A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Preferred Stellar Masses?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old October 5th 11, 12:39 PM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Oct 4, 3:43*pm, eric gisse wrote:

I said "kinda completely", as to distinguish between "a small portion

of
the data agrees with your numerology" (true) versus "none of the data
agrees" (false).


Interesting!


Not in the slightest. You can pick an arbitrary numerological factor and
have some stars satisfy it.

Your numerology has literally no computable chance of being correct.
I've shown this to you repeatedly, but for some reason you don't seem
interested in mounting a technical argument. You seem to prefer silence.


There you go again: "Every ... I have seen". *False, I have shown

you
samples that deviate from your beliefs.


Did you misquote me for a particular reason?


Please read your statement. I did not misquote you.


Yes you did. Rather deliberately.

I made the explicit point that every *database of stars* I have seen
collectively disagrees with you. You, instead, edit the quote and make
it look like I'm saying every *star* I have seen.

Which is both wrong and incredibly dishonest.

You've shown a few individual stars that deviate, but a search of the
literature finds hundreds to thousands more at the same level of
precision which disagrees with you.


I've been devouring bad science for years. Why should I stop now?


I see. So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science.
But what if your scientific intuition has short-comings? Are you the
final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong?


I guess we'll never know if my thinking has shortcomings since you have
refused to take any opportunity to engage in a technical discussion.


When the necessary data become available for deciding whether or not
the total masses of star systems are quantized, and we can all be
reasonably sure that such data will be available in the foreseeable
future, I will be sure to bring it to the attention of readers.


Um, the data is here. Its' been shown to you. You've ignored it.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of the post you responded to was a
repetition of the explanation of what the data is and how it disagrees
with you.

Curiously enough, you snipped it all and went on a rant.


If DSR is right, then the match between predictions and observations
will become increasingly strong.


Except it isn't.

In fact, you can clearly see your numerology is diverging from
observation more and more as the years go by. You can see that directly
by only using data from ten years ago, then five, then from this year...


Is there any point in continuing this futile 2-person discussion
before such data is available? I think not.


Except the data is available. Not that you'd know, as you seem to only
be interested in data that confirms you.

You were highly interested in the Torres sample until it falsified your
numerology.

You claim to be interested in Kepler's results, but you refuse to follow
the literature references to get the raw mass data.

You liked to wax on about exoplanet masses but you do not appear to have
lifted a finger to pull the exoplanet data from exoplanet.eu or VizieR.

You've had every opportunity to mount a technical reply, and you've
refused. Just like you refuse to explain how the microlensing surveys
don't actually falsify your numerology.

So I'll agree the discussion is futile, but most certainly not because
of any lack of data but rather because you just ignore the data.
  #112  
Old October 5th 11, 06:05 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

I see. *So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INTERESTING SYSTEM OF THE DAY - 10/4/11

"PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence
Companion Star"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507

Pulsar mass = 1.67 solar mass
Companion mass = 1.667 solar mass

TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 3.337 solar mass.

DSR PREDICTED MASS = 3.335 solar mass
= (23)(0.145 solar mass).

Relative error 0.02 %
Agreement 99.8%

Note also that this system is in conflict with conventional
astrophysics in that (1) millisecond pulsars are usually coupled with
white dwarfs, and (2) its eccentricity of 0.44 is unexplainably high.

A very interesting system!

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
  #113  
Old October 6th 11, 08:40 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

I see. *So you see yourself as a warrior for right-thinking science.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
--------

INTERESTING SYSTEM OF THE DAY - 10/4/11


95 INTERESTING SYSTEMS OF LAST MONTH

http://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/viz-bin/C.../A%2bARV/18.67

95 eclipsing binary stars, and the entire sample in part and total
disagrees with you. The stars are known to your demanded precision or
better, and all you did is sniff and move on when presented with proof
your theory is wrong.

Do you think the little 'oh I found a new star system' routine is going
to do anything except **** people off?


"PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence
Companion Star"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507


Nope, sorry. This is an unacceptable observation.

1) The mass ratio is only known to about 10%: Note the mass ratio of R =
1.56 +/- 0.15. You've repeatedly asserted you'll only accept masses
known to 0.01 M_sun or better.

2) The mass of the system was determined spectroscopically, which you
have repeatedly said is 'unacceptable' due to 'systematic errors'.

