 |
| |
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Lul - if you need every planet to be exactly twice as far before a lightbulb goes off in your head, then you shouldn't be insulting people about any perceived lack of intelligence.
First, why 6 out of 9? And why 3 sets of numbers? The 2:1 ratio with Earth at the asteroid belt shows 7 planets out of 8 following the pattern, not 6 out of 9, and I already explained why Neptune may not fit the pattern. The first 7 planets follow a 2:1 ratio and you think it's a ******* coincidence?
Here are the relevant numbers:
Mercury .387
Venus .723
Mars 1.520
Earth/Asteroid Belt ~2.7
Jupiter 5.2
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2
7 planets with a 2:1 ratio. Oh, but Jupiter isn't 4x as far as Mars, boohoo.
I told you the earth needs to be placed at the asteroid belt for the 2:1 ratio to work, so don't use your laziness of proof of anything other than your laziness.
Where did I mention 2,2,4,2,2? Those are your numbers, not mine. Here are the numbers again:
Mercury .387
Venus .723
Mars 1.520
Earth/Asteroid Belt ~2.7
Jupiter 5.2
Saturn 9.54
Uranus 19.2 |
Ok mr lightbulb...
ill explain everything like a child (this was all in my first post btw, im not making up any thing new...)
there are 9 objects you are using, 9 distances...
Now you only study 6 of them...
You remove the Earth and 2 outer planets because they dont fit data.
You have 9 data, and you CHOOSE 6 that fit your nice little formula
tahts why 6 out of 9
And since you have no explanation for why the pattern should hold, your explanation for why it doesnt hold for neptune et al is not an explanation, its arbitrary.
Now where did you mention 2,2,4,2,2
let me see
the succesive ratios are supposed to be 2,2,2,2,2,2
but since I didnt have the data for the asteroids, I combined two together...
Meaning if you skip the asteroids AND YOU OWN FORMULA IS TRUE YOU WOULD GET 2,2,4,2,2 as ratios
now I know its hard to understand the actual implications of your own theory but ....
So the ratios I computed in the first post are the actual value
2,2,4,2,2 are the values predicted by your theory
do you understand this sentence just above?
if you do not, tell me, i can explain more...
if you do, you can go on to the challenge part which still stands...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lul Thyme
|
|
Quebec, Canada
Aug 2000
time: 05:17
|
|
And btw, if you theory is true Jupiter SHOULD be 4x away as MARS, and the fact that it is not at all is exactly my point...
Btw you can answer these arguments indepently of the challenge...
I dont see why you havnt produced a sequence for me to find a better pattern in yet...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
UR - quote:
It's purely a conjecture. |
Some asteroids show evidence of differentiation, a planetary process. Not conjecture. The earth survived a massive collision with a Mars sized object, that's what many astronomers believe. If this happened, how did the Earth retain it's orbit or was it pushed to a new orbit? Where might we find evidence of such a collision? Where a band or belt (hammered bracelet according to the Mesopotamians) of debris circles the Sun? Where asteroids that have undergone differentiation can be found?
quote:
Maybe if you can first construct a model of how such an ejection would be physically possible first. |
Neither of us have the ability to produce or understand such a model. But here's another interesting tidbit if there are any members who double as experts in celestial mechanics. Pluto's inclination to the ecliptic is ~17.2 degrees. Saturn's axial tilt is ~26.8 degrees. That's very close to a 2/3rds ratio. If a moon was ejected from a planetary orbit following a 26.8 degree angle away from the ecliptic, what angle to the ecliptic would it acquire once it entered it's new orbit around the sun?
