A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreases astime goes on



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 14th 12, 08:15 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreases astime goes on

After calculating the amount of Dark Energy there was in the past vs.
Dark Matter, that galaxies in the early universe had not only had less
Dark Energy (as expected), but they also had more Dark Matter (not
expected). Scientists thought that Dark Matter should remain more or
less the same in magnitude, since it's supposedly a type of matter,
while the Dark Energy component grows. But they're finding that the Dark
Matter component might have been higher in the past than it is now.

If that is the case, then Dark Matter cannot be a type of stable
particle, it is just another form of fleeting energy like Dark Energy
is. In fact, it would mean that theories such as Dark Fluid would be
right, i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are just two sides of the same
coin, and when one goes down, the other goes up, and vice-versa.

It also puts a kibosh on particle physics theories like Supersymmetry,
as we'll never see superpartner particles like neutralinos or photinos,
as the Standard Model is all that is necessary to explain the universe
as it is now. With the Standard Model, the vacuum energy is all that is
necessary to create the pushing effect of Dark Energy, and similarly the
same vacuum energy would be all that's necessary to create the pulling
together effect of Dark Energy.

Yousuf Khan

Dark energy map puts the squeeze on dark matter | Stuart Clark | Science
| guardian.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/ac...ap-dark-matter
  #2  
Old November 14th 12, 03:21 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreases astime goes on

Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:14:44 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
....
After calculating the amount of Dark Energy there
was in the past vs. Dark Matter, that galaxies in
the early universe had not only had less Dark
Energy (as expected), but they also had more Dark
Matter (not expected).


I don't see how they can conclude that. If they expect to see Dark-Matter-as-WIMPs, then interactions will reduce the number of WIMPs in forward time, and they'd see exactly this. If Dark Matter is really just heavily ionized normal matter, as the Universe heats (in reverse time), less ground state matter should be visible, so it would look like an increase in Dark Matter.
  #3  
Old November 15th 12, 03:21 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on

On 14/11/2012 9:21 AM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Khan:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:14:44 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan
wrote: ...
After calculating the amount of Dark Energy there was in the past
vs. Dark Matter, that galaxies in the early universe had not only
had less Dark Energy (as expected), but they also had more Dark
Matter (not expected).


I don't see how they can conclude that. If they expect to see
Dark-Matter-as-WIMPs, then interactions will reduce the number of
WIMPs in forward time, and they'd see exactly this. If Dark Matter
is really just heavily ionized normal matter, as the Universe heats
(in reverse time), less ground state matter should be visible, so it
would look like an increase in Dark Matter.


We have no idea whether Dark Matter is WIMPs, and since we've never seen
WIMPs, then chances are likely that they aren't. Not having seen WIMPs,
we have no idea if they interact and annihilate each other.

I can't see highly ionized normal matter being enough to explain Dark
Matter either. There simply can't be enough to make up the shortfall,
although it might be able to make up some small percentage of it.

So if DM is not either of these things, then it's got to be an effect of
vacuum energy, just like DE is supposed to be.

Scientists thought that Dark Matter should remain more or less the
same in magnitude, since it's supposedly a type of matter, while
the Dark Energy component grows. But they're finding that the Dark
Matter component might have been higher in the past than it is
now.

If that is the case, then Dark Matter cannot be a type of stable
particle, it is just another form of fleeting energy like Dark
Energy is.


Doesn't follow.


Dark Matter shouldn't go up and down in magnitude, only forms of energy
can do that by transforming between one type and another. Matter is
mostly stuck in its own form most of the time.

In fact, it would mean that theories such as Dark Fluid would be
right, i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are just two sides of the
same coin,


Additionally, Dark Energy is uniformly distributed in any epoch (so
far), so it is no sort of "stuff".


Yup.

and when one goes down, the other goes up, and vice-versa.

It also puts a kibosh on particle physics theories like
Supersymmetry, as we'll never see superpartner particles like
neutralinos or photinos, as the Standard Model is all that is
necessary to explain the universe as it is now.


Was flavor oscillation predicted for neutrinos, or was the
observation that they change mass as they change "state" observed and
then described later?


Neutrino mass is still not firmly established except indirectly.
Basically they believe that neutrinos must have mass because they change
flavour. But they still don't have any specific idea what the actual
mass of any neutrino would be.

With the Standard Model, the vacuum energy is all that is necessary
to create the pushing effect of Dark Energy,


Dark Energy is not energy, in the Standard Model. And somehow *less*
Dark Energy, produced the initial inflation?


