 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / January 2005Dinosaurs on a smaller earth
Interesting..... http://sciencewa.net.au/science_news.asp?pg=21&NID=81 > Interesting..... > > http://sciencewa.net.au/science_news.asp?pg=21&NID=81 This is nonsense. Everyone knows that the felt effect of gravity was less in the Mesozoic because Saturn was hanging right over the North Pole, not because the earth was smaller. If the Earth was smaller then, just where did the extra matter come from? Obviously space, but how did it get integrated into the Earth without wrecking every ecosystem? That is a hell of a lot of falling debris. Chris----MtLoweMan@aol.Com >If the Earth was smaller then, just where did the extra matter come from? >Obviously space, but how did it get integrated into the Earth without wrecking >every ecosystem? That is a hell of a lot of falling debris. The alternative is that the Earth's interior became less dense. However, where did the energy come from, and how did it get converted into gravitational potential energy?  SignatureStewart Robert Hinsley > >If the Earth was smaller then, just where did the extra matter come from? > >Obviously space, but how did it get integrated into the Earth without wrecking [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Stewart Robert Hinsley Rather than addition of matter, a heterogeneous clump of stuff can expand (yea verily, against gravity) by the settling out of differentially compressible substances; i.e. as the heavy stuff sinks to the core, the lighter stuff can increase in volume by a fairly large amount. The best known example of this is effervescence. Also, the composition of the whole earth is not constant because lots of chemistry goes on as well as radioactive decays, producing gas and other 'light stuff' out of heavy minerals. The internal production of gas also suggests the applicability of baking and brewing metaphors. I'm not sure if anyone has tried to justify the expanding-earth model in this way before (the usual argument is in 2-dimensional spherical geometry, accepting plate tectonics but denying subduction); and I'm fairly sure that a planet swelling like bread dough would have a progressive reduction in surface gravity, so no help for the dinosaurs there. Nevertheless, I offer the Scanlon Home-Brew Expansion Model as a topic for analysis by geo-nutcases everywhere. Cheers, John Scanlon Sorry for jumping in on this thread (being that I am not a regular in the group) but I found the topic interesting. I think we can generally agree on the fact that there is no evidence that no significant additional mass has been added to the Earth in the last several billion years; particularly not since the age of the dinosaurs, there is simply not enough craters on the Earth or the late dated craters on the Moon to support enough bombardment of the Earth to account for more than a marginal change in gravity. The law of conservation of Energy/Mass state pretty clearly that Matter cannot be created so we must conclude that Earth has approximately the same mass today that it had 100 million years ago and 4 billion years ago. That being said, if Dinosaurs indeed enjoyed less gravity than we do, then Earth cannot have expanded through any mechanisim in the last 100 million years. Simple Newtonian Physics show that if the Earth was 1/2 its current diameter 100 million years ago Dinosaurs would have experienced not less gravity than we do, but more; An Earth with half its current diameter would have a surface gravity of roughly 4 times that of the current Earth. This would have been true as long as the total mass of the Earth remained essentially the same (which all the evidence suggests it did); changing the density of the core would have had no impact. Since the mass of the Earth must have remained the same, and it could not have been smaller then than it is now if we are going to assume that the Dinosaurs experienced less force from gravity than we do now that leaves only two alternatives. 1. The force of gravity was simply lower then than it is now. 2. The Earth was larger then than it is now. I will deal with each in turn. 1. We have good reason to believe that the force of gravity has remained more or less constant through every epoch of the Universe after a second or two after the Big Bang. Had the force of gravity changed we should still be able to see its effects on Galaxies millions of light years away, yet those galaxies act more or less the same as galaxies that are much closer to us. Further since gravitational mass and inertial mass are identical a whole host of other properties would have had to change including the speed or light... again, we have very good reason to believe that such changes have not occured.. or if they have that such changes have been very small (essentially millionths of a decimal value.. far too small to have an impact on the current discussion. 