RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,884
Posts: 5,329,583
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 554
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 5 2013, 08:54 PM   #91
FlyingLemons
Vice Admiral
 
FlyingLemons's Avatar
 
Location: Edinburgh/London
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But not dark matter, which is what that paragraph was referring to.
The "dark matter problem" is not a consensus, even in theoretical physics. Some physicists don't even accept the existence of dark matter and believe it's just weird gravity effects... cosmologists haven't just decided "dark matter exists" without proving it and if the LCDM model was violated it'd be chucked out along with the steady-state universe and others that proceeded it.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But are actually related to quantum gravity and m-theory, and -- again, only going by what I hear from gripes -- is a delicate balance of proposing the new theory without offending the biases of establishmentarians.
What "establishment" do you speak of? If you present a coherent case for a program of study to most funding councils, generally you'll get a fair hearing and most of the time funding is turned down because there just isn't enough.

Many who rail against "the establishment" not listening to them aren't maverick geniuses that threaten "the consensus", whatever that is, but often people who lack the personal skills to be able to be in a room with others.

There are "independent researchers" outside the physics community, who often have the above problems but also generally tend to tie their "research" in with unscientific New Age ideas or who have theories that are mathematically unsound. Appointing any of these individuals to an academic position would be a waste of public money, as aside from anything the return on their "research" would be non-existent.

Before anyone mentions it, the idea that funding particle physics and astrophysics research that is seemingly esoteric to the layman is a waste is a lie. In particular, the study of computational quantum field theory is a key driver of the development of massively parallel computer architectures such as QCDOC which have commercial applications. Many of these things would be horrendously difficult to develop on the timescales demanded by the free market.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If I ever did get around to I'd start from the latter -- getting the transformations work in a high curvature -- and then work backwards to the observational evidence to see if the numbers are (or could be made) consistent with it.
In order to do that, you'd have to first to start reinventing what we know about differential geometry in order to get it to work before even starting to think about applications to physics.

I think proving that highly curved spaces are in fact flat would raise eyebrows among geometers and topologists, let along theoretical physicists.
__________________
"Goverment, keep yore hands of my medicare" - the Tea Party in one sentence.
FlyingLemons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 04:45 AM   #92
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

FlyingLemons wrote: View Post
The "dark matter problem" is not a consensus, even in theoretical physics.
It is according to proponents of dark matter theory. But if you're right that reports of a consensus are exaggerated, then I stand properly corrected.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If I ever did get around to I'd start from the latter -- getting the transformations work in a high curvature -- and then work backwards to the observational evidence to see if the numbers are (or could be made) consistent with it.
In order to do that, you'd have to first to start reinventing what we know about differential geometry in order to get it to work before even starting to think about applications to physics.
I don't think so, actually. My sense is that this would involve one of those horrendously complicated recursive processes like third or fourth derivative calculus (which I fucking HATE doing, by the way). You wouldn't need to treat a curved space as if it was flat, you'd just need a mathematically consistent way to account for that curvature itself. Which is, like, stupefyingly difficult, but hardly impossible.

As an extreme oversimplification: you have a formula to calculate the surface area of a sphere (general relativity) and to calculate the surface area of a cube (special relativity). The basic problem is that there's no elegant way to calculate the surface area of an irregularly shaped object like, say, a rock or an oddly-shaped peanut. Locally-flat spacetime is a mathematical conceit that doesn't actually exist in reality and so special relativity itself is just an approximation (like using the ideal gas model to calculate drag coefficients on a spacecraft; you can get away with it under some circumstances, but not all).

I'm not, IOW, saying it would be simple or formulaic as such. Really, I'm saying that Einstein's relativity is a paradigm that obfuscates the fact that Minkowski spacetime IS applicable to curved (or rather BUMPY) spacetime and we simply lack an efficient way to calculate those spacetimes much the way we lack an efficient way to calculate the surface area of a oddly-shaped peanut.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 01:33 PM   #93
FlyingLemons
Vice Admiral
 
FlyingLemons's Avatar
 
Location: Edinburgh/London
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
You wouldn't need to treat a curved space as if it was flat, you'd just need a mathematically consistent way to account for that curvature itself. Which is, like, stupefyingly difficult, but hardly impossible
The Minkowski metric is the very definition of flat. It's simple: (-1, 1, 1, 1) - apart from the minus sign, it's pretty much a straight map from number to space, no transformation, so if I feed x = 2, y = 3 and z = 3 into it it gives me back x = 2, y = 2 and z= 3.

