Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 30 Oct 2011 :  22:57:27  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
There was an occultation of Mercury two days ago, Oct. 28. The next planetary occultation by Luna, is of Jupiter, June 17, 2012. This is said not to be visible from any populated area. Maybe someone could see it from a ship or airplane.

I see from an online source, that the next planetary occultation after this, by Luna, in 2012, is July 15 - again Jupiter. It will be visible in France, Egypt, Kamchatka & Japan, but the rectangle defined by these corners, curves northward so India is excluded.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 01 Nov 2011 16:41:02
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 31 Oct 2011 :  10:25:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hereby an attempt for a physical explanation ...

If we start from the assumption that there is a particle field that we call 'elysium' comprised of the individual particles called elysons.
The elysons have a velocity exceeding the speed of light and interact continuously with each other through elastic collisions.

If we give one elyson particle an extra momentum, then it will exchange this 'extra momentum' with the first elyson particle it elastically collides with.

If would follow the 'virtual' path followed by this 'extra momentum', then we would observe that the 'extra momentum' is not following a straight path: the position of the 'extra momentum' drifts depending on the direction from where bouncing elyson particle comes from. But the direction of the 'extra momentum' is maintained.

If we follow the 'virtual' path on a longer distance, then we will observe that the extra momentum keeps progressing close to a straight path. This is because the direction from where the bouncing elysons come from is a random process: since chances are the same for any direction, the rules of statistics will keep the 'extra momentum' close to a straight line.

The velocity at which the 'extra momentum' progresses is the speed of light (which is dependent on the average velocity of the elysons).

What happens when the 'extra momentum' is nearing a zone of higher elyson density (and equivalent lower elyson velocity)?
Suppose the elyson density is higher at the left then at the right of the direction of the 'extra momentum'; the probability for an elyson to hit another elyson is no longer equal from all directions: chances are higher that the elyson carrying the 'extra momentum' will hit an elyson at the left (zone of higher density). So the 'extra momentum' will drift towards the left where the elyson density is higher.

What happens when the 'extra momentum' is nearing a zone where elysium is drifting from left to right (a drift relative to the elysium where the light has passed through)?
Chances are bigger that the elyson carrying the 'extra momentum' will be hit by an elyson coming from the left. So here too, the 'extra momentum' will drift towards the left (against the direction of the elysium drift).

If we take the perspective of photons being waves: a wave is the synchronised movement of 'extra momentum' carried by a large set of elysons. This large set of elysons, each carying an 'extra momentum', is influencing each other in such a way that the wave keeps synchronised and aligned.

At the boundary where elyson density becomes higher, the 'extra momentum' carried by the elysons in the front part of a wave will have drifted more towards the area of higher density then elysons at the back end of the wave. In other words: the wave has changed direction. This change in direction of the wave will in turn force the direction of the 'extra momentum' of the individual elysons in the new direction of the wave. (causing light to bend towards a mass)

At the boundary where a transverse 'elysium drift' is encountered, the 'extra momentum' carried by the elysons in the front part of the wave will have drifted more against the direction of the transverse 'elysium drift' then the elysons at the back of the wave. In other words: the wave has changed direction. This change in direction of the wave will in turn force the direction of the 'extra momentum' of the elysons in the new direction of the wave (causing light to 'aberrate' against the direction of the elysium drift encountered).

If we take the hypothesis of an elysium that rotates around the solar system and whereby the rotation rate gradually increases from the boundary of the Solar System towards the Sun:

When the light coming from a star reaches the rotating elysium of the Solar System it will change direction against the direction of the of elysium flow.

Considering a star for which the light enters perpendicular onto the Solar System:

By the time the light has reached the orbit of Neptune, it will have changed direction with 4 arcsec. When light continuous its path towards the center of the Solar System it will continue to change direction (by the time it encounters the orbit of Uranus: 5 arcsec; Saturn: 7 arcsec; Saturn: 10 arcsec; Jupiter 13 arcsec; Mars: 17 arcsec; Earch: 20 arcsec; Venus: 24 arcsec; Mercury: 33 arcsec)

If, from the position on the Earth, we observe the above mentioned star, we will observe this star with a 'stellar aberration' of 20.5 arcsec. The same star observed from Jupiter will show a 'stellar aberration' of only 13 arcsec. If, for an observer on Earth, Jupiter is shown right next to this star, then we know that Jupiter is shown with an aberration of 20.5 - 13 = 7.5 arcsec.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 01 Nov 2011 :  00:38:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
By checking the indexes of all the Astronomical Journals through 1900, I found only two more fairly "choice" Jupiter occultation observations. These are for the March 24, 1889 occultation of Jupiter by Luna. These include 1st & 2nd contact, and were by JK Rees at Columbia College Observatory with a 13 inch scope, and by FW Peirson (FP Leavenworth, Dir.) at Haverford College Observatory (which has a 12 inch scope now, but I don't know what they had then).