Well, we're not talking about Big Bang conditions, at that time, it's
likely the energy at that time was all converted to a push-type energy
before settling down to become pull-type again.

and similarly the same vacuum energy would be all that's necessary
to create the pulling together effect of Dark Energy.


Dark Energy repulses. Dark Energy drives inflation, expansion,
acceleration of expansion.


Yes, that was a typo, I meant Dark Matter in that case.

Yousuf Khan
  #4  
Old November 15th 12, 04:50 AM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on

Dear Yousuf Kahn:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:21:26 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/11/2012 9:21 AM, dlzc wrote:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:14:44 AM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan


wrote: ...


After calculating the amount of Dark Energy there was in the past
vs. Dark Matter, that galaxies in the early universe had not only
had less Dark Energy (as expected), but they also had more Dark
Matter (not expected).


I don't see how they can conclude that. If they expect to see
Dark-Matter-as-WIMPs, then interactions will reduce the number of
WIMPs in forward time, and they'd see exactly this. If Dark Matter
is really just heavily ionized normal matter, as the Universe heats
(in reverse time), less ground state matter should be visible, so it
would look like an increase in Dark Matter.


We have no idea whether Dark Matter is WIMPs, and since we've
never seen WIMPs, then chances are likely that they aren't. Not
having seen WIMPs, we have no idea if they interact and
annihilate each other.


I don't expect there are either, but they would agree with this observation..

I can't see highly ionized normal matter being enough to
explain Dark Matter either. There simply can't be enough
to make up the shortfall,


There was, even before we saw all the ionized gas between stars and between galaxies, and the fields of individual stars in intergalactic space... not allocated to galaxies. This does stagnate the mass in planet-mass-and-larger black holes, however, as they would tend to increase Dark Matter in forward time...

although it might be able to make up some small
percentage of it.


I understand you are not convinced.

So if DM is not either of these things,


Just because you are not convinced, does not mean you can throw them out.

then it's got to be an effect of vacuum energy, just
like DE is supposed to be.


That tool is blunted, as previously discussed. The "energy", and the nature of that "energy" was unchanged.

Scientists thought that Dark Matter should remain more or less the
same in magnitude, since it's supposedly a type of matter, while
the Dark Energy component grows. But they're finding that the Dark
Matter component might have been higher in the past than it is
now.


If that is the case, then Dark Matter cannot be a type of stable
particle, it is just another form of fleeting energy like Dark
Energy is.


Doesn't follow.


Dark Matter shouldn't go up and down in magnitude,


Sure can, as discussed above. WIMPs interact to become normal, and ionized (therefore dark) becomes less so.

only forms of energy can do that by transforming between
one type and another.


Doesn't matter what type, both are attractive in GR, as both must act like mass "in the large".

Matter is mostly stuck in its own form most of the time.


Nope. Interacting, forming stars and planets, reaching ground state, heck even micro black holes evaporating... plenty easy to become less Dark.

In fact, it would mean that theories such as Dark Fluid would be
right, i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are just two sides of the
same coin,


Additionally, Dark Energy is uniformly distributed in any epoch (so
far), so it is no sort of "stuff".


Yup.

and when one goes down, the other goes up, and vice-versa.
It also puts a kibosh on particle physics theories like
Supersymmetry, as we'll never see superpartner particles like
neutralinos or photinos, as the Standard Model is all that is
necessary to explain the universe as it is now.


Was flavor oscillation predicted for neutrinos, or was the
observation that they change mass as they change "state"
observed and then described later?


Neutrino mass is still not firmly established except
indirectly. Basically they believe that neutrinos must
have mass because they change flavour. But they still
don't have any specific idea what the actual mass of any
neutrino would be.

With the Standard Model, the vacuum energy is all that
is necessary to create the pushing effect of Dark Energy,


Dark Energy is not energy, in the Standard Model. And
somehow *less* Dark Energy, produced the initial inflation?


Well, we're not talking about Big Bang conditions, at
that time, it's likely the energy at that time was all
converted to a push-type energy before settling down to
become pull-type again.


I am unconvinced. I see no mechanism. Dark Energy and Dark Matter are tied down at the time of CMBR emissions, really not much wiggle room.

and similarly the same vacuum energy would be all that's necessary
to create the pulling together effect of Dark Energy.


Dark Energy repulses. Dark Energy drives inflation, expansion,
acceleration of expansion.


Yes, that was a typo, I meant Dark Matter in that case.