2. It is I imagine possible that the Earth was larger then than it is now. The force of gravity naturally will pull planets from a less compact form to a more compact one... Such a process is happening still today on the Gas Giants in the outer Solar System. If the Earth had a diameter merely 10% larger than it is today, the force of gravity would be approximately 83% its current value. A Dinosaur with a mass of 10 tons would only weigh a little over 8 tons. If the diameter was 25% larger the same dinosaur would only weigh 6.4 tons. Now the basic problem with this is that the Dinosaurs are relatively recent; I cannot come up with a decent mechanism that would explain a 10% shift in the Earth's diameter over 65 million years that would not also require the Earth being even larger in more distant past. If the Earth was indeed shrinking one would expect that the rate of shrinkage should be decreasing as the Earth gets denser and therefore internal pressure builds. If we assume a constant rate of reduction in size and that the Earth was 10% larger 65 million years ago then the Earth would have been at least twice its current diameter 650 million years ago and that just doesn't seem reasonable to me. But then again I could be wrong :) -- Bill > Sorry for jumping in on this thread (being that I am not a regular in > the group) but I found the topic interesting. [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > -- > Bill This post has been sent to a number of groups, and this answer is really the best one :) Thanks, I will take that as a compliment. -- Bill > Thanks, I will take that as a compliment. > > -- > Bill It is a compliment. I can tell you that the geo lot have a hard time between Plate Tectonics Team amd Expanding Earth Team, because the creationists more or less endorsed the EE theory, but adorned it a rococo way, so that it fits the old testament. Of course PT team are in a rage. So it gave me the idea of writing my own loosy ignorant answer. From my slur humble-numble ignorant point of view, I've just no idea why Dinosaurs could not be BIGGGG ! So I really do not need to expand the earth to understand the dinosaurs. I watched the Animal Channel with the kids a couple of time, and I can figure out a giraffe gets hurt when it falls after a tranquilizing shot, but I've never seen an elephant getting a bruise this way, and it is bigger than the giraffe, so : why the Expanding Earth ? Now if some people feel that the poor dinosaurs would get hurt when they fall, and would then need an inflatable earth to walk on ( as a kind of cushion ?) I suggest try some pataphysics experiment, like dropping the closests thing to the dinosaurs we have near at hand - a crocodile - from the fifth floor and see how many times it bounces, or so. Then - of course, there is still the possssssibility (little little little... though) that Einstein misssssed some interresting point in Expanded Relativity. So - maybe - there is an explanation to the dinosaurs not getting a bruise when running after each other in the muddy little earth. ****************************************** ** The earth was not smaller, but time was slower. ** ****************************************** So when the dinosaurs ran after each other in the mud, they thought : GizzhowfastIamtheTRexwillnevergetme - but in reality, theyyyy weeeerrrreeee veeeerrrrryyyyy sllllooooooouuuuuwwww aaaannnnnddd wwwwhhheeeennn thhhhhhheeeyyyy haaaappppeeeennnneeedddd ttttoooo fffaaalllll thhhheeeeyyy neeevvveeerrr ggoooottt huuuurrrtttt !!!!! But as everybody was vvveeeerrrrryyy slow in these ancient times, they never noticed, and the Trex still had a hard time getting on some food 'cuz it was as slow as the others. I got no idea about earth spins, geology, subduction and the like. Yet, I have an interest in having science explaining dead people to me, and maybe some day tell me where not to go for holiday. I just rely on necessary science. I just do not need an expanding earth to read an atlas or to understand the dinosaurs. Cheers Rod Time being slower would have zero effect. Essentially force of impact from a fall comes from mass * gravity * time it takes to fall (we will ignore friction from air to keep things simple). Therefore the force of a fall is regardless of the rate of time as long as the units of time remain the same. If the flow of time was to be cut in half this very moment we would not be able to measure it or even know it happened. The only time there is a measurable change in the flow of time is in an accelerated reference frame (which would include a gravitational reference frame). You can measure the change in time rate between reference frames. However for the sake of figuring out how hard an animal will fall, its all a wash; from the animals perspective it is the same regardless of what reference frame they are in. -- Bill Hi Bill.. I liked your responce but a few things come to mind.. If the earth WAS expanding.. It would be growing. As in expansion implies growth without mass like a balloon. And growth implies a process of intelligent expansion and the earth being a living thing. Which it well could be.. All living things follow a certain geometry. Call it sacred geometry if you will which it logarithmic in nature, and is related to the Golden mean and PHI. Which the solar system does adherer to.. The same mathematical equations which govern the size and dimensions of life from DNA sizes and dimensions to your physical body, plant growth population growth etc. The Same applies to the Solar system. This a GROWTH calcultaion. Here are some very interesting facts relating to that.. http://www.goldennumber.net/solarsys.htm Planets follow this