|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
" writes: Bjoern, what do you think of the failure to find evidence for the transverse proximity effect with a foreground quasar? There are observations of the proximity effect: Jakobsen et al., A&A 397, 891(2003). The conventional view is that the quasars must be turning on and off, or have very short lifetimes. I think a better explanation is that the quasars are not located where the BBT says they are - due to most of the redshift of their light, including probably most or all of the Lyman alpha forest, occurring in space near to them. My best guess is that this occurs due to some kind of plasma redshift or sparse particle redshift mechanism. Note that in gravitational lens systems, where observations without any redshifts indicate which is the foreground and which is the background object, it invariably turns out that the background object has the larger redshift. As far as I know, quasars were not generally considered to have short lifetimes until this lack of TPE business arose. There might not have been any direct evidence for it, but how can there be, when we've been observing QSOs for only a few decades. If quasars are the same as, or cousins to, "radio galaxies" then its hard to imagine them having such short lifetimes since (according to BBT theories) these radio galaxies have such huge lobes that they must have been running continually for very long periods of time. Many QSOs ARE variable. Variability can lead to a lack of the TPE where one would otherwise "expect" it. It doesn't mean the whole QSO turns off forever. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Max Keon wrote: [snip] The contents of this link http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/cmb.html is an extract from a theory which describes a universe that originated from absolutely nothing, and it provides an alternative explanation for the CMBR. Can it explain why the spectrum of the CMBR is such a nice blackbody, without any spectral lines? Yes. Your link above goes to a page which mainly contains curves and not many explanations, as far as I can see. Could you please explain here shortly what the source of the CMBR is in your model, ----- ----- I wrote: ------------------ The temperature at the origin was zero. The universe is evolving. Its temperature is increasing at a logarithmic rate, hence the ^1.12 adjustment to each (equally spaced relative to a fixed time zone) curve generated from the Planck equation, #=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))) ^1.12 ------------------ "(equally spaced relative to a fixed time zone)" should read "(equally spaced relative to the present)". A fixed time zone could be anywhere, even close to the origin of the universe. That error prompted me to check what was actually on the web page. I was alarmed to find another three such errors, which would confuse the hell out of anyone trying to understand it. I've listed the offending part paragraphs below. The remaining three black curves were each generated in three equally separated stages in the evolution of the universe, from the origin. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Should read "from the present to the origin." The next set of graphs is a re-run of this set, but includes twice the number of (equally spaced from the origin) past blackbody sources ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Should read "equally spaced from the present to the origin" I could add any number of equally spaced curves, from the zero origin to the present, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Should read "from the present to the zero origin" This paragraph toward the end of the page highlights why they are deemed errors. But whatever the case, I cannot possibly perceive my true circumstances of existence from where I am. I'm always the zero point of my measuring stick to the universe. I measure 10 billion light years to a past realm and then 20 billion light years to another and conclude that the distance to the latter realm is twice that to the former. But if the same measurement is taken from the true zero mark, at the origin of the universe, the two distances could be only infinitesimally less than identical. Another thing I noticed while I was reading is the fact that I hadn't adequately addressed the problem at hand. Even though the curves were generated according to a kind of inverted logic from the zero origin universe, when I wrote that page, it was clear to me that words were the only problem, and I imagined that it would be clear to anyone else. But now that my memory of the page content has faded, I see now that it just leads to total confusion. I thought I had found a number that would identify the current state of evolution of the universe, and that became the priority. But what I apparently found was more to do with the scale of the graph than anything else. I've stored a set of updated graphs at http://www.ozemail.com.au/~mkeon/graphs.html which were generated from a modified version of the Qbasic program that generated the original graphs. The combined input curves are first shifted to the hotter side of the CMB power spectrum peak, then redshifted using the correct logic of the zero origin universe. I'll update the page as