"Minkowski space with curvature" isn't Minkowski space but something else. Once you introduce a set of co-ordinates with anything other than -1 and 1 as the metric, you're back in curved space. And special relativity comes out of pretty much all spaces, but only in locally flat co-ordinates and linearized gravity in that space thus making it a sub-case of GR.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Locally-flat spacetime is a mathematical conceit that doesn't actually exist in reality and so special relativity itself is just an approximation (like using the ideal gas model to calculate drag coefficients on a spacecraft; you can get away with it under some circumstances, but not all).
"Special relativity is just an approximation" - where's your experimental evidence for this? Hundreds of experiments have been done which have verified special relativity, taking place in locally flat spacetime. You've said dark matter theorists are getting ahead of themselves, but here you mention something which flies in the face of modern quantum field theory and astrophysics without anything to back that up.

"Dark matter", whatever it is, isn't just a mathematical invention done for shits and giggles. We have CMB observations from Planck, and observations of gravitational lensing which tells us that there's something going on there. It could be an undiscovered form of matter, it could be quantum gravity effects... but apart from the "dark matter" problem we know the rest of relativity is pretty much right.

This isn't "the establishment" talking, but rather experimental data. Special relativity has been verified time and again by RHIC, LEP, LHC and many other experiments. If an unusual gravitational effect had popped up at any of these that indicated something was wrong with basic special relativity, it would have been noticed and studied.

Nothing so far, and unless a spectacular deviation from special relativity at the colliders no reason to doubt relativity. Physicists don't just "accept" relativity - if, say, we discovered Lorentz violations at a collider we'd go and start reworking what we know about it.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Really, I'm saying that Einstein's relativity is a paradigm that obfuscates the fact that Minkowski spacetime IS applicable to curved (or rather BUMPY) spacetime
This is a speculation on your part, not a fact. I'm a theoretical physicist: what I do is theory, and fact only if it pops up in an experiment. If I say something is a fact in a paper, then I've got to back it up. I can say many aspects of the Standard Model are a fact: they've been measured. Relativistic time dilation: a fact, it has been measured.

Academic language is full of disclaimers when applied to theoretical physics - fact is a very loaded term to use, and here you're saying that a flat space metric is applicable to curved spaces which kind of flies in the face of geometry. The distance measures of Minkowski space when applied to curved space will not give correct results as they would fail to take into account the properties of that space - (-1,1,1,1) would give wrong answers when mapping numbers to the manifold surrounding, say, a star or other spherically symmetric body.

If you can put forth a substantial body of experimental data to show that equations of motion in curved spaces can be found using the Minkowski metric, I'd accept that as a fact. I accept that there is something we call "dark matter" out there because of experimental evidence, although what the specifics of it are I would say are unknown.

When it comes to "the Minkowski metric can be applied to a curved space" I generally tend to trust my differential geometry books which define it as a flat space and only a flat space, rather than your statement that this isn't true.
__________________
"Goverment, keep yore hands of my medicare" - the Tea Party in one sentence.
FlyingLemons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 02:00 PM   #94
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Could Dark Matter be the result of a gross underestimation of the masses of black holes, planets, asteroids, dust and shit? Especially the shit?
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 02:40 PM   #95
Asbo Zaprudder
Rear Admiral
 
Asbo Zaprudder's Avatar
 
Location: Magic realism
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

As I said, cosmic squirrels -- they must surely defecate...