life/growth pattern too. Mass coming into the earth via meteors etc is one way to approach this. Of course their is the other.. Energy has been added and is being added right now.. The fact is that we are bathing in an energy soup, of radiation from the sun. The planet absorbs that energy so where does it go? Every day, every second, the planet is absorbing energy.. The truth is we do not not where it goes, if we did we would have a fully unified theory of phsyics but we dont. . We know energy and matter are related, but how do you convert energy into matter? And can the planet do this? Why must the earth remain the same when it exists in a constantly changing universe, which by all account is expanding (Growing), and all life ON the planet itself grows and is by definition life. We do not need to know something for it to be true. I am sure there are a lot of truths out there which we know nothing about. They remain true whether we work it out or not... Like a whale, the largest mamal feeds on the smallest form of life as we know it, so could the planet feed upon energy in this form? Does it sound crazy to redefine an energy system as life? Energy itself as life? The planet as a living growing being? After all itsnt all life composed of energy and atoms anyway? Is it not possible that the planet is converting cosmic energy into mass within its interior? Thus growing from the inside out like all other life forms? Insects absorb oxygen and energy through their carapace.. Another thing we know about growth is that it is NOT linear. Growth spurts of 10million years would fit in well with the extinction periods of the dinosaurs.. Growth is also an ordered process, as the planet expands, it also gains mass in an intelligent manner, that is life sustaining for itself. (Any inhabitants of the planet would be part of its life system).. Growth also occurs in seasons and cycles.. Are the outter planets so large because they are older and at a different phase of their own growth cycle? Like the rings of a tree, the older growth external, it grows from within? If planets are growing what are they growing into? And from where did they come? From Solar/Planetary ejecta to a planet to a gas giant to a new sun? Do we live in a biological universe that follows a similar pattern to cellular growth, division and multiplication? Is the universe growing? Is it gaining in mass? What is Dark matter? I know more and more science folk from different diciplines are starting to work together on many big holes in science. From Physics to Bilogy to Geology etc. This is something we are going to need to see more of. What we do know is that Dinosaurs cannot have existed at the size they were, speak to an engineer and an anatomist. Check out the ideas from Paleontology. Even they are divided.. Were they fast warmblooded creatures as their anatomy suggests, or cold sluggish belly crawlers barely able to breath under their own weight? As the environment suggests?? If to this day subduction still remains a theory, which I am sure it does. Still looking for the solid proof.. We definately know that the earth has expansion zones, and this is clear. And why do all the continents fit toget her when you reduce the globe surface by 30% forming a Pangea World Not continent. Why do the other planets show clear evidence of expansion too. The supposed "canals of mars" are clearly expansion, since their "river banks" fit together like puzzle pieces. The same applies for the surface of Europa.. ALL Over that mooon, and all over they can come back together prefectly like a puzzle. I am not claiming I know all the details. I dont. Far from it. I am looking for the details and trying to see the facts which are prooving very difficult to find to support existing ideas of subduction. In stead I am finding more and more evidence to suggest the growing earth theory is real. Regards Ad. > Hi Bill.. > > I liked your responce but a few things come to mind.. If the earth WAS > expanding.. It would be growing. As in expansion implies growth without mass > like a balloon. And growth implies a process of intelligent expansion and > the earth being a living thing. Which it well could be.. A bit too new-agey for my taste. You throw around words like "life", "energy", and such as if they mean nothing, and spin fanciful theories from our supposed ignorance of things we actually know quite well. This isn't science; it's religion. > All living things follow a certain geometry. Call it sacred geometry if you > will which it logarithmic in nature, and is related to the Golden mean and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://www.goldennumber.net/solarsys.htm Planets follow this life/growth > pattern too. This makes as much sense as pyramidology, the bible code, and other exercises in finding patterns in random numbers. > Mass coming into the earth via meteors etc is one way to approach this. Of > course their is the other.. Energy has been added and is being added right > now.. The fact is that we are bathing in an energy soup, of radiation from > the sun. The planet absorbs that energy so where does it go? Every day, > every second, the planet is absorbing energy.. The truth is we do not not > where it goes, Yes we do. The earth is in equilibrium with its surroundings. It radiates