 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / May 2005No Long Range Virtual Particles
If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are everywhere they would form an infinitely dense soup that matter would have no choice but to react with. It would be stopped in its tracks. Virtual particles must be short range to matter. They only form around matter and at short range. Here goes the quantum vacuum!!! Mitch -- I know where particles spend their time -- -- More at someplaces than others -- > If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are > everywhere they would form an infinitely dense soup that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Mitch -- I know where particles spend their time -- > -- More at someplaces than others -- Particles come and go at random in the vaccum, they don't hang around. If particles appeared and stayed then your argument "might" make some sense. -------------------------------------------- DW no virtual particles at all virtual particles are only in virtual physics for crookish mathematicians.that call themselves physicists. Y.Porat ----------------------------------- If they exist poorat they would be only in the immediate vicinity of matter. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water poorat. Unless you have proof. I can prove they are not in the quantum vacuum. Can you prove they are not around matter? > If they exist poorat they would be only in > the immediate vicinity of matter. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can prove they are not in the quantum vacuum. > Can you prove they are not around matter? Oddly enough, Y. Porat was pretty much on your side of this debate. Wrong DW. If they fill the vacuum at everypoint and all the time they would be sludge to matter. Matter would react with them as sure as the nose on my face. Even if one popped up for a moment and then disappeared it would be replaced in the next moment by another. There is no way you can get around it DW Idiot! Virtual particles are only short range and are only around matter. > Wrong DW. If they fill the vacuum at everypoint and all the time they > would be sludge to matter. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Virtual particles are only short range and are only > around matter. Nick, you are showing a failure to grasp several key points here. However, most have been at least alluded to in other posts on this thread and other threads so I wont repeat them here. One thing, while there is some "support" for this approach among physicist there is not much and mostly among "non-mainstreamers." Once concept mentioned is that the resistance of these particles is what gives objects mass. (I am not sold on this though, so I have no intention of defending it). In physics - one "moment" is a LONG time. Look at the big bang model and see how much the universe changed in the first 100000th of a second. Nonsense wake. I see you cannot see the obvious. If they are everywhere and at all times then matter could never move without interacting with an infinitude of these virtual particles. stopping matter in its tracks. The original title was wrong. There are short and long distance virtual particles as force cariers. But the vacuum cannot be completely full of them. > Nonsense wake. > I see you cannot see the obvious. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There are short and long distance virtual particles as force > cariers. But the vacuum cannot be completely full of them. Sorry Nick, but you are the one ignoring lots of the obvious. However, in this instance what do you mean I can't see? Are we talking particle pair creation here? Are we talking uncertainty principles? Nick, script kiddie wannabe: >If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are Did your parents let you stay up late tonight so you could play scientist and pollute the newsgroups? > If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are > everywhere they would form an infinitely dense soup that > matter would have no choice but to react with. It would > be stopped in its tracks. But it is. Without the interaction between random virtual particles and the reals as they pass through space, the basic forces, especially nuclear, would be many many times stronger than it is. The virtual sea attenuates these forces to a reasonable level - without it, a nucleus with perhaps five or more protons inside it would collapse into a black hole. Your words would weigh heavily upon reality as the being that made them promptly disappears inside his own tiny dark universe. > Virtual particles must be short range to matter. > They only form around matter and at short range. Sure there are short range virtual prticles, but there are also long range ones too. Particles of any kind simply exist to transfer information in the cosmos. Nature isn't going to let something as silly as the consept of energy or conservation laws interfere with this singular mission. And what makes you think the silly thought that virtual particles must spontaneously generate near matter? If this gives you trouble, I hesitate to bring up imaginary matter... > Here goes the quantum