But no, the numbers don't appear to add up if you assume dark matter is baryonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter

Re Crazy Eddie's curved spacetime, which appears to be envisaged as being a patchwork of Minkowski spacetimes, although I might be wrong. Perhaps it might have difficulty explaining effects such as frame dragging, although the experimental results for that are somewhat inconclusive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_dragging

Certainly, a new theory would have to be consistent with the large amount of experimental evidence already collected.
__________________
"Sans le canard de Vaucanson vous n'auriez rien qui fit ressouvenir de la gloire de la France." -- Voltaire -- Flip flap!
Asbo Zaprudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 06:57 PM   #96
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

FlyingLemons wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
You wouldn't need to treat a curved space as if it was flat, you'd just need a mathematically consistent way to account for that curvature itself. Which is, like, stupefyingly difficult, but hardly impossible
The Minkowski metric is the very definition of flat.
Yes, I know all that. All I've said is that the solutions for Lorentz transformations could be modified to account for anomalies in the actual coordinate system, provided you can quantify them in a mathematically consistent way.

A better way to conceptualize it would be, say, a superposition of two different transformations that treats the curvature of space as an inherent vector and thus becomes the coordinate system for for the observer's relative motion.

"Minkowski space with curvature" isn't Minkowski space but something else.
Minkowsky space assumes the flatness of space even when it demonstrably isn't. You could still account for that curvature even if the metric doesn't explicitly reflect its presence.

"Special relativity is just an approximation" - where's your experimental evidence for this?
The fact that Special Relativity assumes a locally flat spacetime even when when evaluating the behavior of objects moving within gravitational fields that are themselves non-uniform.

It's therefore an approximation, like Kepler's Laws or Newtonian gravity. It's a very good approximation, but it explicitly avoids dealing with gravitational effects by assuming their effect is negligible -- which is true on the small scale -- despite the fact that those effects are ubiquitous in the universe. It works well enough on the small scale, but that means we lack a way to apply special relativity to very large objects (galaxies and stars, for instance) whose relative velocity is very high and whose gravitational fields cannot be ignored.

here you're saying that a flat space metric is applicable to curved spaces which kind of flies in the face of geometry.
I don't see how. It's relatively simple, geometricaly, to project a curved surface onto a flat one. Why should Minkowski space be any different?

The distance measures of Minkowski space when applied to curved space will not give correct results as they would fail to take into account the properties of that space - (-1,1,1,1) would give wrong answers when mapping numbers to the manifold surrounding, say, a star or other spherically symmetric body.
And yet you say it gives correct answers when calculating transformations on GPS satellites in Earth orbit...

If you can put forth a substantial body of experimental data to show that equations of motion in curved spaces can be found using the Minkowski metric, I'd accept that as a fact.
If I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because you'd be reading about it in a newspaper and I'd be filthy rich.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 07:47 PM   #97
Asbo Zaprudder
Rear Admiral
 
Asbo Zaprudder's Avatar
 
Location: Magic realism
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If you can put forth a substantial body of experimental data to show that equations of motion in curved spaces can be found using the Minkowski metric, I'd accept that as a fact.
If I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because you'd be reading about it in a newspaper and I'd be filthy rich.
I doubt that coming up with a replacement for GR would make anyone filthy rich. You might get tenure in a respectable university.

I'd suggest working on a way to make all the molecules in a hostess's undergarments leap simultaneously one foot to the left. You might even come up with the infinite improbability drive, but beware of the rampaging mob of respectable physicists who realize that the one thing they can't stand is a smart-ass.

ETA: Ripped off Douglas Adams, of course.
__________________
"Sans le canard de Vaucanson vous n'auriez rien qui fit ressouvenir de la gloire de la France." -- Voltaire -- Flip flap!
Asbo Zaprudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 07:59 PM   #98
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Asbo Zaprudder wrote: View Post
As I said, cosmic squirrels -- they must surely defecate...

But no, the numbers don't appear to add up if you assume dark matter is baryonic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_dark_matter
Hm well, the theoretic amount of baryonic dark matter depends on the Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory. Another part of the puzzle that might be just wrong.

The possible margin of error there is extremely great. We don't really know what the hell happened at the beginning of the universe, so if that assumption is wrong, any explanation derived from it is wrong as well.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2013, 10:19 PM   #99
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

This thread is slowly turning into "will someone checkproof my cosmological pet theory". I'm more than willing to help. For a price. We've all got bills to pay, and this is how I pay mine.