as much as it receives, less a small amount of net carbon fixation. > if we did we would have a fully unified theory of phsyics but > we dont. . We know energy and matter are related, but how do you convert > energy into matter? And can the planet do this? No. > Why must the earth remain the same when it exists in a constantly changing > universe, which by all account is expanding (Growing), and all life ON the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lot of truths out there which we know nothing about. They remain true > whether we work it out or not... But this offers no support for random theories of everything. > Like a whale, the largest mamal feeds on the smallest form of life as we > know it, so could the planet feed upon energy in this form? Does it sound > crazy to redefine an energy system as life? Energy itself as life? The > planet as a living growing being? After all itsnt all life composed of > energy and atoms anyway? As is a rock. Is a rock alive? Draining all the meaning from words is not a legitimate form of argument. > Is it not possible that the planet is converting cosmic energy into mass > within its interior? Thus growing from the inside out like all other life > forms? Insects absorb oxygen and energy through their carapace.. Actually, insects absorb oxygen through their trachaeae, and energy by eating. But let's suppose the planet is converting cosmic energy into mass. Do you have any idea how little mass would be produced? We know that there is a rough balance between energy input and output. Any potential discrepancy is small. And just as you get a whole lot of energy by converting a little bit of mass, it takes a whole lot of energy to produce a little bit of mass. Energy input just can't account for any major addition to earth's mass. > Another thing we know about growth is that it is NOT linear. Growth spurts > of 10million years would fit in well with the extinction periods of the > dinosaurs.. Actually, the extinction seems to have been sudden, within a year or so. And if you can think of a way for an increase in earth's mass to cause the simultaneous extinction of most species of forams, you win a prize. > Growth is also an ordered process, as the planet expands, it > also gains mass in an intelligent manner, that is life sustaining for > itself. (Any inhabitants of the planet would be part of its life system).. > Growth also occurs in seasons and cycles.. Are the outter planets so large > because they are older and at a different phase of their own growth cycle? No. > Like the rings of a tree, the older growth external, it grows from within? > If planets are growing what are they growing into? And from where did they > come? From Solar/Planetary ejecta to a planet to a gas giant to a new sun? > Do we live in a biological universe that follows a similar pattern to > cellular growth, division and multiplication? No. We know where stars come from. We can see them forming. They aren't forming from planets. > Is the universe growing? Is it gaining in mass? What is Dark matter? > > I know more and more science folk from different diciplines are starting to > work together on many big holes in science. From Physics to Bilogy to > Geology etc. This is something we are going to need to see more of. Yes, but this nonsense you are spouting won't help. > What we do know is that Dinosaurs cannot have existed at the size they were, > speak to an engineer and an anatomist. No, we don't know that. > Check out the ideas from > Paleontology. Even they are divided.. Were they fast warmblooded creatures [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If to this day subduction still remains a theory, which I am sure it does. > Still looking for the solid proof.. You realize that we can now measure plate displacement directly, right? Plates are indeed converging. We can also see descending plates at subduction zones directly, as foci of deep earthquakes, and as regions of greater density in the upper mantle. Look up Benioff Zones. We can see the island arcs and other volcanic arcs just where the magma from melting, subducting plates should rise. We can also see sutures in the middles of continents, where two continents have collided. > We definately know that the earth has > expansion zones, and this is clear. And why do all the continents fit toget > her when you reduce the globe surface by 30% forming a Pangea World Not > continent. They don't. This is hallucination. The Atlantic fits together quite well, not only by geometry but by structural and paleontological fit. Regions on opposite sides of the Pacific have no such fit. And in fact, the west coast of North America is much too young to have fit together with any of the modern continents. > Why do the other planets show clear evidence of expansion too. > The supposed "canals of mars" are clearly expansion, since their "river > banks" fit together like puzzle pieces. There are no canals of Mars. It was an artifact of human perception imposed on poor quality images. As such, it makes a good analogy to your ideas. > The same applies for the surface of > Europa.. ALL Over that mooon, and all over they can come back together [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > difficult to find to support existing ideas of subduction. In