Jump to content

stargazine_ep39_banner.thumb.jpg.b87bddaa2aded94d2a3456c0589a82b9.jpg

Gravity is Dark matter???????????


Recommended Posts

 

" I am on to something. Why is it impossible for physicists to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter? "

 

No idea mpc I'm not a physicist.  But if you get yourself published then the peer review process will give you the answer.  I would encourage you to approach New Scientist, Nature, Scientific America.  You may even consider a direct approach to a few notable universities.  Your audience here is too small.

 

Submit a paper, put it out for review.

Edited by saac
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well...  If if I was posting for the first time on an astronomy forum and had some of these replies, I don't think I would have come back either. I'm not saying that the OP is right or wrong

Am i alone in thinking a couple of the posts here have been a bit harsh on the OP. The postee has obviously had a thought, expressed it and asked for some thoughts on the matter and some of the answer

Physics is often very subtle and takes considerable skill to think about correctly. The lay person, without the requisite training, having an amateur stab at it, can sometimes get in an awful muddle a

12 minutes ago, saac said:

 

" I am on to something. Why is it impossible for physicists to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter? "

 

No idea mpc I'm not a physicist.  But if you get yourself published then the peer review process will give you the answer.  I would encourage you to approach New Scientist, Nature, Scientific America.  You may even consider a direct approach to a few notable universities.  Your audience here is too small.

 

Submit a paper, put it out for review.

You don't need a published paper to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it anymore than you do to understand submarines move through and displace the water.

And de Broglie already wrote a book 'NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE' and articles on the subject.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

Quote

When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles. ... any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium

The hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics is the strongly interacting dark matter. The “energetic contact” is the state of displacement of the strongly interacting dark matter.

Quote

For me, the particle, precisely located in space at every instant, forms on the v wave a small region of high energy concentration, which may be likened in a first approximation, to a moving singularity.

A particle may be likened in a first approximation to a moving singularity which has an associated displacement wave in the strongly interacting dark matter. 

Quote

the particle is defined as a very small region of the wave

In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined path which takes it through one slit. The associated wave in the dark matter passes through both. As the wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave guiding the particle. Detecting the particle strongly exiting a single slit destroys the cohesion between the particle and its associated wave in the dark matter, the particle continues on the trajectory it was traveling and does not form an interference pattern.

All physicist have to do is to realize the notion of a particulate, weakly interacting dark matter is incorrect and that the "subquantic medium" is a strongly interacting dark matter that fills 'empty' space.

After 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and zero-evidence of WIMPs why are physicists incapable of considering the possibility that dark matter fills 'empty' space and strongly interacts with matter?

Edited by mpc755
Link to post
Share on other sites

No you do not need a paper to understand but you do need a paper to read what you are being challenged to understand.  Like I say, your audience here is small, put your points to the people you are challenging, else you are not going to advance your idea.  Again, I would recommend you have your thoughts published and peer reviewed.  

Edited by saac
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, saac said:

No you do not need a paper to understand but you do need a paper to read what you are being challenged to understand.  Like I say, your audience here is small, put your points to the people you are challenging, else you are not going to advance your idea.  Again, I would recommend you have your thoughts published and peer reviewed.  

And I recommend physicists understand the notion of WIMPs is incorrect and that what de Broglie referred to as the "subquantic medium" is a strongly interacting dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

If it's an issue with labels then they should be capable of understanding 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, acey said:

It's always been "de bro-ee" for me, but what do theoretical physicists know about anything?

The OP has sadly never returned since making his/her debut post that started this thread.

acey, that sound's more plausible.  You know I've always been really self conciousness when I introduce De-Broglie to the students, in the end we end up with a class full of different pronunciations.  Anyway, until told otherwise I'm going to go with "de bro-ee", thanks acey.

Jim

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, mpc755 said:

And I recommend physicists understand the notion of WIMPs is incorrect and that what de Broglie referred to as the "subquantic medium" is a strongly interacting dark matter which fills 'empty' space.