3) The masses themselves are merely the most probable estimates after
reducing the value of chi^2 as a function of the observed parameters.
You have refused to acknowledge any analysis that disproves your
numerology that uses this so you would be a hypocrite to change your
mind now that you think it supports you.


Pulsar mass = 1.67 solar mass
Companion mass = 1.667 solar mass


Where are your error bars, Robert?


TOTAL SYSTEM MASS = 3.337 solar mass.

DSR PREDICTED MASS = 3.335 solar mass
= (23)(0.145 solar mass).

Relative error 0.02 %
Agreement 99.8%


At what level of confidence, Robert?

You can't answer this question because your reference does not put error
bars on the mass estimates.


Note also that this system is in conflict with conventional
astrophysics in that (1) millisecond pulsars are usually coupled with
white dwarfs, and (2) its eccentricity of 0.44 is unexplainably high.

A very interesting system!


Only because you think it agrees with you.

Where's your explanation as to why every star in the Torres sample
disagrees with you? Or why the sun disagrees to the tune of a hundred
sigma? etc...
  #114  
Old October 6th 11, 08:41 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

On Oct 5, 1:05*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

"PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence
Companion Star"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORRECTION!!!

The above-mentioned preprint has a bad mistake in it,
which I discovered on closer study.

The authors state: "This also matches the prediction of the
companion's mass of 1.667 solar mass from pulsar timing (Freire
2011)."

The 1.667 solar mass is actually the estimated mass of the pulsar.
Not the mass of the companion.

The analysis of PSR J1903+0327 really comes from Freire et al, 2010,
which can be read at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5809 .

The dynamical mass estimate for the binary system = 2.70 +/- 0.11
solar masses, and is found on page 7 of the above linked preprint.
The closest DSR prediction is (19)(0.145 sm) = 2.755 solar mass.
However the error bars encompass 2 separate DSR predicted values at
2.610 and 2.755 solar mass.

Bottom Lines:

This is still an interesting system.
It has an unusual set of subsystems.
It has a very unusual eccentricity.
But the dynamical mass estimate falls far short of what would be
needed to test the DSR predictions.

Perhaps in the future the dynamical mass estimate for the total binary
system can be refined enough to offer more useful information.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
  #115  
Old October 6th 11, 08:39 PM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in
:

On Oct 5, 1:05*pm, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:16*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

"PSR J1903+0327 : A Unique Milli-Second Pulsar with a Main Sequence
Companion Star"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.0507

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-
--------

CORRECTION!!!

The above-mentioned preprint has a bad mistake in it,
which I discovered on closer study.

The authors state: "This also matches the prediction of the
companion's mass of 1.667 solar mass from pulsar timing (Freire
2011)."

The 1.667 solar mass is actually the estimated mass of the pulsar.
Not the mass of the companion.


That explains why the answer doesn't match up with the Champion, et.al.
results.

Regardless, I'm glad you've gotten over your silly obsession with only
using results from September 2011 and onwards. In addition with getting
rid of your nonsensical argument that only objects with masses
determined to 0.01 M_sun or better can be used.


The analysis of PSR J1903+0327 really comes from Freire et al, 2010,
which can be read at:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.5809 .

The dynamical mass estimate for the binary system = 2.70 +/- 0.11
solar masses, and is found on page 7 of the above linked preprint.
The closest DSR prediction is (19)(0.145 sm) = 2.755 solar mass.
However the error bars encompass 2 separate DSR predicted values at
2.610 and 2.755 solar mass.


Um, no.

The error bar does NOT emcompass two seperate "predictions". Your
"prediction" (I say "prediction" because you don't actually predict
anything) of the mass of the system is what is known as being WRONG.

The nearest divisor of 0.145 into 2.70 m_sun is 19. That gives a mass of
2.755 M_sun, but the actual binary system has a mass of 2.70 +/- 0.11
M_sun.

You just posted a 5 standard deviation falsification of your numerology.

Nice job, Robert! Keep posting falsifications, and you might even
realize what everyone already has.


Bottom Lines:

This is still an interesting system.
It has an unusual set of subsystems.


Hardly. Its' a binary system consisting of a main sequence star and a
compact companion.

It has a very unusual eccentricity.


That's the only interesting thing about it.

But the dynamical mass estimate falls far short of what would be
needed to test the DSR predictions.