I don't yet know how to interpret the times they give ("Columbia College Mean Time" and "Haverford Mean Time"). Columbia College moved, from one location to another within New York City, subsequently; I see a modern photo online of a massive old observatory in urban New York, but I don't know if it was built after the move or before. Likewise I don't know where Haverford's observatory was, then. A mere mile is, roughly, an arcminute of longitude, and that is four seconds of time.

Photos on the U. of Virginia website, www.astro.virginia.edu, show that the Leander McCormick observatory is in the same building now as in 1890 (the 26 inch telescope was dedicated in 1885).

Edited by - Joe Keller on 02 Nov 2011 18:01:33
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 02 Nov 2011 :  13:15:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
What if we apply the proposed physical explanation to light coming from the Sun?

As per the article "The Speed of Gravity What the Experiments Say" on this website:
- The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position
- Why do total eclipses of the Sun by the Moon reach maximum eclipse about 40 seconds before the Sun and Moons gravitational forces align?

This looks like a similar paradox as the one we encounter for stars that remain visible up to 40 seconds once their actual position is behind the Moon.

The explanation that is given: "As viewed from the Earths frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago."

The above explanation can be challenged in the following way: suppose for a moment that the Earth would not be rotating around is axis, then we would always observe the Sun coming from exactly the same direction. This can be explained by the fact that the amount of displacement is exactly compensated by the rotation of Earth (1 axial rotation over the course of 1 orbit rotation).

So if we observe a solar eclipse 40 seconds before the Sun, Moon and observer on Earth are fully aligned, then this means that the light coming from the Sun must have followed a curved path before arriving at the Moon.

In this article, Tom Van Flanders describes how "Gravity Has No Aberration" and how "Gravity and light do not act in parallel directions".

Linking this back to the physical explanation:
- The 'extra momentum' carried by the elysons follows a straight path
(although subject a drift, the direction of the 'extra momentum' remains the same
- EM waves/Photons follow a curved path

So there may not be a need to assume separate, extremely fast, gravity particles.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 02 Nov 2011 :  15:58:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
From the Wikipedia articles "Columbia Univ." & "History of Columbia Univ.", I read that in 1889, "Columbia College" was at 49th St. & Madison Ave. in Manhattan. This is about 200 meters south of where St. Patrick's Cathedral is today; I used this fact to estimate the observatory coordinates. Haverford Observatory is listed on JPL Horizons; those coordinates are near Haverford, Pennsylvania, so would be, at least, near the actual Haverford College Observatory of 1889. The difference between 1st & 2nd contact, is unaffected by the time system, and negligibly affected by the few miles of uncertainty in the position of the observatories.

My results are now:

Harvard Feb 27, 1850
observed - predicted, 1st contact: -5.2 sec
obs-pred, 2nd contact: -9.9 sec
obs-pred, duration (time between 1st & 2nd contacts): -4.8 sec

(same format as for Harvard)
Princeton, Sep 4, 1889
-6.3, -4.2, +2.1
U. of Virginia, Sep 4, 1889
+1.6, -1.7, -3.3
Lick, Sep 4, 1889
-7.4, -14.3, -6.9
Haverford, Mar 24, 1889
+2.3, -15.1, -17.5
Columbia, Mar 24, 1889
+1.5, -18.4, -19.9

mean obs-pred, 1st contact: -2.2 +/- SEM 1.8 sec
mean obs-pred, 2nd contact: -10.6 +/- SEM 2.7 sec
mean obs-pred, duration: -8.4 +/- SEM 3.5 sec

Summarizing: within the error bars, the best published 19th century U.S. timings of occultations of Jupiter by Luna, found that the 1st contact was consistent with the ephemeris, but the 2nd contact was about 8 to 10 seconds early and the duration correspondingly short.