soon as I can. ----------- The link I didn't post: "Fluctuations arising from the Sunnyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect, the up-scattering of the background spectrum by both the hot gas surrounding galaxy clusters and the peculiar velocity of the cluster, should be observable on spatial scales of around 3 arcminutes." (I've lost the link. I'll post it next time) http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jacara/P...pasp97_mgb.pdf ----- Max Keon |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Bjoern, It doesn't matter whether the redshift of distant objects under the BBT is called "Doppler" or something else. The point is that apart from a little motion which is relative to nearby objects, and a little gravitational redshift, the BBT says that there is no redshift mechanism other than the expansion of the Universe. Therefore, the foreground and background quasars in the Quasar-Quasar Transverse Proximity Effect work: http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#TPE are, according to the BBT, at distances which can be so reliably estimated that researchers can be sure that a specific portion of the Lyman alpha absorption in the background quasar's spectrum occurred at the same distance from Earth as that of the foreground quasar. This places that section of the path from the background quasar at a distance from the foreground quasar which can be directly calculated from the angle between the quasars on the sky, and the distance to the foreground quasar, which depends on the cosmological parameters used to convert redshift to distance. Contrary to their expectations, the researchers find absorption in those parts of the spectrum corresponding to this locality. They expected an absence of absorption due to the foreground quasar radiating UV approximately anisotropically and thereby ionising any hydrogen in the area. If the BBT is correct, then the quasar redshifts must be attributable only to their position in the expanding Universe - so the researcher's estimates of their distance must be accurate. So if the BBT is correct, we must conclude either that the foreground quasar is very narrowly beamed (either in its intrinsic pattern of radiation or due to some kind of shielding arrangement) or that a short time before it emitted the light we observe, it was not emitting sufficient UV to ionize the local hydrogen. This time corresponds to the distance between it and the path from the background quasar. The researchers find this a difficult choice - and in their papers discount beaming and shielding, for reasons which seem reasonable to me: the beaming would have to be implausably narrow. Rather then question their theory about the nature of the redshift (probably because they consider their knowledge to be a fact, rather than a theory), and therefore question their estimates of distances to the quasars, they conclude that the foreground quasar wasn't radiating at a time which would have altered absorption in the background quasar's spectrum for the light we observe today. No matter whether they chose beaming/shielding or a short lifetime for each quasar (perhaps including low duty-cycles of on/off radiation) they have a major problem: all these explanations involve the actual number of quasars being very much larger than is usually estimated. Amongst other things, revising this estimate of the abundance of quasars must surely require some major revision of the now very detailed interlocking network of quantitative theories which constitute the current version of the Big Bang Theory. I cannot see a major problem at this stage in either of the explanations. It appears today that essentially all galaxies are harbouring a massive black hole in their centre. Therefore it is likely that all these galaxies have gone through one or more quasar phases in their youth. It is well known that the quasar density is much higher at high redshifts than in our local universe. Let us know look at the arguments in favour of either of the explanations of the lack of this proximity effect, though I must admit that I do it without having looked at the papers that report on this. Beaming would not be surprising. Other kinds of active galaxies, in particular Seyfert galaxies, show strong signs of that the black holes are surrounded by dost tori on a scale of say 100 pc. This dust torus is absorbing most of the optical and ultraviolet radiation that is emitted in the plane of the torus. For that reason we observe two kinds of Seyfert galaxies, Seyfert 1s that we observe face on, so that we see straight down to the region surrounding the black hole in the centre, and Seyfert 2s that we see from the side, that is through the dust torus. The Seyfert 2 galaxies are thus missing the ultraviolet radiation and the broad spectral lines that are formed close to the black hole. Such a dust torus in the quasar could explain the missing proximity effect. A short duty cycle may also explain the proximity effect. If the quasar would only last for a few million years at a time, which is a short time in astronomy, then the quasar would have switched of once its radiation would have ionised the surrounding gas that would absorb light from the more faraway quasar. I cannot see a serious problem with a quasar