Okie dokie.

David A. Smith
  #5  
Old November 17th 12, 12:48 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on

On 14/11/2012 10:50 PM, dlzc wrote:
Dear Yousuf Kahn:

On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:21:26 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/11/2012 9:21 AM, dlzc wrote: We have no idea whether Dark
Matter is WIMPs, and since we've never seen WIMPs, then chances are
likely that they aren't. Not having seen WIMPs, we have no idea if
they interact and annihilate each other.


I don't expect there are either, but they would agree with this
observation.


Except we should be seeing a lot of gamma rays from DarkMatter
annihilation events in the distant universe. The Gamma ray events are so
far all just normal supernovas, quasars, etc.

I can't see highly ionized normal matter being enough to explain
Dark Matter either. There simply can't be enough to make up the
shortfall,


There was, even before we saw all the ionized gas between stars and
between galaxies, and the fields of individual stars in intergalactic
space... not allocated to galaxies. This does stagnate the mass in
planet-mass-and-larger black holes, however, as they would tend to
increase Dark Matter in forward time...


I don't get what you're saying here. Are you saying that there are
planet-mass blackholes in intergalactic space making up the Dark Matter?
That would mean the MACHO model of Dark Matter.

although it might be able to make up some small percentage of it.


I understand you are not convinced.

So if DM is not either of these things,


Just because you are not convinced, does not mean you can throw them
out.


I don't believe we'll find any one thing likely to be called Dark Matter
(whether it be WIMPs, MACHOs, or just missing baryonic matter), nor will
any combination of them be enough to account for all of the effect. My
feeling is that the majority of the effect is just a reshaping of the
gravitational force effects.

then it's got to be an effect of vacuum energy, just like DE is
supposed to be.


That tool is blunted, as previously discussed. The "energy", and the
nature of that "energy" was unchanged.


No, Dark Energy and Dark Matter might be just an exchange of negative
energy (gravitational pull) for positive energy (accelerated expansion),
and vice-versa. All of the matter in the universe is made of positive
energy, while all of its gravitational pull is made of negative energy.
In the Inflationary period, a large amount of positive push energy
pushed the universe out very quickly, and then that positive energy got
converted into matter which reduced the positive energy's runaway
pushing by locking it up. That then gave the negative gravitational
energy, which is normally very randomized and spread out, enough
breathing space to take hold of the universe and begin slowing it down
again. Then virtual particles (which are also matter and anti-matter,
thus made of positive energy) would start releasing positive energy into
intergalactic voids to begin another, albeit smaller, pushing effort again.

Inflation occurred before matter appeared, thus the entire positive
energy reserve was used to push the universe out. When matter appeared,
the universe's pushing era ended, because it got locked up into
matter/antimatter. Now in the present stated of the universe, some of
that matter/antimatter creates a mini-re-emergence of positive push era
again: not as large or as spectacular as the Inflationary era, but still
a sort of push era.

Scientists thought that Dark Matter should remain more or less
the same in magnitude, since it's supposedly a type of matter,
while the Dark Energy component grows. But they're finding that
the Dark Matter component might have been higher in the past
than it is now.


If that is the case, then Dark Matter cannot be a type of
stable particle, it is just another form of fleeting energy
like Dark Energy is.


Doesn't follow.


Dark Matter shouldn't go up and down in magnitude,


Sure can, as discussed above. WIMPs interact to become normal, and
ionized (therefore dark) becomes less so.


If WIMPs interact with each other and annihilate, then they won't become
normal baryonic matter, they will become gamma ray photons, thus not
stable matter.

only forms of energy can do that by transforming between one type
and another.


Doesn't matter what type, both are attractive in GR, as both must act
like mass "in the large".


Not if the types of energy are negative energy vs. positive. Negative
energy is just what we normally call gravitation, thus its opposite form
of energy is positive energy which is a push-type energy.

Matter is mostly stuck in its own form most of the time.


Nope. Interacting, forming stars and planets, reaching ground state,
heck even micro black holes evaporating... plenty easy to become less
Dark.


I meant matter is stuck being baryons most of the time. I don't mean
whether they become stars or planets or stuff like that. They stay
pretty stably in the form of baryons.

Dark Energy is not energy, in the Standard Model. And somehow
*less* Dark Energy, produced the initial inflation?


Well, we're not talking about Big Bang conditions, at that time,
it's likely the energy at that time was all converted to a
push-type energy before settling down to become pull-type again.