For these six observations, the interval between 1st & 2nd contact, that is, the duration of the immersion process, is shortened the most (basically because the 2nd contact appearance is most premature) when Jupiter is near the meridian. I find Jupiter's hour angle from the meridian, by applying Napier's rules for right spherical triangles, to the JPL Horizons ephemeris apparent azimuth & elevation. Let theta be the difference in right ascension (R.A.) between Jupiter, and the meridian (i.e. right ascension of the zenith); theta is positive if Jupiter is east of the meridian and negative if Jupiter is west of it. For each of the six observations, consider two quantities:

f = observed minus predicted, for time between 1st & 2nd contacts

g = absolute value of cotangent of (Jupiter R.A. - meridian R.A.)

The correlation coefficient of f & g is -0.913, significant at 2.7 sigma by the usual approximate formula (not very accurate for n=6) given in, inter alia, Dixon & Massey, "Introduction to Statistical Analysis", 2nd ed., sec. 11-7, pp. 200-201. If 5 degrees are subtracted from the angle, Jupiter R.A. - meridian R.A., the correlation improves to -0.931, significant at 2.9 sigma.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 03 Nov 2011 21:28:28
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1833 Posts

Posted - 02 Nov 2011 :  18:00:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Dr Joe, Have contacted the ESA observatory in South America about an occultation of Jupiter in 2005? It might have been recorded by them and would have been a good event. I guess most of this data never goes beyond the observatory doing the job.
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 04 Nov 2011 :  14:12:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
[Bart] "... we start from the assumption that there is a particle field that we call 'elysium' comprised of the individual particles called elysons. The elysons have a velocity exceeding the speed of light and interact continuously with each other through elastic collisions."

Elysium is the particle field postulated to be responsible for the propagation of EM wave energy. Therefore, the instantaneous velocity of individual elyson particles with respect to each place on (and near) the surface of Earth (and presumably every other substantial mass) is, or rather must be, approximately zero [m/sec]. This also means that each particle (near the surface of a substantial mass) is, or rather must be, approximately stationary with respect to each of its neighbors.

Any other answer conflicts with daily observation of all sorts of physical phenomena, and would instantly falsify the hypothesized particle field.

Most of the rest of your suggested explanation depends on your assumption of high relative speed, and therefore must be incorrect.

===

BUT ...

... your speculation is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for. Please adjust your assumptions to match the large body of observations we have been making over the decades, and try again.



Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 04 Nov 2011 :  17:16:52  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
21st Century Gravity (Tom Van Flandern):
http://jvr.freewebpage.org/TableOfContents/Volume2/Issue3/21stCenturyGravity1.pdf

"In the elysium model, each elyson has a vibration or oscillation speed that must be slightly faster than the wave speed of that medium. Specifically, if elysium were an ideal gas, average elyson speed would be 3c / sqrt(5)".

This is the basis of my assumption ...
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 04 Nov 2011 :  21:01:00  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Tonight I checked the indexes of every volume that the ISU library has on the shelf, of the Astronomical Journal 1901-1943 (previously I'd checked from the beginning through 1900). There is an index volume for 1944-1975 and I checked that too. There were no more articles about Jupiter occultations by Luna.

I've also checked all years, all languages, all publication types, in "Web of Science" by searching the topic "Jupiter AND occultation" (288 hits). I found an interesting article on simultaneous planetary occultations by Luna, but the data in it aren't precise enough for my purpose (immersion times given only to the minute). A 1983 Sky & Telescope article on an occultation of Jupiter by Luna, likewise lacks precise information (times only to the minute). There is another Sky & Telescope article from 1969 (which I haven't seen as of Nov. 5) and a worthwhile article in Radio Science from 1970, but the library is closing and I don't have time to look at these tonight.

Addendum Nov. 5: at the Drake Univ. library, I checked the indexes of all the volumes (two volumes lacked indexes) of Astronomische Nachrichten that they had on the shelf, through vol. 240 (1930). I checked the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, three index volumes covering 1939 through 1970. Neither journal had articles about Jupiter occultations by Luna, in the volumes that I checked (except for one report in PASP with a 6 inch telescope and missing 1st contact time).

The abovementioned Radio Science article is by Gulkis, Radio Science 5:505-511, 1970; Drake Univ. has it on the shelf. Gulkis says (p. 505) that as a radio source, Jupiter is several times bigger than as an optical source, and has very fuzzy edges so that an exponential fit had to be used to describe its limits. Gulkis also says (p. 508) that in his and previous studies, the eastern part of the Jupiter radio source (the occultation by Luna allowed the determination of Jupiter's radio brightness as a function of east-west position) was more intense than the western part. He hesitated to draw conclusions, citing the scatter in his data, but my suggestion is that the eastern part of Jupiter somehow was compressed in appearance by the occultation, so that its intensity would be greater, and also so that the "2nd contact" would occur sooner.

