Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jan 11, 2010 1:31 am

Space-time is absolute according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. The absolute space-time of special relativity provides something with respect to which objects can be said to accelerate.
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby tentative » Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:42 am

felix dakat wrote:Space-time is absolute according to Einstein's theory of special relativity. The absolute space-time of special relativity provides something with respect to which objects can be said to accelerate.

Yes, and the explanation seems to hold when considering "normal" space. But then there are black holes where science has to admit that the laws of physics "may not apply", which is another way of saying that we may know a lot, but we don't know all. We tend to dismiss "anomalies" as if they aren't important clues that there may be more to know than what we think we know.

Consider the field of fluid mechanics. There was no more science to be discovered, everything was known and explained and dealing with problems was relegated to plugging in the correct formulas. And then chaos theory came along and those dismissed anomalies so long ignored became important. There was order in chaos that provided new insight that added new layers of questions and answers in a field that had been assumed completed knowledge. Our constructs may be 99.99999... infinity, and pragmatically that's close enough, but we should never lose sight of the possibility that just maybe...
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby The Last Man » Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:07 pm

rasava wrote:This is pure "hand waving", but what if the galaxies in our universe are but atoms in a larger scale parallel universe? What if each galaxy in our universe was a gas atom in a cloud of gas on a larger scale, which would explain why the universe is expanding and galaxies are growing farther apart? In turn, what we see as atoms are merely smaller scale galaxies, where the nucleus is a super massive black hole (at least to the scale of any inhabitants in this atomic galaxy), the "atomic bonding forces" is the small scale equivalent of our gravity, and the electrons are the equivalent of our stars. Quantum mechanics is not the popping in and out of existence of unpredictable random electrons but the readable supernovae or solar flares of little stars. Parallel universes and planes of existence would be described as the "scale" of that existence (one below ours, one above ours, etc). Our atoms are infinitely divisible into smaller and smaller universes, and our universe is but a puff of smoke wafting through the air of a larger scale universe.

This has just as much scientific grounding as the so called "scientific" imaginings of theoretical physics today. Maybe someone has already proposed this in some book I haven't read.


Ever since I too thought of this possibility long ago I have loved it. While pretty speculative, we are also told that size is relative just as mass, time and velocity are. And of course it cannot be ruled out logically - it implies no contradiction. So perhaps there is something to the idea - either way though, it is quite poetic and beautiful to think about, and really expands and boggles the mind :D
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:14 pm

Yes, and the explanation seems to hold when considering "normal" space. But then there are black holes where science has to admit that the laws of physics "may not apply", which is another way of saying that we may know a lot, but we don't know all. We tend to dismiss "anomalies" as if they aren't important clues that there may be more to know than what we think we know.


What laws of physics? Black holes were predicted by general relativity before there was any empirical evidence for them. Black hole are not anomalies. E=MC squared applies to them.



Consider the field of fluid mechanics. There was no more science to be discovered, everything was known and explained and dealing with problems was relegated to plugging in the correct formulas. And then chaos theory came along and those dismissed anomalies so long ignored became important. There was order in chaos that provided new insight that added new layers of questions and answers in a field that had been assumed completed knowledge. Our constructs may be 99.99999... infinity, and pragmatically that's close enough, but we should never lose sight of the possibility that just maybe...


On this website it seems to me, people are more likely to lose sight of the 99.99999 probability and look for an infinitesimally small margin of error. That's where they hope to find wiggle room for their theory.
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby tentative » Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:52 pm

Felix,

It is one thing to predict a black hole, and quite another to KNOW what happens inside of it.

Science is all about removing the margin of error in our knowledge, but error is error no matter how small. What you call "wiggle room" is just another admission of not KNOWING.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:22 pm

What exactly do you want to know? According to "A Brief History of Time: From Big Bang to Black Holes" by Steven Hawking published in 1988 quite a bit was known about black holes then. More is known about them now.