I am unconvinced. I see no mechanism. Dark Energy and Dark Matter
are tied down at the time of CMBR emissions, really not much wiggle
room.


As stated above, the Inflationary epoch was when Dark Energy managed to
runaway unhindered since matter hadn't formed yet to lock it down into a
self-contained crystallized form.


Yousuf Khan
  #6  
Old November 19th 12, 11:32 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Jeff-Relf.Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default Sum up ALL the themodynamic eXergy and you get... gravity. 

body style='background: black;'pre style='background: black; font-family: DejaVu Sans Mono, Lucida Console, monospace, MS Mincho; padding: 1em; color: rgb( 128, 64, 0 ); font-size: 25px;'
Dark matter is just unseen mass, dark energy is lost eXergy.
Sum up ALL the themodynamic eXergy and you get... gravity.

The start of the big bang is just the horizon, an event horizon;
time (as measured/felt) "slows" (redshifts) as it climbs out of the gravity well.
  #7  
Old November 19th 12, 09:09 PM posted to sci.astro
dlzc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,426
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on

Dear Yousuf Kahn:

On Friday, November 16, 2012 4:48:16 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 14/11/2012 10:50 PM, dlzc wrote:
On Wednesday, November 14, 2012 7:21:26 PM UTC-7, Yousuf Khan wrote:

....
We have no idea whether Dark Matter is WIMPs,
and since we've never seen WIMPs, then chances
are likely that they aren't. Not having seen
WIMPs, we have no idea if they interact and
annihilate each other.


I don't expect there are either, but they
would agree with this observation.


Except we should be seeing a lot of gamma rays
from Dark Matter annihilation events in the
distant universe. The Gamma ray events are so
far all just normal supernovas, quasars, etc.

I can't see highly ionized normal matter
being enough to explain Dark Matter either.
There simply can't be enough to make up the
shortfall,


There was, even before we saw all the
ionized gas between stars and between galaxies,
and the fields of individual stars in
intergalactic space... not allocated to
galaxies. This does stagnate the mass in
planet-mass-and-larger black holes, however,
as they would tend to increase Dark Matter
in forward time...


I don't get what you're saying here. Are you
saying that there are planet-mass blackholes
in intergalactic space making up the Dark
Matter?


*If* they existed, they would comply with the requirements of Dark Matter. If they existed they would have to be net not growing, to comply with this observation.

That would mean the MACHO model of Dark Matter.


Each observation applies to all possible (relevant) theories.

although it might be able to make up some
small percentage of it.


I understand you are not convinced.


So if DM is not either of these things,


Just because you are not convinced, does not
mean you can throw them out.


I don't believe we'll find any one thing
likely to be called Dark Matter (whether it
be WIMPs, MACHOs, or just missing baryonic
matter), nor will any combination of them be
enough to account for all of the effect.


But normal matter *alone* could describe spiral galaxy curves and microlensing, even before the discoveries I mention above. "Something special" was required in the dusty outer rim, and so...

My feeling is that the majority of the
effect is just a reshaping of the gravitational
force effects.


OK, but this is not required, is not detectable in the laboratory, and violates the laws of physics not changing over time.

then it's got to be an effect of vacuum energy,
just like DE is supposed to be.


That tool is blunted, as previously discussed.
The "energy", and the nature of that "energy"
was unchanged.


No, Dark Energy and Dark Matter might be just
an exchange of negative energy (gravitational
pull) for positive energy (accelerated expansion),
and vice-versa. All of the matter in the universe
is made of positive energy, while all of its
gravitational pull is made of negative energy.


Sorry, this is just so much wind here.

In the Inflationary period, a large amount of
positive push energy pushed the universe out
very quickly, and then that positive energy got
converted into matter


If it was not already matter, no push was required.

which reduced the positive energy's runaway
pushing by locking it up. That then gave the
negative gravitational energy, which is normally
very randomized and spread out, enough breathing
space to take hold of the universe and begin
slowing it down again.


It didn't slow down, it just didn't expand very fast.

Then virtual particles (which are also matter
and anti-matter, thus made of positive energy)


No, they are not. They are massless.

would start releasing positive energy into
intergalactic voids to begin another, albeit
smaller, pushing effort again.


This is just going downhill, Yousuf.

Inflation occurred before matter appeared,


Based on???

thus the entire positive energy reserve
was used to push the universe out. When
matter appeared, the universe's pushing
era ended, because it got locked up into
matter/antimatter. Now in the present
stated of the universe, some of that
matter/antimatter creates a mini
re-emergence of positive push era again:
not as large or as spectacular as the
Inflationary era, but still a sort of push
era.