Edited by - Joe Keller on 06 Nov 2011 14:09:16
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 04 Nov 2011 :  22:51:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Tom is speaking of the vibration speed of the particles. In all media (such as air, water, steel) each particle is *typically* at rest with respect to each other particle until some wave energy passes by. Then each particle will move away from its equilibrium point as far as the forces holding it in place allow, then move back to and past the equilibrium point, as far in the other direction as physics allows, and finally return to its equilibrium point.

As it moves first to, and then fro, it passes the wave energy on to the next particle in line. While moving to and fro, the particle accelerates to a maximum speed, decelerates to zero, accelerates again, and so on, until it comes back to rest at its particular equilibrium point.

The maximum speed it reaches while doing this is 3 * v / sqrt(5), where v is the propagation speed of the wave energy in the medium. In the case of EM waves, v = c, and IF elysium behaves like an ideal gas (I do not think it does - but that is pure theoretical speculation, I have no evidence to back it up) then this relation describes part of the behavior of an elyson as it passes wave energy along to a neighbor. Before and after this event, however, the elyson would be just sitting there, humming quietly with its neighbors.

===

MMX and similar experiments all tell us that if there is anything like an aether it must be stationary with respect to the surface of Earth (and for at least some distance above the surface as well). Otherwise we would detect a doppler shift as we point the experiement in various directions.

Logic dictates that this must also be true on other substantial masses, such as Venus or Jupiter. But we do not (yet) have any hard evidence that allows us to say it is true on smaller masses.

Logic also dictates that there must be an 'interface region' somewhere between Earth and Venus and other substantial masses (probably wide, and contiumous) where the elysium particles are moving with respect to both masses. And with respect to at least some of their neighbors, or their neighbor's neighbors.

===

Do you have aberration data for any of the planets that includes the relative orbital postitions of that planet and Earth at the time the aberration was measured?

LB
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 05 Nov 2011 :  05:42:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Particles in gas, liquids and solids are in continuous motion. The amount particle motion is what we measure as temperature.

Particles in solids are kept to their equilibrium point.
Particles in an ideal gas maintain their speed until collision: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory

The speed equation provided by Tom is a 'statistical average': the particle speeds are ranging over a 'speed distribution' curve.

For a gas, liquid or solid at rest relative to ourselves, the cumulative vector sum of all particle speeds is zero.

So if the MMX tells us that the elysium is stationary, then this means that the vector sum of all elyson speeds is zero while the elysons themselves move at an average speed of 3 * c / sqrt(5).

If Dayton Miller measured a fringe shift(corresponding to a difference of 10km/s), then this means that the vector sum of the elyson speeds has an inbalance (relative to an observer on Earth).

The assumption I take is that elysium is rotating around the Solar System with a rotation speed that is dependent on the distance from the center of the Solar System: SQRT( G * Mass Sun/Distance ). From this perspective any type of mass would have the same speed as the rotating elysium that surrounds it, except when the mass is not travelling in a circular path around the Sun.

The form of the curve described by light (coming from a star) can then be approximated in Excel as follows:
- start the path outside the solar system
- divide the path in a number of sections (e.g. 10000)
- for every point on the path: calculate the rotation speed (outside the solar system: rotation speed = 0)
- calculate the aberration between the two points as : difference rotation speed / speed of light
- for every subsequent point: cumulate the aberration with the prior aberration value
- by the time the path reaches the Earth, the cumulative aberration = 20.5 arcsec
- the curved path can be plotted by showing the calculated Y values
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 05 Nov 2011 :  10:50:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was looking at the occultation for Columbia, Mar 24, 1889 through the Stellarium software.
Just 4 hours before the occultation, the 'bottom' of the Moon crossed the path of Jupiter.
At the moment of the occulation, the path is already at 1/3 of the 'top' of the Moon.
So the Moon crossed the path of Jupiter very rapidly ...

Knowing that the duration between 1st and 2nd contact is pretty much dependent on where the path of Jupiter is crossing the border of the Moon, a slight difference between the calculated 'Apparent position' and the true 'Apparent position' must result in a difference of the duration.
The duration is a sort of 'fingerprint' of where the apparent position of Jupiter must have been at the moment of first and second contact.

It would be interesting to know the difference beween this position and the calculated position ...
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 06 Nov 2011 :  03:25:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Another suggestion is to consider the occultations of stars by Jupiter.