You said black holes the laws of physics don't apply to black holes. Well, they were predicted because they operate lawfully according to the law of general relativity. So in what way don't the laws of physics apply?
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby tentative » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:03 am

Felix,
So in what way don't the laws of physics apply?
I haven't the slightest idea what works or doesn't work inside a black hole. No one else does either. We know a great deal looking at the outside, but nothing of what is possible in the inside. there is lots of conjecture and a number of possible theories, none of which are testable. Not only do we not know, we don't even know how to know. Maybe some time in the future...

But all that is beside the point. All I was trying to get across is that even science skips over tiny insignificant details that later prove to be more than significant. Knowing is a tough business.
IGAYRCCFYVM
Sorry, arguing with the ignorant is like trying to wrestle with a jellyfish. No matter how many tentacles you cut off there are always more, and there isn't even a brain to stun. - Maia

I don't take know for an answer.
tentative
.
 
Posts: 12185
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:14 pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Tue Jan 12, 2010 6:00 pm

I haven't the slightest idea what works or doesn't work inside a black hole. No one else does either. We know a great deal looking at the outside, but nothing of what is possible in the inside. there is lots of conjecture and a number of possible theories, none of which are testable. Not only do we not know, we don't even know how to know. Maybe some time in the future...


No idea? Speak for yourself. Others have plenty of ideas. The ideas are not "conjecture". They are products of inference from the laws of physics, just as was the original prediction of the existence of black hole from General Relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole If that isn't enough information about what is known about black holes for you, I have a half dozen books I can recommend.

But all that is beside the point. All I was trying to get across is that even science skips over tiny insignificant details that later prove to be more than significant. Knowing is a tough business.


I get your point. But in the process of making it you suggested that the laws of physics do not apply to black holes. There is no evidence of that that I am aware of. It's one thing to assert that there are things we don't know. That, of course, is true. It's another thing to assert that we don't know what we do know. In that case, the question is, how do you know?
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:24 pm

What if you are just a thinly disguised spammer?


Edit: Thank you for deleting the spam. Now it looks like I'm talking to myself. :lol:
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby rejlive » Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:31 am

Many people have thought of this, but would be very hard to prove, and yes if the universe extends infinitely outward then it would most defenitely extend infinitely inward, so for me it would be easy to believe that the different levels of existence would be relative to size. BUT the day people start believing that we are surrounded by universes in our atmosphere thats possibly filled with life similar to our own, will be the day shit hits many fans
rejlive
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:08 am

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby MagsJ » Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:32 pm

Is not all things reflective of each other, re. the op...
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
~Arab Proverb

The Narcissist exists whereby every activity and relationship is defined by the hedonistic need to acquire the symbols of spiritual wealth, this becoming the only expression of rigid, yet covert, social hierarchies. It is a culture where liberalism only exists insofar as it serves a consumer society, and even art, sex and religion lose their liberating power.
User avatar
MagsJ
Triumvirate
 
Posts: 13128
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, England

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby DoomNaySayer » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:44 am

It's certainly imaginitive,creative, and a illustrative picture of the universe from the original poster of this thread ( artistic even) but, what are the basis for us to believe in it?
I'm just a prospector and opportunist caught up in the ever present chess board game of life.

Feminism - A social political revolution that demands all women be able to have all the roles, advantages, and success of men but none of their disadvantages. A social philosophy advocating that women have all the advantages of a man or woman but none of the disadvantages when it concerns being a man thereby also demanding that men still retain their traditional role as providers on top of the whole inequal sickly affair.

Anger is more useful than despair.
User avatar
DoomNaySayer
 
Posts: 347
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 2:45 am
Location: Don't Ask.

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby rasava » Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:53 am

DoomNaySayer wrote:It's certainly imaginitive,creative, and a illustrative picture of the universe from the original poster of this thread ( artistic even) but, what are the basis for us to believe in it?


Take the basic principles of the Scientific Method. It always starts with a hypothesis. Where does the hypothesis come from? Interestingly, there is no rigor placed on the standards for a good hypothesis; the only rigor is in supporting it. It was this conundrum (where does the hypothesis come from?) that sent the protagonist of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance down the road of insanity.