Crazy Eddie, I appreciate your curiosity and enthusiasm for the topic, but the points you raise are either nonsensical (a curved Minkowski's space?), or already well-known. Still, if you think your hypothesis is robust, I urge you to submit it to the scientific community. One way or the other, you will have your answer.

On the other hand, what I don't appreciate is the standard reply of "mean scientists are mean meanies" to cover one's shortcomings. What is see in your posts is a lot of "I have a feeling", "I believe", "my friend told me", "a professor once said to me", "what I hear from gripes". And I can tell you exactly what that is worth: Nada. Zero. Zilch. Nothing.

So, you can either support your pet theory, or you can't.

Edit_XYZ wrote: View Post
Dark matter is simply a mathematical placeholder; arguing that we even have a convincing - aka, in accord with all experimental evidence, with properly determined characteristics, etc - conjecture as to what it is says more about the arguer.
Please tell me. I'm quivering in anticipation. Especially since I never argued that we know what it is, only how it behaves.

Asbo Zaprudder wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If you can put forth a substantial body of experimental data to show that equations of motion in curved spaces can be found using the Minkowski metric, I'd accept that as a fact.
If I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because you'd be reading about it in a newspaper and I'd be filthy rich.
I doubt that coming up with a replacement for GR would make anyone filthy rich. You might get tenure in a respectable university.
I am especially intrigued when people say that I am paid good money by the CIA, the Mossad, the Illuminati, the Vatican, and the Mafia to suppress the truth. I wish. I wish.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 12:09 AM   #100
FlyingLemons
Vice Admiral
 
FlyingLemons's Avatar
 
Location: Edinburgh/London
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Minkowsky space assumes the flatness of space even when it demonstrably isn't. You could still account for that curvature even if the metric doesn't explicitly reflect its presence.
No, you just use a metric more suited to the property of that space.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
The fact that Special Relativity assumes a locally flat spacetime even when when evaluating the behavior of objects moving within gravitational fields that are themselves non-uniform.
You can create a tangent space which appears locally flat, but not globally in strong gravity. If the universe was a purely weak gravity environment then "Minkowski everywhere" works, otherwise no.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It's therefore an approximation, like Kepler's Laws or Newtonian gravity. It's a very good approximation, but it explicitly avoids dealing with gravitational effects by assuming their effect is negligible -- which is true on the small scale -- despite the fact that those effects are ubiquitous in the universe.
That's why it's special relativity - a special case for locally flat spacetimes.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
It works well enough on the small scale, but that means we lack a way to apply special relativity to very large objects (galaxies and stars, for instance) whose relative velocity is very high and whose gravitational fields cannot be ignored.
That's when special relativity is generalized to general relativity and more complicated math becomes involved. When dealing with galaxies and cosmological scales, we use the FRW metric. When dealing with stars and other spherically symmetric bodies, we use the Schwarzchild metric. The cases you talk about have very well-known relativistic solutions backed up by experiment and observation.

We've got an entire mathematical apparatus to describe motion in curved spaces - Christoffel symbols, the Ricci tensor being two examples. They fit experimental data, and to boot you can retrieve the special relativistic and Newtonian cases from them. It's not "so mathematical it can't be checked", either. Many physics students, or indeed anyone, can develop a basic understanding with a little effort.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
I don't see how. It's relatively simple, geometricaly, to project a curved surface onto a flat one. Why should Minkowski space be any different?
The Minkowski line element is x^2 + y^2 + z^2, and that's it. Try applying that metric to a strong gravitational field and your equations of motion will be nonsense because the geometry of space won't be described by it.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And yet you say it gives correct answers when calculating transformations on GPS satellites in Earth orbit...
That's because it's not applying the Minkowski metric but instead an approximation of the Schwarzchild metric, the one you use for a spherically symmetric body such as the Earth.