*snort*

Look at that clever wording. The fact of the matter is your numerology
is wrong by five standard deviations, Robert. This falsifies your
numerology.

Remember what you were saying not so long ago about epicycles and
admitting a theory doesn't work?



Perhaps in the future the dynamical mass estimate for the total binary
system can be refined enough to offer more useful information.


Like what? The system strucuted in a way that relativistic tests aren't
meaningfully possible.

You won't be able to dig a success out of this one, either, so there's
really nothing for your numerology to look forward to here.


RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

  #116  
Old October 10th 11, 02:01 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

-----------------------------------------

CLARIFICATION

Some have barked at me for what they try to convince others is an
attempt to hide from negative results - specifically the Torre et al
mass results.

For what its worth, here is my response

-----------------------------------------------------------
You specifically requested Martin Hardcastle analyze the Torres
eclipsing binary sample.
Then once he does that, you pan the results and go on your merry way.
And now you are saying you have only identified one star that disagrees
with you? Isn't that textbook crank behavior?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordinarily I would ignore this abusive type of post.

However, so that readers are not mislead by things that you know full
well are misleading innuendos, I will set the matters straight with
facts.

Martin Hardcastle did analyze the Torre et al sample and find that it
did not agree with DSR predictions.
I clearly said in print that I accepted his analysis for that sample.
I also pointed out the reasons that I felt that this sample could not
be the final word on the matter.
Other samples do support the DSR predictions.

The small unofficial sample reported above represents the systems that
(1) were analyzed and reported on arxiv.org during the month of
September, or were drawn to my attention during that period by
articles published in the scientific literature during the month of
September, and (2) met the requirements that I have identified for a
fair and unbiased test of the predicted quantization of the total
masses of star systems.

The Solar System, which is the one system for which we have definitive
mass data for all components, agrees with the Discrete Scale
Relativity predictions excellently, as anyone can see by reading the
initial post in this thread.

Your comment that the Sun's mass is in conflict with DSR predictions
indicates your "misunderstanding" of the fundamental prediction
clearly set out in the initial post. The prediction concerns the
quantization of the TOTAL mass of the bound systems. It would seem
that your comments about the Sun's mass are misleading in a very
calculated and unscientific manner.

I have no intention of answering any more of your abusive and
unscientific posts.

RLO
http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
  #117  
Old October 10th 11, 02:02 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

----------------------------------------------------

Yet Another New System Of Interest.

Just published in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement , 197(1), 2011

"Kepler - 14b ..." by Buchhave et al
http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/197/1/3
or
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5510

This appears to be a 3 component system.

Kepler-14A has a mass of 1.512 +/- 0.043 solar mass
Kelper-14B has a mass of 1.39 solar mass (not sure of error limits)
Kepler-14b has a mass of 0.0084 +/- 0.0002 solar mass

None of these systems by itself is in very good agreement with the DSR
predicted peaks, but when you add them together the story is very
different.

Estimated Total System Mass = 2.91 solar mass.

20 times the predicted Stellar Mass Unit of 0.145 solar mass = 2.90
solar mass.

Relative error = 0.003
Agreement = 99.7%

Did I make any mistakes on this one?

RLO
Discrete Scale Relativity
  #118  
Old October 11th 11, 08:06 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

----------------------------------------------------

Yet Another New System Of Interest.


At the rate of a successful data point a week, you'll accumulate enough
systems to match the Torres data set in two years or so.

This week's data point is, unfortunately, invalidated by last week's
data point which disagrees with you at 5 sigma.


Just published in the Astrophysical Journal Supplement , 197(1), 2011

"Kepler - 14b ..." by Buchhave et al
http://iopscience.iop.org/0067-0049/197/1/3
or
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.5510

This appears to be a 3 component system.

Kepler-14A has a mass of 1.512 +/- 0.043 solar mass
Kelper-14B has a mass of 1.39 solar mass (not sure of error limits)
Kepler-14b has a mass of 0.0084 +/- 0.0002 solar mass


Oops, I guess this week's data point must be disregarded too! You've
repeatedly stated that only stars of uncertainty that is 0.01 M_sun or
better can be used. Maybe next week?



None of these systems by itself is in very good agreement with the DSR
predicted peaks, but when you add them together the story is very
different.

Estimated Total System Mass = 2.91 solar mass.

