A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Michelson and Morley experiment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 9th 08, 03:07 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.


In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".


Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.


Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old September 9th 08, 05:40 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:



On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.


In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".


Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.


Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!

Pentcho Valev



Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.

PD
  #3  
Old September 9th 08, 08:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 6:40*pm, PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.


In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind"..


Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.


Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.

PD


Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine
Albert's Divine Idiocy), the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside
the 40m long barn, and yet you teach that "there is no physical
process acting on the object to effect that change". This could be
called "Zombie mythology in Einstein criminal cult". Your Masters have
a totally different mythology, Clever Draper:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...6223442453e80d

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old September 9th 08, 11:56 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dr. Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 707
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:



On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!

Pentcho Valev



Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


Poor confused Diaper has done it again.
He still cannot understand that any physical quantity that has dimension which
include L/T must be frame dependent.

PD




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
  #5  
Old September 10th 08, 01:53 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 5:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


Poor confused Diaper has done it again.
He still cannot understand that any physical quantity that has dimension which
include L/T must be frame dependent.


Thus sayeth Henri Wilson, the Soothsayer.
And why are electric and magnetic fields frame dependent?


PD


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.


  #6  
Old September 10th 08, 01:55 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 2:46*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:40*pm, PD wrote:



On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.


In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".


Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.


Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


PD


Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine
Albert's Divine Idiocy),


No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock at
rest, the rates of the clocks are identical. It is only when looked at
from different reference frames that the rate changes -- much like
kinetic energy changes.

the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside
the 40m long barn,


Not safely, no. If you close the doors, the pole is quite stressed at
being trapped inside. We've already discussed this.

and yet you teach that "there is no physical
process acting on the object to effect that change". This could be
called "Zombie mythology in Einstein criminal cult". Your Masters have
a totally different mythology, Clever Draper:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/c5622344245...

Pentcho Valev


  #7  
Old September 10th 08, 03:17 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Dr. Henri Wilson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 707
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:

On Sep 9, 5:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


Poor confused Diaper has done it again.
He still cannot understand that any physical quantity that has dimension which
include L/T must be frame dependent.


Thus sayeth Henri Wilson, the Soothsayer.
And why are electric and magnetic fields frame dependent?


The fields themselves are NOT. The effects they have ARE.
Have you ever used iron filing to show 'lines of force' around a bar magnet? Do
you really think the pattern changes every time a differently moving observer
looks at them?

I'm sick of trying to teach you basic physics, Diaper. Why don't you do a
course?

PD


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
  #8  
Old September 10th 08, 01:16 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 9, 9:17*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 17:53:06 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 5:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 09:40:57 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


Poor confused Diaper has done it again.
He still cannot understand that any physical quantity that has dimension which
include L/T must be frame dependent.


Thus sayeth Henri Wilson, the Soothsayer.
And why are electric and magnetic fields frame dependent?


The fields themselves are NOT.


Of course they are. It's been measured.

The effects they have ARE.


Fields are DEFINED in terms of the effects they have. Please refer to
a freshman textbook.

Have you ever used iron filing to show 'lines of force' around a bar magnet? Do
you really think the pattern changes every time a differently moving observer
looks at them?


Why, yes, the "lines of force" do change. This is documented.


I'm sick of trying to teach you basic physics, Diaper. Why don't you do a
course?


You mean, other than the ones I've taught?

Which reference would you suggest I use for this course, Henri?
  #9  
Old September 10th 08, 02:16 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

On Sep 10, 2:55*am, PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:46*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On Sep 9, 6:40*pm, PD wrote:


On Sep 9, 9:07*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Sep 9, 2:27*pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.


In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".


Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.


Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


PD


Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine
Albert's Divine Idiocy),


No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock at
rest, the rates of the clocks are identical.


Don't lie, Clever Draper. When the travelling clock is compared with
the clock at rest, they are PHYSICALLY

It is only when looked at
from different reference frames that the rate changes -- much like
kinetic energy changes.

the 80m long pole is safely trapped inside
the 40m long barn,


Not safely, no. If you close the doors, the pole is quite stressed at
being trapped inside. We've already discussed this.



and yet you teach that "there is no physical
process acting on the object to effect that change". This could be
called "Zombie mythology in Einstein criminal cult". Your Masters have
a totally different mythology, Clever Draper:


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/c5622344245...


Pentcho Valev
- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


  #10  
Old September 10th 08, 02:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,sci.astro
Dirk Van de moortel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Michelson and Morley experiment

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Sep 10, 2:55 am, PD wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:46 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On Sep 9, 6:40 pm, PD wrote:


On Sep 9, 9:07 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:


On Sep 9, 2:27 pm, PD wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:


On Sep 9, 1:01 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 17:59:44 -0700 (PDT), PD wrote:
On Sep 8, 7:56 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:


If anyone tries to measure the properties of a moving object or clock and finds
them to be different from those measured at rest then the experimental method
is obviously flawed.


In other words, if an experiment shows evidence of something that is
contrary to your expectations, then something is wrong with the
experiment. This coming from someone "born with a scientific mind".


Even your own colleagues....the less ignorant ones....agree that nothing
actually happens to a clock or rod as a result of a speed change.


Actually, what's agreed upon is that the physical property does in
fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property. You find it difficult to imagine how one can
happen without the other.


But, Clever Draper, that is a very specific zombie imagination
acquired after years of singing ("Divine Einstein", "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc.) accompanied by
energetic convulsions. How can you expect a person who has never taken
part in all those worships to imagine "that the physical property does
in fact change, but that no physical process occurs to the object to
change the property"? Be condescending, Clever Draper!


Pentcho Valev


Oh, come, come, Pentcho, you know better! Momentum, velocity, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- all these are physical
properties that in fact change with change in reference frame, and
there is no physical process acting on the object to effect that
change. For most of those, Galileo and Newton knew that, and that was
300 years prior to anyone even knowing who Einstein was, let alone
singing songs about him.


PD


Clever Draper what are you talking about. The travelling clock returns
PHYSICALLY different from the clock at rest (according to Divine
Albert's Divine Idiocy),


No, it doesn't. When it returns and is compared with the clock at
rest, the rates of the clocks are identical.


Don't lie, Clever Draper. When the travelling clock is compared with
the clock at rest, they are PHYSICALLY


Pentcho Valev does not understand the difference between
rates and values.

Updated list of differences ignored by Pentcho Valev:
- rates and values,
- a personal humorous musing and a common dogma,
- children's books and inspired essays,
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- local and global,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion

Dirk Vdm
 




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
Michelson and Morley experiment Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 September 12th 08 02:56 PM
Michelson and Morley experiment Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 September 9th 08 02:32 AM
Who lied about the Michelson-Morley experiment? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 10 July 30th 08 02:26 AM
MICHELSON-MORLEY AND SAGNAC EXPERIMENTS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 71 October 22nd 07 11:50 PM
MICHELSON-MORLEY NULL RESULT AND EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 9 May 30th 07 08:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 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.