Did you actually take a class in general relativity and cosmology at college? It sounds as if you're sort of unaware of the existence of metrics which perfectly solve the problems (motion on a cosmological scale, gravity surrounding spherically symmetric objects) that Minkowski can't handle that you describe.

iguana_tonante wrote: View Post
]I am especially intrigued when people say that I am paid good money by the CIA, the Mossad, the Illuminati, the Vatican, and the Mafia to suppress the truth. I wish. I wish.
Remember the song we sang at the last Physics Conspiracy Meeting? 'Twas glorious.

__________________
"Goverment, keep yore hands of my medicare" - the Tea Party in one sentence.
FlyingLemons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 04:46 AM   #101
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

FlyingLemons wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Minkowsky space assumes the flatness of space even when it demonstrably isn't. You could still account for that curvature even if the metric doesn't explicitly reflect its presence.
No, you just use a metric more suited to the property of that space.
Which is what a modified Minkowsky space would be: a metric suited for transformations on objects large enough to curve space around them. The reason I don't think the other methods would suffice (for what I'm talking about) is that they are not, AFAIK, scalable.

That's why it's special relativity - a special case for locally flat spacetimes.
Am I incorrect in my belief that physicists have spent an impressive amount of time trying to arrive at a unified field theory that would render special relativity superfluous, or am I misunderstanding something here?

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
And yet you say it gives correct answers when calculating transformations on GPS satellites in Earth orbit...
That's because it's not applying the Minkowski metric but instead an approximation of the Schwarzchild metric, the one you use for a spherically symmetric body such as the Earth.
The page you linked to did not. But I think we've already covered that topic.

Moreover, I am under the distinct impression that the FRW Metric is used primarily in big-bang cosmology to describe the expansion of the universe from a point singularity and describe the movements of all galaxies as a whole and is inherently inapplicable on the small scale. Am I wrong about this, and if so, set me straight.

I am also under the impression that the Schwarzchild metric accounts for gravitational time dilation between higher and lower gravitational potentials but not inherently the angular velocity or relative of any two objects in different orbits of a gravitating mass. IOW, time dilation due to relative velocity is not included in the Schwarzchild metric. Am I wrong about this, and if so, set me straight.

It's been ages since I did any real work in relativistic physics and I could just need a refresher course.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 05:13 AM   #102
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Not to speak for FlyingLemons or the iguana, but after a certain point aren't you basically asking for a private tutoring session here? People get paid to teach these subjects; why should they do it for you for free?

Crazy Eddie, you remind me of every eager grad student I've met, thinking they can tackle every major problem in their field, until reality sets in. Most research is incremental not revolutionary. Trying to redefine major components of relativity strikes me as a bit much for any one person to tackle.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 07:44 AM   #103
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Pavonis wrote: View Post
Not to speak for FlyingLemons Trying to redefine major components of relativity strikes me as a bit much for any one person to tackle.
Especially if you're still learning about it.

Dethroning scientific theories is like jazz. Before you go against the establishment, you need to become a part of it.

Before coming up with SR, Einstein did not go around claiming “Newtonian mechanics are wrong”, on the contrary, he knew all about them, used them, knew they worked, and why and where they worked.

But then again I guess you don't brag too much when you're about to invite the hate by replacing the simple math everyone uses with that barely comprehensible dinosaur I had always been afraid to touch personally.
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 08:46 AM   #104
rahullak
Fleet Captain
 
rahullak's Avatar
 
Location: India
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Not to any poster in particular, but: School teachers here in India teach us a lot about how half-baked knowledge can be silly at best and dangerous at worst.
__________________
It is a fact in your opinion.
rahullak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2013, 10:36 AM   #105
Asbo Zaprudder
Rear Admiral
 
Asbo Zaprudder's Avatar
 
Location: Magic realism
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

YellowSubmarine wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
Not to speak for FlyingLemons Trying to redefine major components of relativity strikes me as a bit much for any one person to tackle.
Especially if you're still learning about it.

Dethroning scientific theories is like jazz. Before you go against the establishment, you need to become a part of it.
Some people are playing all the right notes but not necessarily in the right order.

__________________
"Sans le canard de Vaucanson vous n'auriez rien qui fit ressouvenir de la gloire de la France." -- Voltaire -- Flip flap!
Asbo Zaprudder is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.