stead I am > finding more and more evidence to suggest the growing earth theory is real. That's because you really, really want to believe in this theory, and are selectively accepting and rejecting evidence so as to maintain your belief. > Hi Bill.. > > I liked your responce but a few things come to mind.. If the earth WAS > expanding.. It would be growing. As in expansion implies growth without mass > like a balloon. And growth implies a process of intelligent expansion and > the earth being a living thing. Which it well could be.. Umm, Gaia theories aside, there is no reason to believe that the Earth is a living thing, it lacks several of the key requirements for life. Further if we are going to posit a living a Earth as an explination for its "growth" it requires that you provide reasonable proof to believe that the Earth might be alive and growing. Claiming that the Dinosaurs were too big to live on our present Earth simply is not sufficient. > All living things follow a certain geometry. Call it sacred geometry if you > will which it logarithmic in nature, and is related to the Golden mean and > PHI. Which the solar system does adherer to.. The same mathematical > equations which govern the size and dimensions of life from DNA sizes and > dimensions to your physical body, plant growth population growth etc. The > Same applies to the Solar system. This a GROWTH calcultaion. It is true that many equations and mathematical relationships are useful over a wide range of fields, but that doesn't proove either life or growth, rather it shows that the same fundamental physical laws underlie. However these are not growth calculations; in this particular case, it is simply a common mathematical relationship. > Here are some very interesting facts relating to that.. > http://www.goldennumber.net/solarsys.htm Planets follow this life/growth > pattern too. Yes, that such a mathematical relationship exists was noted in the late 18th century and is referred to by Bode's law (named after the person who first noted the relationship). It was useful in discovering the Asteroid Belt. That being said, the relationship breaks down rapidly in the outer solar system. In the inner solar system it exists because the planets are close enough to each other to create orbital harmonics that reinforce the relationship; particularly Jupiter and Saturn. > Mass coming into the earth via meteors etc is one way to approach this. Of > course their is the other.. Energy has been added and is being added right [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > we dont. . We know energy and matter are related, but how do you convert > energy into matter? And can the planet do this? Actually we understand where the radiation goes very well. Its all described to one degree or another by the science of thermo dynamics. Probably 70% of the energy that hits the earth is reflected back out in the outerspace. The remaining 30% heats the earth which causes the earth to radiate energy in the infra-red region of the spectrum. In fact because of man-made sources, the Earth is now one of three planets in the Solar System that actually radiates more energy than the Sun provides it (Jupiter and Saturn are the other two, their excess energy comes from on going gravitational collapse that appears to have stopped for all the other bodies in the solar system.). Since there is no excess energy in the Earth (except the very small fraction that gets bound up in chemical bonds in plants) there is no need to explain how the Earth might convert energy to matter since in fact it doesn't. > Why must the earth remain the same when it exists in a constantly changing > universe, which by all account is expanding (Growing), and all life ON the > planet itself grows and is by definition life. The Earth is changing constantly, the continents drift slowly, erosion reshapes them, sea levels rise and fall, life comes and goes. Earth is a very dynamic planet. There is no evidence however of it ever having grown. > We do not need to know something for it to be true. I am sure there are a > lot of truths out there which we know nothing about. They remain true > whether we work it out or not... We may not need to know something for it to be true, but until we do know about them they are not science. > Like a whale, the largest mamal feeds on the smallest form of life as we > know it, so could the planet feed upon energy in this form? Does it sound > crazy to redefine an energy system as life? Energy itself as life? The > planet as a living growing being? After all itsnt all life composed of > energy and atoms anyway? Actually Whales do not feed on the smallest form of life; krill while tiny are still rather complicated, multi-celled animals (tiny relatives of shrimp) and thus are vastly larger than single celled life. Further yes, I am sorry, but it is crazy to define an energy system as life. It may be poetic to claim that fire is alive, but it is not, nor are the reactions in a nuclear reactor or the Sun a type of life. > Is it not possible that the planet is converting cosmic energy into mass > within its interior? Thus growing from the inside out like all other life > forms? Insects absorb oxygen and energy through their carapace.. No its not possible because the Earth actually