model that turns on for a few million years, and then goes back to a dormant stage for say five to ten million years. The individual outbursts could then perhaps be the result of the black hole disrupting and swallowing a giant molecular cloud that comes too close to it, but there can also be other mechanisms that can explain these outbursts. The point is that our knowledge of quasars is still sufficiently incomplete that we cannot rule out a lot of models for how they work. My point is that these researchers, and it seems you too, are pursuing a path of quasars being very narrow - in time or beaming - for which there is no other obvious supporting observations, when a much simpler explanation is that the quasars are not located at the distances that the BBT says they are. But there are a host of other observations demonstrating that the redshifts are a good distance estimator for the quasar. During the last twenty five years we have observed a number of gravitational lenses, in which a galaxy at an intermediate redshift is producing multiple images of a quasar with a larger redshift. For these systems it is always the case that the lensed quasar has a significantly larger redshift than the lensing galaxy, as it should be if the redshift is a valid distance estimator. When we observe the Lyman-alpha forest due to absorption by intervening gas in the spectrum of a quasar we always find that the Lyman-alpha absorption lines have smaller redshifts than the quasar, which once again is compatible with that they are at a smaller distance from us than the quasar. If quasars are at distances closer than their BBT-predicted redshift distances, then a bunch of other problems are solved. For instance the rapid changes in output become compatible with quasars of a smaller size and smaller output once it can be admitted that quasars are closer than the BBT says they are. It only takes one piercing observation, correctly interpreted, to disprove an entire theory. Its not like in a democracy where opinions and numbers of votes matter. The BBT predicts that the quasars and the neutral H is exactly where these researchers think they are, but all other observations indicate that quasars are not exceedingly narrowly beamed and are not prone to having short lifetimes. Rather than question the BBT, the researchers - and you too it seems - prefer to pursue a view of quasars which is seems to be incompatible with theoretical interpretations of a vast number of observations. While I think these interpretations are badly skewed by over- estimates of distance, I am not aware of any reason to question the theories of quasars being big, long-lasting and not narrowly beamed, at least in their UV radiation. The point here is that the big bang theory is a much simpler and better understood theory supported by simple observations, while our models for quasars are messy and not always supported by the ambiguous observations that we have of quasars, and by that I do not mean the observations of the redshifts of the quasars, but rather attempts to explain the features in the spectra of quasars. Rather than throwing out the simple and well understood theory, we prefer to think that there is something wrong in the really messy model of the quasars. [snipping the rest] Ulf Torkelsson |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
wrote: I haven't studies the Sachs-Wolfe effect. The supposed precision of the BBT theory of CMB doesn't impress me or many other critics. Interestingly, most of the critics are not aware of most of the evidence... It can be easy to think of other explanations Yes. Making up stories without bothering to do actual quantitative checks is very easy indeed. - and then, with sufficient effort, to fine-tune them to observations too. "fine-tune them to observations, too"? Please point out what fine-tuning to observations was done in the BBT. A background radiation was perhaps predicted, but not at precisely 2.73 K, was it! Doesn't that amount to fine-tuning to observation? Not that I think there's a problem with that. ----- Max Keon |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Max Keon
writes: A background radiation was perhaps predicted, but not at precisely 2.73 K, was it! Doesn't that amount to fine-tuning to observation? Not that I think there's a problem with that. Gamow's back-of-the-envelope 1940s estimate was of the right order of magnitude. The temparature just scales as T = T_0*(1+z). All you need to know is the density of the universe today. The density at which the CMB was formed is fixed, as is the temperature. Obviously the density of the universe today cannot be calculated from first principles, since it depends on the epoch of observation. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Max Keon wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: wrote: I haven't studies the Sachs-Wolfe effect. The supposed precision of the BBT theory of CMB doesn't impress me or many other critics. Interestingly, most of the critics are not aware of most of the evidence... It can be easy to think of other explanations Yes. Making up stories without bothering to do actual quantitative checks is very easy indeed. - and then, with sufficient effort, to fine-tune them to observations too. "fine-tune them to observations, too"? Please point out what fine-tuning to observations was done in the BBT. A background radiation was perhaps predicted, but not at precisely 2.73 K, was it! Indeed. So what? Please point out when and where the BBT was "fine-tuned" so that the value of 2.73 K came out. That implies that the theory was twisted purposefully to make this value come out. That would be news to me. Doesn't that amount to fine-tuning to observation? No. That amounts to "determining parameters of a theory from observations". And that's done for *every* theory in physics. [snip] Bye, Bjoern |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Some people see the BBT as successful and useful - but I