At best this can only be a hypothesis or model in which I feebly take a few tenets of theoretical physics an explain them in the context of this model or hypothesis.

I am surprised this thread has had some (relatively) recent posts tied to it. For some the idea seems to resonate, for others it does not. Wouldn't it seem that many philosophical tenets that are widely accepted are ones that produce a sufficient amount of "resonance" with a substantial number of the right people? I always wondered what is the "foundation" or cause of this resonance. Maybe it's the same question as the cause of a hypothesis. In the modern world I see philosopers of science as the better hyopthesizers and model makers, and some of the best models out there in theoretical physics seem to be as much philosophy as science.
Dread is a sympathetic antipathy and an antipathetic sympathy.
-- Soren Kirkegaard

In the geometric proof of life you don't always get the Given.
-- Some kid from my high school days
User avatar
rasava
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:38 am
Location: Here

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:22 pm

I have been working on the "Galaxy Model for the Atom"
for a long time. Just recently I solved Benzene using it:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

The Universe is fractal in nature, and
based on the atom-galaxy.

An electron is a spiralling arc of stars and planets extending
from nucleus to atom's edge containing radiating bodies at all
their stages all the time. Fully fused material falls
back into the center and is split back up by adding neutrinos, somehow,
and then shot back out the jets.

Electrons not only radiate, it is their
radiations filling the universe and being
absorbed by our protons that causes gravity.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby FilmSnob » Sat Nov 19, 2011 11:50 pm

It's a cool idea.
FilmSnob
ex-Pezer
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby Trajicomic » Sun Nov 20, 2011 12:14 am

hooper wrote:I have been working on the "Galaxy Model for the Atom"
for a long time. Just recently I solved Benzene using it:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

The Universe is fractal in nature, and
based on the atom-galaxy.

An electron is a spiralling arc of stars and planets extending
from nucleus to atom's edge containing radiating bodies at all
their stages all the time. Fully fused material falls
back into the center and is split back up by adding neutrinos, somehow,
and then shot back out the jets.

Electrons not only radiate, it is their
radiations filling the universe and being
absorbed by our protons that causes gravity.

john

This idea is already quite common.

And true. Good job though.
Nothing is more Evil than becoming Man.
Image Image
I, Postman will go Up. :sci-fi-beamup:
Won't you Humans stay Down? :sci-fi-grayalien:
User avatar
Trajicomic
Lawful Evil
 
Posts: 1374
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:47 am

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Sun Nov 20, 2011 3:38 pm

Okay, you guys, you're talking my atomic model-
the Galaxy Model for the Atom.

In it, the atom is a disc which spins and precesses both,
at a ratio of 1:2, which means the electron material
must complete two full precessions before it has finished
one rotation. This is a representation of that pathway:

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF

Properly placed, 36 of these pathways is all you need to
make Benzene, as I show below (just finished this in
the last month). 24 electrons share 24 pathways and the
last 6 electrons each has 2 pathways for itself.

http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

It is instructive to look at each stage of these constructions.
Here they are:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/Benzenepreview.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneA.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneB.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneC.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneD.GIF
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

If atoms are instantaneously discs, then
there is a lot of latitude for shaping the
characteristics of matter.
I'm thinking crystallized plastics and materials that
are transparent to various radiations, especially
gravitational.

Lots of fun.

john
galaxy model for the atom
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Sun Nov 20, 2011 4:15 pm

OK.
There is no such thing as smallest.
The Universe is a fractal, based on atom/galaxy.
When you get down to an atom's innards, it isn't
big Tonka-Toy quarks that are all identical, it's
the center of a galaxy, surrounded by arms of
millions of stars, planets, asteroids, etc, that make
up each electron. There is no diminution of detail
and complexity as one examines ever more
closely. Rather our examining tool- photons- becomes
too large and unwieldy to resolve that
detail and complexity.
So we deny it.
Planck's limit.

But there is no limit.
Just smaller photons. A whole smaller
electromagnetic spectrum.
And smaller divisions of matter by a factor
of galaxy over atom. And intelligent life
whose lifetimes are atom over galaxy as long.

Much too short a time to communicate with us.