vacuum!!! Here's to the quantum vacuum! Beer wouldn't taste the same without the foam... Greysky > > If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are > > everywhere they would form an infinitely dense soup that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reals as they pass through space, the basic forces, especially nuclear, > would be many many times stronger than it is. And how do you know this? > The virtual sea attenuates > these forces to a reasonable level - without it, a nucleus with perhaps five > or more protons inside it would collapse into a black hole. Prove it. > Your words would > weigh heavily upon reality as the being that made them promptly disappears > inside his own tiny dark universe. > > Virtual particles must be short range to matter. > > They only form around matter and at short range. > > Sure there are short range virtual prticles, but there are also long range > ones too. You're right. I am not arguing against force carriers just against the quantum vacuum being full. My point is if they are everywhere and space is full of them they would be identical to an infinitely dense soup. Matter would stop cold in its tracks. They are not everywhere. They exist only immediately around matter. Matter is made of them. If they are everywhere at all times how will matter move through space without hitting an infinite number of them Greysky? > Particles of any kind simply exist to transfer information in the > cosmos. Nature isn't going to let something as silly as the consept of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Greysky Matter is made of virtual particles but the quantum vaccum isn't. It wouldn't be a vacuum. And matter wouldn't be able to move. Show me where I am wrong. > You're right. I am not arguing against force carriers just > against the quantum vacuum being full. easy solution dick. set up an experiment to determine if you can find any space. > My point is if they are everywhere and space is full of > them they would be identical to an infinitely dense soup. this just shows a lack of understanding on your behalf. > Matter would stop cold in its tracks. depends what you mean by matter. neutrios are passing through you as we speak. to them, you are nothing. to me you are even less than nothing. > Matter is made of virtual particles but the quantum vaccum isn't. > It wouldn't be a vacuum. And matter wouldn't be able to move. > Show me where I am wrong. everywhere. as always. Show me where I am wrong. > If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are > everywhere they would form an infinitely dense soup that > matter would have no choice but to react with. It would > be stopped in its tracks. [snip crap] Idiot fuckwad. Quantum zero point vacuum fluctuaiions: Casimir effect, Lamb shift, Rabi vacuum oscillations, electron anomalous g-factor... Untutored ineducable pimple-faced psychotic jackass.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > > If the quantum vacuum is full, if virtual particles are > > everywhere they would form an infinitely dense soup that [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Uncle Al > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf How do you know these effects aren't do to the matter? We can't measure the vacuum. If you measure you introduce matter and no longer have a vacuum. How do you know it isn't the matter itself that behaves that way? > How do you know these effects aren't do to the matter? > We can't measure the vacuum. If you measure you introduce matter > and no longer have a vacuum. > > How do you know it isn't the matter itself that behaves > that way? How do you know that it is the matter? You need a better theory. All we can measure is matter. > You need a better theory. > > All we can measure is matter. No, you need a theory. That's what I am saying. We need a better theory of matter. It could be behaving the way it does for another reason. > That's what I am saying. > We need a better theory of matter. > It could be behaving the way it does for another reason. Maybe you could assist us qi researchers. We deal with quantum vacuum energy. We can alter without physical contact radioactive decay rates, chemical reaction rates, raman spectra of water, crystallization patterns, biochemical reactions, etc. by simply manipulating the energy in the quantum vacuum. See this expe as an example for some idea: http://www.accessv.com/~yuan/yansci/time/2002_YanXin_Qigong_JSE.pdf This means there is a relationship between some basic mechanism of matter and energy in the quantum vacuum that gives them their characteristics, do you get me? But I'm also exploring the possibility that we don't have the right atomic model and all those effect can occur by directly influencing the particular matter. Gets? The problem of qi researchers now is twofold. To investigate if the present atomic model is perfect. It is only when we are ensure it is perfect that we can explore the enhance aspects of it... for example... combo of strings and vacuum. We still don't know if strings exist pending a superaccelerator that can probe to that resolution, therefore we don't know if qi can affect the basic properties of