don't. I see it as a huge ship doomed from the start - but with passengers and crew so transfixed by the size of the vessel, its long history and the good company they are in to recognise how the theory fails to explain things which really must be understood, if the theory is to be regarded as being as reliable as the proponents seem to think it is. I don't see how anyone can take the BBT seriously, in principle or especially in terms of these supposedly very precise quantitative estimates of the Hubble "constant", the "age" of the Universe (13.7 +/- 0.2 = 1.5%), when the BBT proponents have no proper explanations for some phenomena (or at least observations we reasonably conclude reflect phenomena) which seem to be crucial to any understanding of stars, galaxies and large-scale structure. I have already mentioned the failure to find the Transverse Proximity Effect with a foreground quasar. This is an acid test of the BBT. If the BBT is true, and unless quasars are much shorter lived, more intermittent or narrowly beamed than any other observations indicate, then the effect would be observed. The researchers fully expected to find it, and they didn't. If they had, I would have been highly inclined to abandon my critique of the BBT, if this particular prediction was observed. This is a quantitative prediction - about where exactly in a spectrum some absorption will not occur. There's no room in the BBT for the absorption to be found or not found at any other part of the spectrum of the background quasar. Finding this lack of absorption, in a number of objects, would be so impressive. The high redshift seemingly old galaxy clusters is likewise another acid test - unless galaxy formation theory is contorted into ever shorter periods of time. Here are some other important phenomena / observations I think the BBT proponents have so far failed to satisfactorily explain: The intergalactic medium (IGM) emitting X-rays which can best be explained by extraordinarily high temperatures, such as 440,000,000 Kelvin: Field, G. B.; Perrenod, S. C. 1977 Constraints on a dense hot intergalactic medium. ApJ vol. 215, Aug. 1, 1977, p. 717-722. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...215..717F Marshall, F. E. et al. 1980 The diffuse X-ray background spectrum from 3 to 50 keV. ApJ vol. 235, Jan. 1, 1980, p. 4-10. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...pJ...235....4M I don't know of any conventional explanation for such high temperatures. (My theory is that it is heated by starlight etc. due to some redshift and/or scattering process which is not yet properly recognised. It can't easily radiate the energy, except by getting to such high temperatures, because it is so sparse that the particles rarely get close enough to emit bremsstrahlung.) Stars surfaces are only a fraction of this temperature. We can't even explain 1 Mega Kelvin temperatures in our own Sun's corona - and the most popular conventional explanations of that are based on magnetic waves, which clearly can't work out into the IGM, if only because it is such a lousy conductor due to it being so thin. Why galaxy clusters in no way resemble the shape of gravitationally bound collapsing systems, such as galaxies or our solar system. Why the galaxy clusters often are stretched out in space and resemble liquid squeezed into the gaps between generally spherical bubbles. (I suggest that the void IGM is so hot that it is of sufficient pressure, which is probably very low, to corral the galaxies into the smallish clusters.) Why galaxies don't so often come close to each other. (I figure that galaxies are exuding a corona which pushes others away. Exactly how the mass of the galaxy is coupled to this in an aerodynamic fashion, I am not sure, but a rough guess is that most of the mass is in black-dwarfs and their potentially numerous and relatively small collision fragments, which would have a fair bit of drag. I am not sure how anything could push a star around to a significant degree, by gas pressure in the surrounding medium, but maybe not much pushing is required. Maybe none is required if the visible stars are gravitationally bound to the larger mass of black-dwarf fragments which are themselves coupled to the corona of the galaxy.) The extra mass in spiral galaxies which presumably causes the observed visible stellar rotation curves. The heating and acceleration of stellar coronae and winds. http://astroneu.com/plasma-redshift-1/#Cranmer Likewise the nature of solar spicules, the heating and acceleration of prominences etc. A whole bunch of things about quasars and AGN: Why