational free-fall. Not to mention the fact that the gravitational source must be a finite distance away from the attracted object, so there's always a finite distance it can fall.
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2009, 02:47 PM   #111
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
Nope. Velocity asymptotically approaches c in gravitational free-fall. Not to mention the fact that the gravitational source must be a finite distance away from the attracted object, so there's always a finite distance it can fall.
ok first question simply put could gravitational pull accelerate you to relativistic speeds? maybe 50% C?




part in bold. E=mc^2, so energy can cause a gravitational effect. i think in pictures so let me do it that way for this part. you on a space ship. you shoot a beam of energy out of the front of it to create a gravitational field, since that beam is conatantly moving away from you at C would the distance the spaceship can fall be become infinate because the source of the freld is always moving away from you?

Last edited by TommyKav; 11-12-2009 at 11:01 PM.
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2009, 05:26 PM   #112
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
for the italicised part. i thought near a black hole, well at the event horizon anyway that the gravitational field was so strong that something traveling at C could not even escape. my understanding is that space is so warped in this region that light cant get a straight path out. here is my question. as you approach this region on lets say a stellar mass black hole you are spaghettified due to the difference in tidal forces. and as your atoms are stretched the ones closest to the event horizon accelerate towards it ad speeds aproaching c. so if you could create a gravitation field and use it to pull you in a given direction you wont hit c but are relavistic velocities a possibility, lets say 50% C?
for the part in bold. if the gravity source was directed energy. it would always propogate away from the source at C relative to the source reguardless of its velocity so its distance from the source would remain the same?
I'm gonna need you to clarify this because I've read it 15 times and I still can't understand what you're saying.
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2009, 11:01 PM   #113
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
its been clarified
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2009, 11:03 PM   #114
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
i got a TON of questions i cant answer for myself right now....lol i may eventually give you a headache.

can electromagnetic fields "warp" space as well?
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2009, 11:29 AM   #115
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
ok first question simply put could gravitational pull accelerate you to relativistic speeds? maybe 50% C?




part in bold. E=mc^2, so energy can cause a gravitational effect. i think in pictures so let me do it that way for this part. you on a space ship. you shoot a beam of energy out of the front of it to create a gravitational field, since that beam is conatantly moving away from you at C would the distance the spaceship can fall be become infinate because the source of the freld is always moving away from you?
Jeez, man, that's a great question. I'm going to have to think about that a lot before I can give any kind of decent answer. Let me ponder it over the course of the day,

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
i got a TON of questions i cant answer for myself right now....lol i may eventually give you a headache.

can electromagnetic fields "warp" space as well?
This I can answer easily. Yes, any mass or energy produces gravitation/spacetime curvature.
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2009, 02:31 PM   #116
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
Jeez, man, that's a great question. I'm going to have to think about that a lot before I can give any kind of decent answer. Let me ponder it over the course of the day,



This I can answer easily. Yes, any mass or energy produces gravitation/spacetime curvature.
so would this be an example of 2 fields that have not completely been broken?
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2009, 02:50 PM   #117
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
so would this be an example of 2 fields that have not completely been broken?
Broken?
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2009, 03:38 PM   #118
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
Broken?
youll have to excuse my learning disabilities..i have a hard time explaining what i mean when i write. shortly after the big bang certian things differentaited. like the higgs field, the electromagnetic field....thats along the lines im thinking. higgs boson interracts with the higgs field etc.....does that help?
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-14-2009, 12:43 PM   #119
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
ohhhh got another one...kinda star wars like. the govt is spending moneyt on researching directed energy weapons. the concept is simple enough, melt metal with light. theyre also working on ways to protect against this type of weapon system. one bit forerunner is cold plasma. but how intense would a magnetic field have to be to deflect or absorb the energy of a laser? im basing this off of what the earths magnetic field does to cosmic rays and soem solar radiation.

Last edited by TommyKav; 11-14-2009 at 12:46 PM.
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 02:23 AM   #120
onlineadulotne
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1
Adult video - online

sorry bird, I'm just a communist fuck...