the strings themselves or related to the energetic aspect of it. It is of immense theoretical interests for qi researchers to know if superstrings really exist... or M-theory has validity. We are anxiously awaiting for the Eotvos result by the talented Uncle Al. If it produces non-null. We have two things to focus. To learn whether there are other alternative atomic dynamics that can explain reality or whether it is the quantum vacuum that is the last frontier we can examine to explain qi. What is it. Alternative atomic model or enhanced quantum vacuum/strings dynamics. That is the question that give us qi researchers sleepless nights. If you can assist. We would be indebted to you in whatever means. We need all the small help we can get especially when mainstream physicists ignore us in this very difficult search for the physics of enhanced quantum vacuum non_local dynamics (or alternative atomic model) to explain the dynamics of qi. q How are you going to measure the vacuum without matter? That's what I'd like to knoww. The human body is a perfect scientific device and can demonstrate any aspect of physics be it thermodynamics, electronics, chemistry, etc. There is an energy not known to science that we humans can manipulate. It is known by 100 names in different cultures and periods. In the U.S. It's known as Orgone, Bioplasmic, Radionics, etc. Using it we can affect the physical properties of substance without conventional mechanisms. For example. I can affect the biochemistry of your body even if you are half a world away. Now how can one do it. Let's say we are dealing in part of non-local effect. But it still has to affect the physical substance in your body, right? There are only two things possible that can do it. Either the present atomic model is not right and there are other degrees of freedom not yet discovered... or we are affecting the quantum vacuum that can alter the basic properties of matter and energy. About how one can measure the vacuum (if it is) without matter. There is a bidrectional feedback mechanism. We can not only perceive quantum vacuum energy with our hands but also incorporate it to our visual system via the matter hidden dynamics. This means when the vacuum energy is affecting the vacuum energy of our physical body. The corresponding physical cells can be affected because there is (theoretically) an interaction going on all the time between the physical reality and vacuum. So each can feedback to each other. Gets? I keep mentioning about quantum vacuum because it seems Quantum Mechanics in my opinion is 85% correct. However. What if there is a better atomic model that can explain all data as well as more degree of freedom. Then the quantum vacuum is not necessarily. Herein lies the central program in qi physics. So our approach to it is twofold. To assume QM is perfect and go on investigating the quantum vacuum hidden richness via the human bi-directional sensor. At the same time, we need to explore all alternative atomic model that may produce those hidden degree of freedom. Hope you understand by now. q There are infinities predicted in zero point energy. This is the downfall of the quantum vacuum. It would be full everywhere and all the time. It would be a sludge to matter's movement. So it can't be full. And the infinities are wrong. Let's say the quantum vacuum is solid. How can we move in it. Maybe has to do with vibration or frequency difference? In John Polasek book The Dual Space. It is explained clearly. I'll take a look at it again as I just read it in one night and someone borrow it and forget all the formulas and equations. Wonder how many of you have read the book. q How dense is it? Any density at all would effect motion. Dear q. vac energy: > The human body is a perfect scientific device and > can demonstrate any aspect of physics be it > thermodynamics, electronics, chemistry, etc. Radiation chemistry. High energy particle physics. Gene modification. Cloning. No, I don't think it is the perfect device for all needs. > There is an energy not known to science that > we humans can manipulate. Yes, it is manipulated by searching for suckers. > It is known by 100 names in different cultures > and periods. In the U.S. It's known as Orgone, > Bioplasmic, Radionics, etc. Using it we can > affect the physical properties of substance > without conventional mechanisms. Not all "we"s can. > For example. I can affect > the biochemistry of your body even if you are > half a world away. Do it without words. > Now how can one do it. Let's say we are > dealing in part of non-local effect. Or simply "the power of suggestion". > But it still has to affect the physical > substance in your body, right? No. > There are only two things possible that > can do it. Or more. > Either the present atomic > model is not right and there are other > degrees of freedom not yet discovered... > or we are affecting the quantum vacuum > that can alter the basic properties of > matter and energy. Not unless you affect everyone. > About how one can measure the > vacuum (if it is) without matter. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > each can feedback to each other. > Gets? You are as imbedded in this system as any other meat engine. Your motivations and actions are as bound as atomic decay. > I keep mentioning about quantum > vacuum because it seems Quantum > Mechanics in my opinion is 85% > correct. I'm sure it will be excited to hear this. You mention quantum vaccuum because you don't understand it, and it seems to be a nice catch phrase for you. > However. > What if there is a better atomic model [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > physics. So our approach to it is > twofold. "our" > To assume QM > is perfect and go on investigating the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Hope you understand by now. Yes, unfortunately I do. David A. Smith Boloney Smith. > Dear q. vac energy: > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > David A. Smith A U.S. Qi researcher called Tiller is convinced it is the quantum vacuum involved because he thinks there is no other way to affect the particles directly. Dr. Tiller theorized that by manipulating the vacuum using human intention, the ground states of all atoms and molecules can be altered. See this article: http://www.tillerfoundation.com/ConActsCreation.pdf Since the research of the hidden properties of the quantum vacuum is just in the starting state. Many hypothesis could be wrong. Tiller has to use superluminal monopoles as the properties of the vacuum which he called reciprocal space (similar to Polasek Dual Space but differs in many properties). Anyway. I don't agree with Tiller much. I'm looking for an explanation of non_locality which doesn't involve superluminal thing. q Dear q. vac energy: ... > A U.S. Qi researcher called Tiller is convinced > it is the quantum vacuum involved because he > thinks there is no other way to affect the > particles directly. Quantum mechanically (not quantum vaccuum) it is no problem. The buzzword is "entanglement". > Dr. > Tiller theorized that by manipulating the > vacuum using human intention, the ground > states of all atoms and molecules can be > altered. But they aren't. Only the "intended" target is to be affected. There would be hell to pay (literally) if "human intention" sent a Sun nova. And there are those that would do exactly that. > See this article: > > http://www.tillerfoundation.com/ConActsCreation.pdf In my next life, perhaps. > Since the research of the hidden properties > of the quantum vacuum is just in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > explanation of non_locality which doesn't involve > superluminal thing. There is no time or space to the quantum world. There is no separation between you and the Black Hole at the center of the Universe (or any other point), no time between your *now* and the beginning or ending of the Universe. Superlumenal doesn't mean all that much now, does it? David A. Smith > Dear q. vac energy: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Quantum mechanically (not quantum vaccuum) it is no problem. The > buzzword is "entanglement". Dr. Tiller theory involves manipulation of the quantum vacuum by human intention. That's the only way he thinks chemical reactions can be altered by human thought. See his numerous experiences where it is replicated elsewhere and same positive results. Human intention can affect matter probably by manipulating the quantum vacuum variable. I believe this is possible if QM is 100% correct and there is no hidden physical dynamics that we have missed. > > Dr. > > Tiller theorized that by manipulating the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There would be hell to pay (literally) if "human intention" sent > a Sun nova. And there are those that would do exactly that. Of course. What I meant was the ground states of all atoms and molecules (of the target) can be altered. It depends on the power of the intention. If thought amplifier is used, more area can be covered. > > See this article: > > > > http://www.tillerfoundation.com/ConActsCreation.pdf > > In my next life, perhaps. You said below there is no time or space to the quantum world. So your "next life" is now. So read it tonight if you wanna know the next phase of development in theoretical physics. q > > Since the research of the hidden properties > > of the quantum vacuum is just in the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > David A. Smith Dear q. vac energy: ... >> > See this article: >> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it tonight if you wanna know the next phase of > development in theoretical physics. Better still, I'll acknowledge the God within, and realize that another version of I wrote it, that the work of the hands of Man are less than perfect, and save myself the trouble of repeating a mistake. Manipulation of Props is not why we are here. The Props Department has that covered. Just be sure you deliver your line(s) on time. David A. Smith q. vac energy: >> Dear q. vac energy: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >vacuum by human intention. That's the only way he thinks >chemical reactions can be altered by human thought. See Chemical reactions _are_ human thought. How do you think anti- depressants (but to mention one of a zillion