Ramo - quote:
Berzerker, you're repeating the same things over and over again. |
If y'all got it the first time I wouldn't need to. 
quote:
This is why I didn't read your posts: it's a lot of nonsense, Ok, so this has nothing to do with the Saturn/Pluto theory. that's what I wanted to know. |
 You don't read my posts and complain that I'm repeating myself? That theory is based on an interpretation of Babylonian religion. The fact the theory is about events in this solar system involving Pluto and Saturn among others things doesn't mean it has nothing to do with Pluto and Saturn.
quote:
No, I didn't say that these specific patterns exist WRT other planets, but you can find patterns in basically any system. |
It is a pattern? So identify patterns in another pair of planets to show a relationship.
quote:
No, they don't. I'll repeat Winston's numbers:
Mercury - (0.39)
Venus - (0.72)
Earth - (1.00)
Mars - (1.52)
Jupiter - (5.20)
Saturn - (9.55)
Uranus - (19.22)
Neptune (30.1) (just looked that up)
Pluto (39.5) (and that too) |
Damn Ramo, I said it formed a 2:1 ratio when earth is moved to the asteroid belt.
quote:
So, most of the time, the pattern widely diverges from the 2:1 ratio. Only 3 of these instances you can say are somewhat close, and only one is really close. As I said, numerology. |
With the earth at the asteroid belt, the first 7 planets have a 2:1 ratio. The fact they don't have "exact" 2:1 ratios reflects the instablity of the system resulting from this occasional interloper. That's why astronomers are still looking for a planet X, because they've detected the gravitational influences of something moderately large beyond Pluto.
quote:
Even if all this were true, none of this is relevant with respect to your hypothesis. At all. Period. |
Of course it's irrelevant. I wasn't responding to an aspect of "my" hypothesis, I was responding to your argument that Pluto could have orbited Earth because it's physically possible. I offered some rationale as to why Saturn is a much better candidate and why Earth is an unlikely candidate. When astronomers figured out Pluto was an ejected satellite they began looking at planets that had things in common with Pluto. Neptune became the heir of that search because of it's apparently captured moon, Triton, and that Pluto actually comes closer to the sun. A third piece of evidence was the stable orbit Pluto shares with Neptune. But for other reasons this theory is losing support. The point being astronomers looked for orbital similarities or connections when looking for Pluto's host planet. But when I do that you guys say I'm being unscientific, etc...
quote:
Telll, on what basis do you say that? What physical law makes you think that? |
Because it's a mathemathetical relationship.
quote:
Why do you repeat the same strawmen even after they're refuted? |
You said "there are physical principles underlying celestial mechanics, not numerology." Leaving aside the fact physical laws often involve mathematical relationships, especially the orbits of celestial bodies, the implication of your statement was that there is a physical law incompatable with the theory. Otherwise
you made no point, of course physical laws apply. That's why Pluto adopted a new orbit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
Damn Ramo, I said it formed a 2:1 ratio when earth is moved to the asteroid belt. |
And you also conveniently ignore Neptue and Pluto.
quote:
You don't read my posts and complain that I'm repeating myself? That theory is based on an interpretation of Babylonian religion. The fact the theory is about events in this solar system involving Pluto and Saturn among others things doesn't mean it has nothing to do with Pluto and Saturn. |
I didn't complain about repeating that, just everything else. I was just wondering why you were bring this up as evidence. It's not, I see.
quote:
Because it's a mathemathetical relationship. |
So?
quote:
You said "there are physical principles underlying celestial mechanics, not numerology." Leaving aside the fact physical laws often involve mathematical relationships, |
What's your point? Pretty much everything can be expressed mathematically. It's a language. That doesn't mean anything expressed in math is based on physics.
quote:
especially the orbits of celestial bodies, the implication of your statement was that there is a physical law incompatable with the theory. Otherwise
you made no point, of course physical laws apply. That's why Pluto adopted a new orbit. |
No, I clearly stated what I meant. Multiple times. To restate it:
Your "evidence" in no way demonstrates that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn because celestial mechanics are based on physical laws not numerology. End of argument.
quote:
It is a pattern? So identify patterns in another pair of planets to show a relationship. |
Mercury is half the distance away from the sun as Venus. Both planets are uninhabitable. Venus is roughly 10 times as massive as Mercury. They're both very hot. Therefore, Mercury was a moon of Venus, QED.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Lul - quote:
And btw, if you theory is true Jupiter SHOULD be 4x away as MARS, and the fact that it is not at all is exactly my point... |
And you think the fact Jupiter is 3.42 x as far instead of 4 x proves something? Oh, it ain't exact. It ain't a perfectly stable system either.
quote:
I dont see why you havnt produced a sequence for me to find a better pattern in yet... |
You can't do that yourself? It's your argument, not mine.