If it's an issue with labels then they should be capable of understanding 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

I understand that mpc but it seems to me you need to get that message out to an altogether different audience. At the end of the day you can repeat your attestations ad infinitum here to no real effect - no disrespect to the SGL forum members.  We do not, nor cannot, speak for "physicists", if by that you mean the professional body.  The only way to reach them is through the long accepted route, publish and seek peer review.  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

Jim

Edited by saac
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, saac said:

I understand that mpc but it seems to me you need to get that message out to an altogether different audience. At the end of the day you can repeat your attestations ad infinitum here to no real effect - no disrespect to the SGL forum members.  We do not, nor cannot, speak for "physicists", if by that you mean the professional body.  The only way to reach them is through the long accepted route, publish and seek peer review.  You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

 

Jim

Why can't physicists, and people interested in understanding what occurs physically in nature, understand the notion of WIMPs is incorrect? After 30 years and over a billion dollars spent and zero evidence of WIMPs why can't physicists, and people interested in understanding what occurs physically in nature, understand that that is evidence against the notion of WIMPs?

Why can't physicists, and people interested in understanding what occurs physically in nature, understand the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment is evidence the particle always travels through a single slit?

Why can't physicists, and people interested in understanding what occurs physically in nature, understand what ripples when black holes collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the strongly interacting dark matter?

Why can't physicists, and people interested in understanding what occurs physically in nature, understand dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics?

Why can't you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without publishing mpc you haven't given the "physicists" the opportunity to understand, you are condemning them without cause.  That's not fair.  Put your thoughts on paper and publish openly, give the community of which you are critical the curtsy to read and consider that which you say they do not understand.  As for me and my understanding, like I said I am not a physicist, there is an awful lot about physics that I don't understand.  I always think when somebody does not understand something it is because it has not been explained clearly and convincingly - , of course on my part I also have to be open to ability as a limiting factor:happy8:.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, saac said:

Without publishing mpc you haven't given the "physicists" the opportunity to understand, you are condemning them without cause.  That's not fair.  Put your thoughts on paper and publish openly, give the community of which you are critical the curtsy to read and consider that which you say they do not understand.  As for me and my understanding, like I said I am not a physicist, there is an awful lot about physics that I don't understand.  I always think when somebody does not understand something it is because it has not been explained clearly and convincingly - , of course on my part I also have to be open to ability as a limiting factor:happy8:.

Do you need a published article to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when your eyes are closed?

Edited by mpc755
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes you do if you want to claim it as a new understanding in challenge of accepted theory.  It's how the science community at large works mpc -  peer review in particular lies at the heart of the rigour of science. Ok I can see you are reluctant to understand or submit to that route so it's time for me to sign off. Good luck with your alternative view, hope you can get some traction with it.

 

Jim

Edited by saac
Link to post
Share on other sites

From another forum:

GENERAL MODNOTE
mpc755 was banned. This was due to his posting behaviour, repeating the same posts again and again, despite having been both advised and warned about repetitious posting being in violation of our FUA. Another factor was that he was not engaging in a discussion, but repeating the same phrases and the same posts repeatedly instead of trying to explain and discuss his points of view. Thank you

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/ether-displacement-t23715-520.html

Edited by acey
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saac said:

Well yes you do if you want to claim it as a new understanding in challenge of accepted theory.  It's how the science community at large works mpc -  peer review in particular lies at the heart of rigour of science. Ok I can see you are reluctant to underrated or submit to that route so it's time for me to sign off. Good luck with your alternative view, hope you can get some traction with it.

 

Jim

You're at the beach with your 8 year old child. You tell your child you are going to perform an experiment. You watch boats enter the harbor through one of two slits. As a boat approaches the harbor you tell your child to close their eyes. Then you tell them to open their eyes. When they open their eyes they see the boat in the middle of one of the slits. You ask your child if they can tell you anything about which slit the boat entered. Your child tells you it entered the slit they see it in. Are you going to tell your child that they are not allowed to understand that because it challenges accepted theory?