Last edited by Heckman; 11-15-2009 at 02:29 AM.
onlineadulotne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2009, 11:10 AM   #121
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
youll have to excuse my learning disabilities..i have a hard time explaining what i mean when i write. shortly after the big bang certian things differentaited. like the higgs field, the electromagnetic field....thats along the lines im thinking. higgs boson interracts with the higgs field etc.....does that help?
I wish I could answer this, but I don't think I have the knowledge fo rit right now. My undertanding of theoretical quantum field theory is extremely limited, and I don't know enough to answer that. I do know that the Standard Model, which is the thoretical underpinning of all physics, does NOT explain gravitation at all. So the theory spontaneous symmetry breaking that gave rise to the different fields/particles early in the universe says absolutely nothing about gravitation or general relativity. The two (Standard Model and GR) have not been united, and that is not only one of the greatest challenges facing theoretical physics today, but it is the problem on which I want to base my research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
ohhhh got another one...kinda star wars like. the govt is spending moneyt on researching directed energy weapons. the concept is simple enough, melt metal with light. theyre also working on ways to protect against this type of weapon system. one bit forerunner is cold plasma. but how intense would a magnetic field have to be to deflect or absorb the energy of a laser? im basing this off of what the earths magnetic field does to cosmic rays and soem solar radiation.
Let me think about this today. I think I can answer it, but I need to fiddle with some math first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by onlineadulotne View Post
sorry bird, I'm just a communist fuck...
GODDAMN COMMUNISTS ARE INVADING MY THREAD
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2009, 06:42 PM   #122
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Tommy I've been thinking about your idea of using concentrated energy that is moving at the speed of light to accelerate something to relativistic speeds. It's a super-cool idea, but unfortunately it wouldn't work and here's why. Gravitational force/waves/attraction/whatever you want to call it travels at the speed of light. If the object is traveling away from you at speed c and the gravitational waves are coming toward you at speed -c, then you will measure the gravitational field of the object moving AWAY from you at speed c, so the gravitational field of the energy will never actually reach you. So there would be NO attraction between you and the energy blob.
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2009, 11:22 AM   #123
TommyKav
Lightweight Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx lithographica View Post
Tommy I've been thinking about your idea of using concentrated energy that is moving at the speed of light to accelerate something to relativistic speeds. It's a super-cool idea, but unfortunately it wouldn't work and here's why. Gravitational force/waves/attraction/whatever you want to call it travels at the speed of light. If the object is traveling away from you at speed c and the gravitational waves are coming toward you at speed -c, then you will measure the gravitational field of the object moving AWAY from you at speed c, so the gravitational field of the energy will never actually reach you. So there would be NO attraction between you and the energy blob.
that is a great answer. thanks for taking the time.

lol i think i know where my next question will lead but im not 100% sure so why not give it a shot. gravity can warp space, so what is space made of? you would think that for a force to act on it there has to be somethign there to act on.


lol hope im not getting on your nerves with this stuff.
TommyKav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2009, 01:27 PM   #124
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
that is a great answer. thanks for taking the time.

lol i think i know where my next question will lead but im not 100% sure so why not give it a shot. gravity can warp space, so what is space made of? you would think that for a force to act on it there has to be somethign there to act on.


lol hope im not getting on your nerves with this stuff.
You're not getting on my nerves in the least; I LOVE this stuff.

If you're asking what the REALITY of space is, no one actually knows. We make our best guesses and use models, but the ultimate reality of everything is up for grabs.

I am going to use some mathematical terms in this next part and I will link the terms to their entries in Wikipedia.

Mathematically speaking, general relativity models spacetime as a manifold endowed with a metric tensor that defines the concepts of separation in space and time. Asking what space is made of is kind of like asking what distance is made of. Space is just the separation between objects. It is not made of anything any more than the distance between 1 and 2 is made of something. So when you hear a physicist or an astronomer say something like "space is expanding," there isn't a physical entity that is expanding, it's just the distance between objects that is expanding.

By the same token, when we say "spacetime is curved," it's not an ACTUAL physical entity that is curved or altered, it's just the distance or separation between objects that is altered.

Does that help any?
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2009, 06:21 AM   #125
Sammich
Moderator/Intense Muscle Competitive Powerlifter 275lb Raw Club Total 1625
 
Sammich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,247
Tommy (and anyone else interested), here is a PDF showing how I found that the gravitational influence of something moving away form you at the speed of light will never actually reach you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TommyKav View Post
ohhhh got another one...kinda star wars like. the govt is spending moneyt on researching directed energy weapons. the concept is simple enough, melt metal with light. theyre also working on ways to protect against this type of weapon system. one bit forerunner is cold plasma. but how intense would a magnetic field have to be to deflect or absorb the energy of a laser? im basing this off of what the earths magnetic field does to cosmic rays and soem solar radiation.
I did a little reading on this and I now know I don't yet have the knowledge to calculate it. However I can give you a very rough answer: a REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY freaking massively powerful magnetic field. I mean phenomenally strong.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf field.pdf (80.0 KB, 7 views)
__________________
Ph.D., Theoretical Physics '16
kind of a douche

Last edited by Sammich; 11-18-2009 at 10:54 AM.
Sammich is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:04 AM.






Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Indexed by Enginuity