20 times the predicted Stellar Mass Unit of 0.145 solar mass = 2.90
solar mass.

Relative error = 0.003
Agreement = 99.7%

Did I make any mistakes on this one?


Sure.

* You still don't use the standard deviation as an expression of how
good your prediction matches observation. I have come to the conclusion
this is deliberate.

* The error on Kepler-14A is four times as large as what you deem
minimally acceptable. But once again, you forgive and forget when the
answer pleases you. This is deliberate.

* The mass of the star was determined through spectroscopy. You've
repeatedly said this is unacceptable, but since you like the answer you
forgive and forget. Again - deliberate.

* The mass of the secondary is estimated, There is no error bar, because
it wasn't directly measured. You, of course, read this and proceeded
anyway. Deliberate.

* The principle source of your rejection of my analysis of the Prieto,
et. al. data set was that it was based on a stellar evolution model in
order.

If one reads your paper, the notes on the mass of the star you just
cited says the following in Table 3:

"Based on the Girardi stellar evolution models."

Which I consider fascinating since you are now citing data based on
evolutionary models of stars. The only difference being you think this
data agrees with you.

I don't believe this was deliberate as I don't think you actually read
the notes on the mass estimate. But if you did, that'd be another
deliberate error.

Is this still science? Can we get some comments here?
  #119  
Old October 11th 11, 08:11 AM posted to sci.astro.research
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 303
Default Quantized Stellar Masses?

"Robert L. Oldershaw" wrote in news:mt2.0-
:

On Oct 6, 3:41*am, "Robert L. Oldershaw"
wrote:

-----------------------------------------

CLARIFICATION

Some have barked at me for what they try to convince others is an
attempt to hide from negative results - specifically the Torre et al
mass results.


AW YEAH! Going back to the classics!

Its' been awhile since I heard a dog reference. Here I was thinking you
finally realized how silly those sounded coming from an adult.


For what its worth, here is my response

-----------------------------------------------------------
You specifically requested Martin Hardcastle analyze the Torres
eclipsing binary sample.
Then once he does that, you pan the results and go on your merry way.
And now you are saying you have only identified one star that

disagrees
with you? Isn't that textbook crank behavior?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

--

Ordinarily I would ignore this abusive type of post.

However, so that readers are not mislead by things that you know full
well are misleading innuendos, I will set the matters straight with
facts.


Both you and your imagined supporters have had ample time to pick apart
both my analysis and Martin Hardcastle's. The resounding lack of
technical arguments against either analysis makes one wonder what you
are talking about with this "misleading innuendo" nonsense.

The methodology, analysis, code, and data used have all been crystal
clear. You've had weeks to ask for clarification, and you've been
nothing but dismissive of the whole thing to the point where it is clear
you are not interested in dissenting data.


Martin Hardcastle did analyze the Torre et al sample and find that it
did not agree with DSR predictions.
I clearly said in print that I accepted his analysis for that sample.
I also pointed out the reasons that I felt that this sample could not
be the final word on the matter.
Other samples do support the DSR predictions.


You do not have "other samples". You have carefully picked individual
data points.

The Torres, et. al. sample has 95 binary systems, which when put
together against the count you think supports you, outnumbers it 5 to 1.
Even more if you count the fact they are binary (and a few trinary)
systems.

This, of course, is merely one sample. I gave you the analysis of a
12,000 star sample, a quarter of which met your ridiculously overdone
requirements. That also conclusively disagreed with you.

I am highly curious to know why you think your "other samples" take
precedence over a 5:1 majority of systems that disagree with you by
using the rules of which you agreed to.


The small unofficial sample reported above represents the systems that
(1) were analyzed and reported on arxiv.org during the month of
September, or were drawn to my attention during that period by
articles published in the scientific literature during the month of
September, and (2) met the requirements that I have identified for a
fair and unbiased test of the predicted quantization of the total
masses of star systems.


I'd like to remind you that your requirements continue to be silly, and
reek of being specifically crafted to exclude the large amounts of data
previously published which has been shown to discredit your numerology.



The Solar System, which is the one system for which we have definitive
mass data for all components, agrees with the Discrete Scale
Relativity predictions excellently, as anyone can see by reading the
initial post in this thread.


Yes, examine the "initial post", in which you repeat your preferred mode
of analysis:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...b6a91038d2f1c?
dmode=source

"However, when you add the mass of the planetary system and get a
total system mass, the value is 1.99158 x 10^33 g.