Or influence us.

Right?

john
galaxy model for the atom
"to every one of your atoms, you are the
God of a Trillion (or more?) Galaxies"
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Wed Nov 23, 2011 7:22 pm

Sorry to kill the thread!! :)

No, I,ve been obsessive about this idea since 1980.

There are many very interesting ramifications, the
coolest having to do with controlling crystallization!

The best one to look at to understand it is:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneB.GIF
where only one electron pair is traded on each side of the ring.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Sun Nov 27, 2011 7:16 am

Oh, well, I'll keep going.

What we're dealing with here
is a fractal- where the form that
is the galaxy is repeated at the level of
the atoms that make up the galaxy.
And then there is going to be the
atoms making up the atoms.

And it goes further. How much further?
Infinitely? Or seven times or somesuch?
Doesn't matter.

What DOES matter, is that the mini-matter
making up the electron is also radiating- just like our suns.
There is also a whole mini-emr associated with electrons,
with this concept, including mini-neutrinos, which would
be given off by fusion in the mini-suns. So that means,
in addition to all these neutrinos we got going through
us from fusion in suns, we also got a huge flux of these
mini-neutrinos going through us all the time, from
mini-fusion in all the electrons. All the electrons everywhere.
Lots and lots of energy. That energy is absorbed by protons
in equal amount as it is given off by electrons, because the
protons are always using it to recycle burnt-out electron bits.

So it would in this scenario be the flux of mini-radiation from
wherever there are electrons in the universe being absorbed by
the local protons, which must always replace what their
electrons are constantly radiating away, that would produce inertia
and gravitation for our matter.

Fun?

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:49 pm

The interesting thing immediately when
considering the wave of one rotation/two precessions
is that eight of them make this very cool pattern:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/galaxypattern.GIF

Since two members can share one wave, this means
a maximum of 16 members. What if we compare the
Periodic Table to the completing of 16-member shells?

Then it gets even more interesting:
http://users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:44 pm

hooper wrote:OK.
There is no such thing as smallest.


How do you know this?
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby hooper » Sun Nov 27, 2011 6:44 pm

Okay- I don't 'know' it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is "the Higgs". So how can something that can't
be measured or given a shape be unique?


On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john
hooper
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:09 pm

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby felix dakat » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:59 am

hooper wrote:Okay- I don't 'know' it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is "the Higgs". So how can something that can't
be measured or given a shape be unique?


On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john


Just checking. Fractals seem to imply infinity in both directions. But the so-called Planck length is the smallest meaningful increment of distance, about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. Wikipedia says the physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research and since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical. Calculus may deal with theoretical infinities, that doesn't mean there are corresponding physical entities, right? So it's a kewl idea, but who knows, right?
Life simplification method: When you feel like doing something, wait until the feeling passes.
User avatar
felix dakat
Janitor
 
Posts: 7959
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 7:20 am
Location: east of eden

Re: Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

Postby anon » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:35 pm

felix dakat wrote:
hooper wrote:Okay- I don't 'know' it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is "the Higgs". So how can something that can't
be measured or given a shape be unique?


On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john


Just checking. Fractals seem to imply infinity in both directions. But the so-called Planck length is the smallest meaningful increment of distance, about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. Wikipedia says the physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research and since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical. Calculus may deal with theoretical infinities, that doesn't mean there are corresponding physical entities, right? So it's a kewl idea, but who knows, right?

The Planck length is just another event horizon of a particular kind. Conjecture about what happens beyond event horizons is speculative, but to say that nothing happens beyond event horizons seems out of character with respect to scientific research - i.e. it reminds me of the stories about old sailors afraid to sail west of Gibraltor - "the end of the world".

Another way to look at this is to consider how our concepts ultimately never "match up" with reality. For instance, if you keep travelling half the distance towards a particular location, you can never arrive. Yet we do arrive. There is something deficient, when you stretch concepts as far as they can be stretched, about their usefulness. Our concepts may only make any sense at particular scales. The Planck length is a surprisingly exacting expression of this very notion.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8253
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users