The accepted theory is that the boat exists in infinitely many-worlds while your child's eyes are closed. Are you going to talk your child out of understanding the boat entered the slit they see it in and 'educate' your child by explaining to them the boat existed in infinitely many worlds simultaneously while there eyes were closed because that is the "accepted theory"?

Or, are you going to allow your child to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature?

Edited by mpc755
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, acey said:

From another forum:

GENERAL MODNOTE
mpc755 was banned. This was due to his posting behaviour, repeating the same posts again and again, despite having been both advised and warned about repetitious posting being in violation of our FUA. Another factor was that he was not engaging in a discussion, but repeating the same phrases and the same posts repeatedly instead of trying to explain and discuss his points of view. Thank you

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/ether-displacement-t23715-520.html

Do whatever you need to do to not understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder the OP never returned.

Q. Gravity is Dark matter???????????

A. Correct. More correctly, dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by matter. The dark matter displaced by the Earth pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the Earth is gravity. Even more correctly, the state of displacement of the strongly interacting dark matter is gravity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to prolong this but I am a Physicist, not practicing but I did take a PhD in  Physics at Cambridge, so I know I am .... I have read all the links provided by mpc755 and a few other related ones. I must say there was some very interesting stuff that I was not come across before. They are all in some way related to De Broglie - Bohm's wave guided guantum mechanics proposals. (I know De Broglie's and Bohm's theories differ.)

Most links are to peer reviewd papers or popular summaries. The "wave guided guided drop"  experiments are truly fasinating but as the authors say they provide a model for wave guided QM but have significant differences. One of the papers discusses the guiding of quantum particles by vacuum fluctuations and of course these have been proposed as the source of the cosmological constant. It just happend to be 500 orders of magnitude too big. We physicists are a poor lot.

mpc557 proposal is that dark matter is the source of both the curvature of space time and the guiding mechanism of QM. This is his idea as I can find no reference to it in the papers he quotes or beyond. Indeed no reference to space time curvature / general relativity at all.

He may be right but I could find no evidence to support his idea in the literature.

Regards Andrew

 

 

Edited by andrew s
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Sorry to prolong this but I am a Physicist, not practicing but I did take a PhD in  Physics at Cambridge, so I know I am .... I have read all the links provided by mpc755 and a few other related ones. I must say there was some very interesting stuff that I was not come across before. They are all in some way related to De Broglie - Bohm's wave guided guantum mechanics proposals. (I know De Broglie's and Bohm's theories differ.)

Then you should be able to call it big its correct name. I am discussing de Broglie's DOUBLE SOLUTION THEORY. 

Most links are to peer reviewd papers or popular summaries. The "wave guided guided drop"  experiments are truly fasinating but as the authors say they provide a model for wave guided QM but have significant differences. One of the papers discusses the guiding of quantum particles by vacuum fluctuations and of course these have been proposed as the source of the cosmological constant. It just happend to be 500 orders of magnitude too big. We physicists are a poor lot.

mpc557 proposal is that dark matter is the source of both the curvature of space time and the guiding mechanism of QM. This is his idea as I can find no reference to it in the papers he quotes or beyond. Indeed no reference to space time curvature / general relativity at all.

He may be right but I could find no evidence to support his idea in the literature.

Regards Andrew  

I find the following article to be the closest to what I propose as it discusses the aether as having mass which particles exist in and move through.

'From the Newton's laws to motions of the fluid and superfluid vacuum: vortex tubes, rings, and others'

The superfluid medium represents a ’fluidic’ nature of space itself. Another name for such an ’ideal fluid’ is the aether. ... This medium, called also the aether, has mass and is populated by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it ...

... and displace it. 

I think the above description should make it relativity easy to expand the notion to all of the particles of matter the Earth consists of as moving through and displacing the aether resulting in the state of displacement of the aether being gravity.