they vary so fast when according to the BBT they are impossibly large, due to their supposedly high output, based solely on their distance being according to the BBT interpretation of redshift. The nature of jets. How, if as according to the BBT, there used to be lots of quasars etc. why there aren't similarly massive and luminous objects around the place today, such as in the middle of galaxies. The CMB. While the BBT has an explanation for the CMB, I don't think it is the only possible explanation, as I have written in previous messages in this thread. I know its a big task to develop cosmological theories. The BBT is fine as a theory, but I see so many problems with it that I can't take it seriously. Other folk don't seem to see or care about the problems I think are significant - but to me, the BBT really looks like a great overblown and entirely wrong theory which will soon be discredited. The key, I think, is coming up with a good in-principle - and yes Bjoern, Quantitative - theory of the redshift we observe in stars, galaxies and AGN. I am on the case, but I think the first task is to overcome the problems caused by thinking of electromagnetic radiation and the quanta of energy which result from it as involving independent "photons". Once there is a good redshift theory - especially one we can test in space or on Earth - then the only remaining task to deal with is the BBT supporter's interpretation of supernovae light curves, which are conventionally understood to show time dilation. Jerry Jensen's critique looks like a good starting point: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0404207 But it will be a lot of work getting the raw data and reworking it, whilst paying close attention to all the difficult questions of corrections and interpretation. - Robin http://astroneu.com http://www.firstpr.com.au |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
Max Keon wrote: Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote: Your link above goes to a page which mainly contains curves and not many explanations, as far as I can see. Could you please explain here shortly what the source of the CMBR is in your model, As I previously indicated, to "explain here shortly" is almost impossible. But the rest of my reply may help. We'll see. and why it has a blackbody spectrum? It's based on temperature change of the universe throughout its evolution from the zero origin. It has the spectrum of the CMBR, just like your theory does. How could "temperature change of the universe throughout its evolution from the zero origin" explain the existence and the blackbody spectrum of the CMBR? As the universe evolves, its temperature rises. Looking back into the past universe from the present (anytime), its combined temperatures, right from the origin, are on display as background radiation. There are no discrete stages of evolution of course. The changing curve from the entire past, and the uniform temperature curve generated in the present must all add up to equal 2.73K. But the average temperature of the current universe alone must be higher than when the rest of the background is added to it. A point which I have never properly explained, anywhere, is how I arrived at the equally spaced stages in the evolution of the universe for my graph plots. Firstly, the universe is not expanding. The noted redshift is due to a reduced speed of light in a lesser evolved universe. Assuming that the current temperature of the universe is 3.4K, the temperature at the halfway mark toward the origin is 1.7K, where the speed of light will be halved, relative to now. For a four input stage graph plot that aligns with the CMBR, the blackbody curves are, .85, 1.7, 2.55 and 3.4 K. But I don't know what the true uniform temperature of the current universe is, and that determines what other temperature graphs should be included from the past. The curve is always much the same though. ----- ----- The temperature at the origin was zero. That's contrary to observations, which show that the temperature was *greater* in the past. See the link shortly below. The universe is evolving. Finally something we agree on. Its temperature is increasing at a logarithmic rate, hence the ^1.12 adjustment How do you get from a logarithmic temperature increase to a factor ^1.12? And I've read it so many times! to each (equally spaced relative to a fixed time zone) curve generated from the Planck equation, #=((8*pi*h*f^3)/(c^2*(EXP((h*f)/(k*t))-1))) ^1.12 In order to apply the Planck equation, you need something material which is in thermal equilibrium. What is this in your model? In the standard BB scenario, it was the plasma which filled the early universe. Thermal equilibrium is achieved over time. Redshift that extends to light speed noted in the current universe has always been as it is, right from the origin. At any stage of evolution, that picture was the same. It's not possible for one clean spectral line to emerge from that completely blended spectrum. BTW, the Planck curve to the power of 1.12 does not give a blackbody curve again. You even have problems with the units there! That has become redundant. ----- ----- Dark matter can certainly be explained, if it's required. That has nothing to do with my argument above. Try again, please. That