drugs) work? For example, prozac and zoloft inhibit the re-uptake of serotonin, thereby leaving the serotonin molecule on the receptor site for a longer period of time. That changes the way a person thinks, which is why many anti- depressants are called ``mood elevators.'' Why is it so strange that thinking can affect chemical processes? The two are one and the same. >his numerous experiences where it is replicated elsewhere and same >positive results. Human intention can affect matter probably by >manipulating the quantum vacuum variable. The standard medical cliche is when you hear hoofbeats, don't look for zebras. This person, tiller, is hearing hoofbeats and looking for unicorns. >I believe this is possible if QM is 100% correct and there is no >hidden physical dynamics that we have missed. Why? [...] >> But they aren't. Only the "intended" target is to be affected. >> There would be hell to pay (literally) if "human intention" sent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >on the power of the intention. If thought amplifier is used, >more area can be covered. You misunderstand quantum theory. By construction, the vacuum is invariant. The fluctuations are _random_. If the fluctuations were not random, the fluctuations wouldn't be random and the vacuum would not be the vacuum. Cause and effect relationships are called forces. The vacuum is not a force. > q. vac energy: > >N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > depressants are called ``mood elevators.'' Why is it so strange that > thinking can affect chemical processes? The two are one and the same. Except that there is another pathway. For example. We have a person in front of us. We could manipulate his chemical system without touching him nor giving him prozac. We could inhabit the re-uptake of serotinin, for example by simply manipulating the morphogenetic field of his body. We could detect liquid energy in any physical matter with it more active in living system. I still don't know if it is part of the quantum vacuum and we are directly manipulating some parameters or it or directly the physical system via an extra mechanism whereby the collective wave function of a organ can be altered at will such that the probability of the occurences of certain electrons are altered. If the mind is a wave function with the capability to feedback on itself. Then it should affect other wave function too. You are familiar with wave function as mathematical tool. But when we detect any physical object. We could perceive liquid energy inside it. It looks like some energy is involved in the atom that is not studied yet by physics.. something so subtle but can affect directly the wave function. Back to its being believed as mere mathematical tool. Come on. There must be hidden dynamics to it. That is. There is a part of electromagntism that you guys may have missed. When we use a prism to see light from a pinhole. We could see double spectrum. One is the ordinary spectrum with refractive index more than unity or 1. In addition to it. We could detect another spectrum with refractive index less than 1 that is bend up (imagine a prism with a beam of light coming from the lower angle on the right. Normally, the spectrum would come up at the lower side of the left. But we could see another set coming up at the upper side of the left). We are still making other experiments. Suffice to say there is a hidden component to the normal electromagnetic wave, and there is a hidden component to the wave function. By manipulating it, we can somehow affect the wave function (if we are not affecting the quantum vacuum or aether). Well. I still don't know the exact details. If we are not affecting the quantum vacuum and not affecting the wave function and there is no aether. Then there is another possibility left. The present atomic model is not correct and there is another one with more degree of freedom that can explain our results. Don't worry. We qi researchers are doing many experiments to nail the physics of qi. If you don't believe a thing. Just wait for the results. In a decade or two. It will hit mainstream announcing the next phase of development in theoretical physics. q > >his numerous experiences where it is replicated elsewhere and same > >positive results. Human intention can affect matter probably by [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > vacuum would not be the vacuum. Cause and effect relationships > are called forces. The vacuum is not a force. q. vac energy: >Except that there is another pathway. For example. We have a If that's true, then you are wasting time posting to usenet. The james randi educational foundation is offering $1,000,000 US for proof of just such a phenomenon. http://www.randi.org/research/index.html If randi pays you the $1,000,000 for demonstrating such an effect, I'll be more than happy to trust his judgement. > q. vac energy: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If randi pays you the $1,000,000 for demonstrating such an > effect, I'll be more than happy to trust his judgement. There are 4 of us.. so I'll get only $250,000. Deduct it to huge expenses of getting a US visa and