I will follow up with a subsequent post with articles that describe a gravitational aether/dark matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mpc755 said:

Then you should be able to call it big its correct name. I am discussing de Broglie's DOUBLE SOLUTION THEORY. 

Yes and it is a complete misnomer as his two waves are the same as the are related by a constant - see his paper you quote. He insisted they are different but all a constant can do is change the units like setting c = 1. I suspect you know that from the Phyisics Forum discussion

  I have read the paper and it is the one that discusses vacuum fluctuations with no mention of dark matter or general relativity.

Regards Andrew

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, andrew s said:

Yes and it is a complete misnomer as his two waves are the same as the are related by a constant - see his paper you quote. He insisted they are different but all a constant can do is change the units like setting c = 1. I suspect you know that from the Phyisics Forum discussion

The whole point of de Broglie's DOUBLE solution theory is that there are two waves. One mathematical and one physical. One of the reasons his theory didn't catch on more was that he never finished the mathematics for the physical wave.

Quote

I have read the paper and it is the one that discusses vacuum fluctuations with no mention of dark matter or general relativity.

You're going to choose not to understand what occurs physically in nature over labels? Label it whatever you want, 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

The following article describes gravity as a pressure exerted by aether toward matter.

'The aether-modified gravity and the G ̈del metric'

Quote

"As for the pressure, it is equal to p = 53−αg,6a2 so, it is positive if αg < 3 which is the weaker condition than the previous one. One notes that the results corresponding to the usual gravity are easily recovered. Also, it is easy to see that the interval αg < 15 corresponds to the usual matter." 

The following article describes the aether as an incompressible fluid resulting in what the article refers to as gravitational aether caused by pressure or vorticity.

'Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem'

Quote

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether. In this paper, we discuss classical predictions of this theory along with its compatibility with cosmological and experimental tests of gravity. We argue that deviations from General Relativity (GR) in this theory are sourced by pressure or vorticity."

The following article describes a gravitating vacuum where aether is the quantum vacuum of the 21-st century.

'From Analogue Models to Gravitating Vacuum'

Quote

"The aether of the 21-st century is the quantum vacuum, which is a new form of matter. This is the real substance"

The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

'An Extended Dynamical Equation of Motion, Phase Dependency and Inertial Backreaction'

Quote

"We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."

The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

'Fluidic Electrodynamics: On parallels between electromagnetic and fluidic inertia'

Quote

"It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

'Empty Black Holes, Firewalls, and the Origin of Bekenstein-Hawking Entropy'

Quote

 

"But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

__3__
32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and T'μν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

 

The following articles describe what is presently postulated as dark matter is aether.

'Quantum aether and an invariant Planck scale'

Quote

"this version of aether may have some bearing on the abundance of Dark Matter and Dark Energy in our universe."

"mass of the aether"

'Scalars, Vectors and Tensors from Metric-Affine Gravity'

Quote

"the model obtained here gets closer to the aether theory of , which is shown therein to be an alternative to the cold dark matter."

'Unified model for dark matter and quintessence'

Quote

"Superfluid dark matter is reminiscent of the aether and modeling the universe using superfluid aether is compatible."

'Vainshtein mechanism in Gauss-Bonnet gravity and Galileon aether'

Quote

"the perturbations of the scalar field do not propagate in the Minkowski space-time but rather in some form of ”aether” because of the presence of the background field"

'On the super-fluid property of the relativistic physical vacuum medium and the inertial motion of particles'

Quote

"In this paper we shall show that the relativistic physical vacuum medium as a ubiquitous back ground field is a super fluid medium."

 

Edited by mpc755
Link to post
Share on other sites

I cos

5 minutes ago, mpc755 said:

You're going to choose not to understand what occurs physically in nature over labels?

I so choose. In the end all physical theories are just labels and relations between them related preferably to observation. 