This agrees with one of the predicted peaks at the 99.987% level."

I'll just leave that here, so we can visit it again in a moment...


Your comment that the Sun's mass is in conflict with DSR predictions
indicates your "misunderstanding" of the fundamental prediction
clearly set out in the initial post. The prediction concerns the
quantization of the TOTAL mass of the bound systems. It would seem
that your comments about the Sun's mass are misleading in a very
calculated and unscientific manner.


You forgot to link to the post you thought was unscientific.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...870e714d91633?
dmode=source

I note you never actually responded to that one either. Funny how every
time someone does an analysis which inevitibly ends up not supporting
you, it is either ignored or dismissed.

Regardless, since you aren't counting the planetary masses in your
"successful prediction" list, I didn't see the need to do it either. But
for giggles, let's do that. But let's do it correctly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standar...onal_parameter

The solar system minus sun adds up to 177,718,531 km^3 s^-2
The sun is 132,712,440,018 km^3 s^-2

Since the error in G completely and undeniably dominates the measurement
of MG, i'm not including errors in MG here. Including that in the
analysis is an exercise for the reader.

The CODATA value of G is currently [1] 6.67384(80) x 10^-11 m^2 kg^-1
s^-2

Multiply the total of MG by (1000 m / km)^3 and divide by the value of
G.

You get 1.99121(48) x 10^30 kg.

Now you claim the total mass of the solar system is an integer multpile
of 0.145 solar masses. One solar mass is 1.98855(24) x 10^30 kg.

So the mass of the solar system, in solar masses, is 1.99121 / 1.98855 =
1.00134 M_sun

But what's the uncertainty in the measurement? Since you have such
personal trouble with the concept, I'll propagate the uncertainty for
you.

The fractional uncertainty in x = y/z is &x / x = &y/y + &z/z , which
you can verify yourself if you open literally any textbook on error
analysis.

[Mod. note: normally these will actually say that the fractional
errors add in quadrature, i.e. (&x/x)^2 = (&y/y)^2 + (&z/z)^2 . Not
that it makes a big difference in this case -- mjh]

So for our case, the error in the mass of the solar system in solar
masses is 0.00036, so the mass of the solar system is 1.00134(36) M_sun.

You claim that it is the nearest integer multiple of 0.145 M_sun. That
is 1.015 M_sun. The difference between what you predict and what is
observed is 0.01355 M_sun.

Since the error in our knowledge of the solar system's mass is 0.00036
M_sun, this means you are wrong by 37.6 standard deviations.

Yes, off by more than 37 standard deviations with a full accounting of
the solar system.

Why is it you prefer the unscientific fractional percentage estimate of
error rather than the scientific standard deviation? Your method seems
to make your numerology look better than it is because you never take
into account error of measurement.

Then again, I suppose that would be the point, wouldn't it? You'd never
post you are wrong by 37 standard deviations, but rather you'd post how
you are off by only a few fractions of a percent.

Deliberately using misleading error analysis in a journal article would
get the article retracted by the editors if found out after publication,
and you'd never get another publication in that journal ever again. If
you tried to submit one with an equivalently misleading analysis, the
same result would happen.

Would it be safe to assume this is why you haven't had a publication in
ApJ or any other journal of note in 25 years? Guess we'll never know.


I have no intention of answering any more of your abusive and
unscientific posts.


If showing you that your numerology does not match observation as you
claim is both unscientific and abusive, then I feel obligated to point
out to you that you are going to have a difficult time convincing any
scientist.

You might not answer my posts anymore, but I know you read them and so
do others. If you are comfortable with me posting a critical analysis
unopposed every time you post your latest nonsense, then that's fine as
it makes it clear to everyone that you have no answer to my criticisms.



[1] http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?bg
 




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
When is manned spaceflight preferred? [email protected] Space Science Misc 15 August 13th 13 06:28 PM
Metal deposit discovered: 30 million solar masses of chromium, 8million solar masses of manganese Yousuf Khan[_2_] Astronomy Misc 6 December 10th 09 06:45 PM
dealing decorates but the preferred version [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 22nd 07 08:24 AM
sacrifice behind preferred injection [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 August 19th 07 05:48 AM
can someone supply some info on stellar masses of stars? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 1 September 4th 06 06:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.