lodging, I'll get less than $200,000. However, during interview on the eve of our rewards. If I can share in TV the physics of qi (with coresponding experimenal evidences I'd release that day). I may get fundings from the National Academy of Science for 10 million dollars or more with maybe 2 million dollars pocket money rewards from elsewhere. Over the years. I can get more than 30 million dollars. Compare this to the measly $200,000. You do the math. To gain credibility. I may have to get physics degree and a Ph.D. in QED. So I'm not in a hurry to grab Randi's money. A decade or two and it's going to be hundreds of times more than it. For science. For health. For humanity. Qi physics is the future. q q. vac energy: >> q. vac energy: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >to huge expenses of getting a US visa and lodging, I'll >get less than $200,000. You must make a great deal of money in your country to pass up even $200,000 just because it would consume a little bit of time and involve some effort. Most people here in the us would have to work 40+ hours/week for years before their total income would equal that. About how much of an inconvenience is this $200,000? A couple weeks of your time? A month? I don't know anyone personally, who makes $200,000/month, so I can only be impressed by the wage structure in your country. >However, during interview on the eve of our rewards. If >I can share in TV the physics of qi (with coresponding [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I can get more than 30 million dollars. Compare this >to the measly $200,000. You do the math. I'll be more than happy to relieve you of the effort required to hassle with a measy $200,000. Don't let inconvenience daunt you. >To gain credibility. I may have to get physics degree >and a Ph.D. in QED. So I'm not in a hurry to grab >Randi's money. A decade or two and it's going to be >hundreds of times more than it. Randi require no credentials beyond being able to demonstrate what you claim to be able to do. If you know you can do what you claim, then your travel to the US is merely a vacation to pick up a check. > q. vac energy: > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > you claim to be able to do. If you know you can do what you claim, > then your travel to the US is merely a vacation to pick up a check. Ssshhh... don't talk a lot about it. Someone may beat me to it if he knows I'm aiming for it. Maybe Y.Porat. Lol... I'm buying time. It's so difficult to get US Visa that one has to bribe local and US immigration officials with $50,000 or more. Also I'm not in a hurry. If I grab Randi's $1M or ($250T for me) now. Physicists all over the world would jump at the search for the theory of qi and I may lose my sure 5 million funding. I only have to show how qi is related to the atom in a right manner with experimental evidence and I can get riches on the level of the movie stars. I can't believe no one has gotten the money yet. There are many ways to prove it to Randi. Hope all the Randi applicants continue to be stupid new agers who are inept in any technical matters and don't have a clue what is qi or psi and can't control it at will. I'd delete these Randi connected messages in days ahead to prevent adventurous Y.Porat scientific dudes from attempting to steal my millions. Lol... q > Ssshhh... don't talk a lot about it. Someone may beat me to it > if he knows I'm aiming for it. Maybe Y.Porat. Lol... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > q wow. nutcase. nutcase^2 > > Ssshhh... don't talk a lot about it. Someone may beat me to it > > if he knows I'm aiming for it. Maybe Y.Porat. Lol... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > nutcase^2 I feel relieved whenever someone mention this. It means less competition and I can buy time before grabbing the million bucks (or $250,000 since there are 4 of us...). Keep them coming. Hope someone will say "idiot" or "moron", etc. q > I feel relieved whenever someone mention this. It means > less competition and I can buy time before grabbing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > q idiot. moron. happy now? i thought you didnt want the million bucks? i bet you 100,000 you are talking shite. >> nutcase. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Keep them coming. Hope someone will say "idiot" or > "moron", etc. No, nutcase^2 is sufficient. Nobody here is going to hold our breath while you ramble on about how you're going to win some prize with mood ring technology.. Why don't you put your money where your spewhole is and just do it. > I keep mentioning about quantum vacuum because it seems > Quantum Mechanics in my opinion is 85% correct. Which 85%? > How are you going to measure the vacuum > without matter? > > That's what I'd like to knoww. The same way the astronauts know whether it is safe to leave the shuttle in orbit for EVA missions. > That's what I am saying. > We need a better theory of matter. > It could be behaving the way it does for another reason. So prove it is. > You need a better theory. > > All we can measure is matter. We measure energy too. |
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.