I should have stuck to my decision not to discuss this further with you. I will look at the links you posted but not comment.

Good day and thanks for all the fish.

Andrew s

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, andrew s said:

I so choose. In the end all physical theories are just labels and relations between them related preferably to observation. 

I should have stuck to my decision not to discuss this further with you. I will look at the links you posted but not comment.

Good day and thanks for all the fish.

Andrew s

If you are going to not understand what occurs physically in nature because some articles discuss the mass which fills 'empty' space as the aether and others label it dark matter then you should have stuck with your decision to not discuss this further. There is nothing worse than someone who appears to be open minded to correctly understanding what occurs physically in nature and then decides not to because the mass which fills 'empty' space and is displaced by matter has a different label.

To me, that's worse than someone going back to 2011 to find me having been banned from a site.

Edited by mpc755
Link to post
Share on other sites

'Dark matter' is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'

Quote

"Dark matter ... permeates all the way to the center of the voids."

'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'

Quote

"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

Since people don't seem to be able to handle existing labels associated with the mass which fills 'empty' space, replace all instances of "dark matter" and "aether" throughout this thread with "dark mass".

"Dark mass" fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment, the dark mass.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality, both are waves in the dark mass.

Dark mass displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Edited by mpc755
Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble view i think its good for people to air their thoughts on complex matters like physics and for people to discuss their merits etc. However you seem very persistent on your view mpc repeating the same logic over and over. It would seem that when you get to that level of certainty you then need to take the next step. It has been suggested you might want to think about writing a paper on your thoughts which you seem quick to dismiss with the objection why do physicists needs papers to understand. Well i would suggest there are a couple of good reasons for writing the paper.

1) It allows exposure to other people within the industry to view, scrutinise and or support your ideas. Without a paper the masses in the know will never know. If Einstein had never published his ideas much of our understanding of the universe would still be purely on Newtonian theories.

2) It gives you a chance to match your idea with all the evidence you have supporting it. So all the maths you have tirelessly worked on, all the observations you have collected, all the testing and modelling and all those other theories that work so beautifully in tandem with your idea. 

So now you have all that just put it in a paper and prepare for stardom (pun intended).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, symesie04 said:

In my humble view i think its good for people to air their thoughts on complex matters like physics and for people to discuss their merits etc. However you seem very persistent on your view mpc repeating the same logic over and over. It would seem that when you get to that level of certainty you then need to take the next step. It has been suggested you might want to think about writing a paper on your thoughts which you seem quick to dismiss with the objection why do physicists needs papers to understand. Well i would suggest there are a couple of good reasons for writing the paper.

1) It allows exposure to other people within the industry to view, scrutinise and or support your ideas. Without a paper the masses in the know will never know. If Einstein had never published his ideas much of our understanding of the universe would still be purely on Newtonian theories.

2) It gives you a chance to match your idea with all the evidence you have supporting it. So all the maths you have tirelessly worked on, all the observations you have collected, all the testing and modelling and all those other theories that work so beautifully in tandem with your idea. 

So now you have all that just put it in a paper and prepare for stardom (pun intended).

Do you need a paper to understand when you place a  bowling ball into a tank of water the water is displaced by the bowling ball?

What's so difficult about understanding 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well im amazed, all these years of the greatest minds on the planet melting their brain cells in an attempt to understand the universe we live, all that billions of pounds of equipment spent peering into the depths of space looking for clues in its very structure and all along Archimedes had the answer over 2200 years ago. Oh if only we had listened. Im not sure why you are so reluctant to write your paper if you are so sure? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, symesie04 said:

Well im amazed, all these years of the greatest minds on the planet melting their brain cells in an attempt to understand the universe we live, all that billions of pounds of equipment spent peering into the depths of space looking for clues in its very structure and all along Archimedes had the answer over 2200 years ago. Oh if only we had listened. Im not sure why you are so reluctant to write your paper if you are so sure? 

I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Scott locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.