currently radiates more energy back into space than it absorbs in the first place. Over time the balance may shift slightly the other way, but over the course of the history of the Solar System the total energy stored by the Earth will be so close to 0 as to be negligable. > Another thing we know about growth is that it is NOT linear. Growth spurts > of 10million years would fit in well with the extinction periods of the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do we live in a biological universe that follows a similar pattern to > cellular growth, division and multiplication? The outer planets are not older than the Earth; if anything current theories of planetary formation suggest that outer planets might be slightly younger (essentially the solar nebula from which they formed exerts drag on planets in the primordal solar system, this caused their orbits to decay and thus for them to spiral closer to the Sun. The outer planets certainly formed outside our own, but might also needed to have formed at the same time or later than ours to have remained so far out.). Planets did not form from the Sun, but rather from the remnants of the same nebula that formed the Sun, and the destiny of a planet is not to become a sun, but to remain a planet forever. > Is the universe growing? Is it gaining in mass? What is Dark matter? The Universe is expanding, it is not however adding new Mass. Dark matter is still somewhat undefined; we know it exists because of the effects it has on Galaxies. We have theories of what it might be (WIMPs being one possibility). > I know more and more science folk from different diciplines are starting to > work together on many big holes in science. From Physics to Bilogy to > Geology etc. This is something we are going to need to see more of. Yes interdisciplinary work is growing in importance, but usually such interdisciplinary work is to solve interdisciplinary problems. There is no reason to believe that such work will provide a fundamental breakthrough in the fundamentals of physics. > What we do know is that Dinosaurs cannot have existed at the size they were, > speak to an engineer and an anatomist. Check out the ideas from > Paleontology. Even they are divided.. Were they fast warmblooded creatures > as their anatomy suggests, or cold sluggish belly crawlers barely able to > breath under their own weight? As the environment suggests?? What we do know is that Dinosaurs did exist at the size they were. What an engineer and anatomist says to the contrary is frankly complete rubish. Aero-space engineers once claimed that bumble-bees should aerodynamically be unable to fly; but no one told the bees. The environment of their age suggests nothing about whether they were cold-blooded or not. Many believe they were cold-blooded because they lie between reptiles and birds ont he evolutionary chain and reptiles are cold blooded. > If to this day subduction still remains a theory, which I am sure it does. > Still looking for the solid proof.. We definately know that the earth has [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Europa.. ALL Over that mooon, and all over they can come back together > prefectly like a puzzle. Tell the people in Indonesia that subduction is still a theory. The same theory that lets us interpret the volcanic ridges in the Atlantic as expansion zones also lets us interpret the deep trenches in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the mountains in the the Asian Subcontinent as evidence of subduction zones. There are no canals on Mars; they were opical illusions. And of course the various pieces of Ice on Europa came from the same global sheet of ice, so of course they fit together; in any case its not like the cracks are very large. Finally of course the 30% reduction only results in Pangea if the Earth only grows in certain areas; primarily it could only grown in the Atlantic Ocean. Such growth if real would be awfully lopsided. > I am not claiming I know all the details. I dont. Far from it. I am looking > for the details and trying to see the facts which are prooving very > difficult to find to support existing ideas of subduction. In stead I am > finding more and more evidence to suggest the growing earth theory is real. The facts are there, in fact plate techtonics has in its 40 years or so proven to be a remarkably successful theory. While far from perfect and not predictive in the way we might hope (i.e there will be a magnitude 7.5 quake in Downtown LA along rodeo drive between 1 and 2 PM next tuesday) it is far and away the best theory for explainging earth quakes. -- Bill I believe that the matter is compressed in the core of the earth... > I believe that the matter is compressed in the core of the earth... What matter? There is no evidence that the Earth contains any significantly different amount of matter now than it did 100 million or a a billion years ago. Whether that matter is distributed evenly under the surface of the Earth or concentrated in the core is essentially irrelevant to the surface gravity of the Earth. Assuming constant mass, only the radius of the Earth could have any impact on the surface gravity of the Earth. -- Bill Very! That idea doesn't sound too far-fetched though. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.