None of which Science can support, since you alter physics to do it.

....
Dark Matter shouldn't go up and down in magnitude,


Sure can, as discussed above. WIMPs interact to
become normal, and ionized (therefore dark) becomes
less so.


If WIMPs interact with each other and annihilate,
then they won't become normal baryonic matter, they
will become gamma ray photons, thus not stable matter.


That is not correct. Massive normal matter is supposed to result, with less total energy carried off by the photons. And electrons entering orbitals convert more ionized matter (dark matter) to less ionized matter.

only forms of energy can do that by transforming
between one type and another.


Doesn't matter what type, both are attractive
in GR, as both must act like mass "in the large".


Not if the types of energy are negative energy
vs. positive.


Energy is one "term" in GR. It is attractive.

Negative energy is just what we normally call
gravitation, thus its opposite form of energy
is positive energy which is a push-type energy.


Sorry, no.

....
Matter is mostly stuck in its own form most of the time.


Nope. Interacting, forming stars and planets,
reaching ground state, heck even micro black
holes evaporating... plenty easy to become less
Dark.


I meant matter is stuck being baryons most of
the time. I don't mean whether they become stars
or planets or stuff like that. They stay pretty
stably in the form of baryons.


But ionized matter is essentially dark. So it can go from being dark, to being non-dark simply by cooling... by being in a cooler Universe.

....
Well, we're not talking about Big Bang
conditions, at that time, it's likely the
energy at that time was all converted to a
push-type energy before settling down to
become pull-type again.


I am unconvinced. I see no mechanism.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are tied down
at the time of CMBR emissions, really not
much wiggle room.


As stated above, the Inflationary epoch was
when Dark Energy managed to runaway unhindered
since matter hadn't formed yet to lock it down
into a self-contained crystallized form.


The red shift of CMBR radiation is 1000 or so. The CMBR was light emitted from normal matter, self-pumped hydrogen ions. Only 300,000 years later, the red shift was 6 or 7. So the CMBR was normal matter, that existed during the inflationary period. I have no idea where your cosmology is coming from.

David A. Smith
  #8  
Old November 16th 12, 02:33 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Marvin the Martian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 655
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on


The fairies eat the dark matter and use the energy to push stars and
photons around.

Really, get a jar of dark matter, otherwise this whole dark matter thing
is nothing more than circular logic - there's dark matter there because
if we add it here, here and here, it makes the theory fit. We know
there's dark matter there because the theory predicts it.

Really.

And "scientist" are falling for that stupidity? What the hell are they
teaching in grad schools? VooDoo?
  #9  
Old November 16th 12, 10:06 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Yousuf Khan[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,686
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreasesastime goes on

On 15/11/2012 8:33 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

The fairies eat the dark matter and use the energy to push stars and
photons around.

Really, get a jar of dark matter, otherwise this whole dark matter thing
is nothing more than circular logic - there's dark matter there because
if we add it here, here and here, it makes the theory fit. We know
there's dark matter there because the theory predicts it.

Really.

And "scientist" are falling for that stupidity? What the hell are they
teaching in grad schools? VooDoo?


Not voodoo, just peer pressure.

Yousuf Khan
  #10  
Old November 16th 12, 10:39 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics
Steve Willner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,169
Default It seems that as Dark Energy increases, Dark Matter decreases as time goes on

In article ,
Yousuf Khan writes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/ac...ap-dark-matter


The actual preprint is at
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.2616

What is says is that Baryon Acoustic Oscillations at z=2.3 are
consistent with concordance cosmology. In particular, something
like a cosmological constant (now referred to as "dark energy," of
which a cosmological constant is a specific form) is required.

The effect on our understanding -- admittedly poor -- of dark matter
seems to be entirely in the imagination of the Guardian author and
the OP.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
 




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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BBC documentary about Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Dark Flow Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 3 March 13th 10 09:14 AM
Complete dark matter theory opens door to weight/energy potential(Dark matter is considered to be the top mystery in science today, solved,really.) And more finding on dark matter ebergy science from the 1930's. [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 September 14th 08 03:03 AM
Random thought: Dark Matter & Dark Energy vs. Strong & Weak NuclearForces Yousuf Khan Astronomy Misc 17 December 8th 07 09:42 PM
Updated TOE explains Quarks, Magnetism, Dark matter and Dark energy and how they are related [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 April 22nd 06 07:05 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.