argument has nothing to do with a zero origin universe either. It is an argument about observational evidence for the BBT. So if you claim that you can explain all the evidence which the BBT can explain, you need to address this. Why don't you bother? Why should I explain observational evidence for predictions of the BBT when it has nothing whatever to do with the zero origin universe? Anyway, most of the evidence that supports the BBT is from distant sources. In this unbounded universe, if one searches for long enough, seeking evidence of some effect which is predicted by a theory, that evidence will probably be found. But the real cause for what is observed may be entirely unrelated. Compiling much of this type of evidence forms a solid foundation which is unjustifiably hard to wedge apart. Since the argument is to do with your rejection of the zero origin universe, cluttering the post with BBT predictions is pointless, so I've snipped what I consider irrelevant. You can put it all back again if you want. ----- ----- The all sky picture of the universe from the zero origin is crystal clear. According to that picture, matter is slowly clumping together, That's the same as the BBT says. increasing the depth of dimension, of space. That's incomprehensible. Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you all along. The picture provides a remarkable insight into how the matter content of the universe is evolving. The picture at the very origin would have contained one infinitesimally minute anisotropy That's very close to what the BBT says. within a completely black background. That is contrary to the observations. A universe with zero anisotropy would not exist. Why not? Because there is nothing there. When you better understand the zero origin universe you'll know why. ----- ----- If a photon is moving through a deepening potential well, it will exit the well with an extended wavelength (I think). But that is clearly impossible. Well, then why has this been observed? The fact that a photon wavelength changes according to local gravitational potential may have been confirmed, but not the *assumption* that they gain or lose energy in the process. So you disagree with E=hf? Or with f=c/lambda? If you don't disagree with both, then you get E=hc/lambda, i.e. every change in wavelength is equivalent to a change in energy. This is not a scenario where those equations necessarily apply. I'm not convinced that the wavelengths undergo permanent change. Consider this; Two adjacent straight lengths of equally spaced billiard balls, labeled (1) and (2), are set in motion along the line of their pointing direction. That has little to do with photons and light. Train (1) travels a straight line through free space while train (2) is set to run the gauntlet of a deepening gravitational potential well. Along the journey to the deepest part of the well on (2)'s travels, space-time will be stretching and will of course extend its train length. But because the well is still deepening, (2)'s departure from the well will be further restrained than if the well was constant. However, when (1) and (2) are returned to the same space-time environment they will still measure the same length. Why should they? Every one of the billiard balls have been equally affected by the deepening well, so when the train emerges to compare with train (1), the distance between the balls must still be the same. But there is one major difference. The speed of train (2) will have slowed. Momentum is lost and that loss must be accounted for. The energy has obviously been used up in restraining the increasing well depth. If the balls are replaced with photons which simply follow the changing geodesic path set up by the deepening well, it would be a mind boggling challenge to explain why they would shift further apart (especially if they don't have wavelength????) in order to overcome a potential momentum change that can't possibly exist. Are you quite sure that the Sachs-Wolfe effect is valid,,,, in any circumstance? ----- ----- Not wishing to break from the subject, but the concept of photons as particles has no place in the zero origin universe. Well, then how do you explain the photo effect and the Compton effect? (quantitatively!) There does seem to be a case for point source shafts of E/M radiation. The reaction wavelength will of course remain as it was created (relative to dimension along its travels) and so too will the energy carried over the wavelength. But it can't be described as a particle in the zero origin universe. Planck opened a Pandora's Box when he did that, in my opinion. ----- Max Keon |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Gravitational Instability Theory on the Formation of the Universe | Br Dan Izzo | Policy | 6 | September 7th 04 09:29 PM |
A Chain Cluster: Witnessing the Formation of a Rich Galaxy Cluster7 Billion Years Ago (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 31st 03 06:52 AM |
[obs] Lucy looks Skywards 23/09/2003 | Morgoth | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | September 29th 03 02:39 AM |
[obs] Lucy looks Skywards 23/09/2003 | Morgoth | UK Astronomy | 1 | September 29th 03 02:39 AM |
Whats in the sky today | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | July 14th 03 04:24 AM |