Occultation of star 45 Cap by jupiter - from kfo48 Observatory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ogT_41cNo0
The relative positions of 45 Cap, Jupiter, Europe and Io (at the moment of first contact) look different from what I see from Stellarium.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 06 Nov 2011 :  15:48:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

...ESA observatory in South America about an occultation of Jupiter in 2005? It might have been recorded by them...


Thanks for the heads-up! Over the years I haven't had much luck getting unpublished data, but this is recent, so the chance is better. I'll try it, if I can find the time!
Go to Top of Page

Larry Burford

USA
2200 Posts

Posted - 07 Nov 2011 :  12:24:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bart,

There are several problems with my last post, so it's easy to see why we are still not on the same page. One of these days I will (finally) learn not to fire off a post when I only have a few minutes available. The stuff I'm talking about is not even remotely settled science, and parts of it change from time to time based on conversations with others and my own internal speculations. And that means I should "take more time, not less" when writing about it.

I'll have a corrected post soon.

LB
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 08 Nov 2011 :  12:44:16  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of star 45 Cap by jupiter - from kfo48 Observatory http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ogT_41cNo0

Upon further analysis using the exact moment of occultation:
Jupiter, Europa and IO look to be displaced 8 arcseconds relative to 45 Cap.
In other words: the calculated value for the planetary aberration is exceeding the observed value with 8 arcsec.

This could explain to the anomalies observed with the occulation of Jupiter by the Moon.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 10 Nov 2011 :  15:51:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of star 45 Cap by jupiter - from kfo48 Observatory:
Using the light-time correction option of Stellarium, (on reported moment of full occultation) the distance beween Jupiter and 45 Cap remains 1 arcsec. The occultation occurs around 3 minutes earlier then anticipated by the Stellarium software.
In addition, IO and Europa are observed 2 to 3 arcseconds closer to Jupiter than anticipated (at the reported time of occulation).
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 11 Nov 2011 :  04:25:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon on 7 Dec 2004 9:14 UT:
http://spaceweather.com/occultations/07dec04/parker1_huge.jpg
Exact location in Florida specified.

Compared with Stellarium (including light-time correction):
31 seconds late at first entry, around 8 seconds short for last picture
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 11 Nov 2011 :  08:16:35  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon on 7 Dec 2004 9:14:02 UT: The observed pictures seem correlate with Jupiter being around 25 arcsec behind its calculated position on it's orbit.
Go to Top of Page

Bart

Belgium
76 Posts

Posted - 13 Nov 2011 :  09:04:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Occultation of Jupiter by the Moon on 7 Dec 2004 9:14:02 UT:
Earth was having a radial velocity of 26.7km/s towards Jupiter and tangent velocity of 3.7km/s with Jupiter.

On 15 Dec 2004:
Earth was having a radial velocity of 25.4km/s towards Jupiter and min tangent value below 1km/s.

On 13 Feb 2005:
Earth was having a radial velocity of 0km/s towards Jupiter and max tangent value of 17.7 km/s.

On 7 Dec 2004:
- Earth is 111 degrees 'behind' Jupiter (with reference frame of the Solar System).
- A star observed from the Earth in the apparent direction of Jupiter shows at 30.1 degrees relative to direction the Earth is moving: this causes a stellar aberration of 10.3 arcsec.
- The same star observed from Jupiter shows at 81 degrees relative to the direction of Jupiter : this causes a stellar aberration of 8.7 arcsec (on Jupiter).
- Because the Earth and Jupiter move in opposite directions relative to the orientation of the star, the stellar aberration as observed from the Earth and Jupiter work in opposite directions.

Why does Jupiter show behind its calculated position?

Consider the light coming from the same star referred to above.

The light from the star will follow a 'bell-shaped' curve when crossing the solar system:
- at first, the light bends towards the direction from where the rotating elysium is coming
- as light gets closer to the sun, it well bend back to its original direction when it is passing the sun
- behind the sun, it will bend back in the opposite direction
- further down, it will resume the direction that light was taking when it first entered the solar system

This path can be simulated by knowing that the orientation at any point on the curve can be calculated through the formula of stellar aberration and the speed/direction of a planet on that position.

So for the situation on 7 Dec 2004:
- Jupiter was positioned 'uphill' on this bell-curve with a slope of 8.7 arcsec
- Earth was positioned 'downhill' on this bell-curve with a slope of 10.3 arcsec

For an observer on Earth looking back from where the light of both the star and Jupiter are coming:
- star shows an aberration of 10.3 arcsec
- Jupiter shows with an aberration around 10.3 + 8.7 arcsec
(with an apparent direction that looking behind the actual position)

Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.45 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03