Produce 8 numbers with 7 forming a better pattern than 2:1.
quote:
Ok mr lightbulb...
ill explain everything like a child (this was all in my first post btw, im not making up any thing new...)
there are 9 objects you are using, 9 distances...
Now you only study 6 of them...
You remove the Earth and 2 outer planets because they dont fit data.
You have 9 data, and you CHOOSE 6 that fit your nice little formula
tahts why 6 out of 9
And since you have no explanation for why the pattern should hold, your explanation for why it doesnt hold for neptune et al is not an explanation, its arbitrary.
Now where did you mention 2,2,4,2,2
let me see
the succesive ratios are supposed to be 2,2,2,2,2,2
but since I didnt have the data for the asteroids, I combined two together...
Meaning if you skip the asteroids AND YOU OWN FORMULA IS TRUE YOU WOULD GET 2,2,4,2,2 as ratios
now I know its hard to understand the actual implications of your own theory but ....
So the ratios I computed in the first post are the actual value
2,2,4,2,2 are the values predicted by your theory
do you understand this sentence just above?
if you do not, tell me, i can explain more...
if you do, you can go on to the challenge part which still stands... |
Okay Mr Dimbulb, I'm not comparing 6 out of 9, I'm looking at 7 out of 8. Pluto was a moon of Saturn according to this theory and an escaped moon or asteroid ejected from a previous orbit according to a consensus of the astronomical community. And with the earth at the asteroid belt, the first 7 planets have a 2:1 ratio in AU. Neptune is only 1/2 further than Uranus but that doesn't mean the pattern is wrong for the other planets, it can simply mean 10 AU is enough space to form a planet that far from the sun.
And the sequence 2.2.4,2,2 is yours, don't keep attributing it to me. Jupiter is roughly 2x the distance of the asteroid belt and you keep comparing it to Mars because you were too lazy to look up asteroids on google. Got that yet? I've only had to repeat it 3-4 times now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ramo - quote:
And you also conveniently ignore Neptue and Pluto. |
If you would read my posts I've repeatedly made it clear this 2:1 ratio applies to the first 7 planets.
quote:
I didn't complain about repeating that, just everything else. I was just wondering why you were bring this up as evidence. It's not, I see. |
I'm supporting two different events, the collision of a proto-Earth at the asteroid belt AND Pluto's ejection from a Saturnian orbit. You'd know that if you read more.
I know, I know, it's my fault you aren't reading my posts.
Mathematical relationships are how we figure out the solar system. And there are formulas that allow us to calculate oribtal parameters.
quote:
What's your point? Pretty much everything can be expressed mathematically. It's a language. That doesn't mean anything expressed in math is based on physics. |
I'll repeat this: "Pluto's inclination to the ecliptic is ~17.2 degrees. Saturn's axial tilt is ~26.8 degrees. That's very close to a 2/3rds ratio. If a moon was ejected from a planetary orbit following a 26.8 degree angle away from the ecliptic, what angle to the ecliptic would it acquire once it entered it's new orbit around the sun?" We would need to know the speed at which it left on it's journey to a new orbit but I'll bet this theory is well within the realm of possibilities.
That can be checked mathematically, any takers? Since Pluto is the only planet showing evidence of being ejected from another planet, that 2:1 ratio may be significant. You say it isn't, fine.
quote:
No, I clearly stated what I meant. Multiple times. To restate it:
Your "evidence" in no way demonstrates that Pluto was a satellite of Saturn because celestial mechanics are based on physical laws not numerology. End of argument. |
But you don't say physical laws contradict the theory, so why mention "them"? This isn't "numerology", it's how astronomers figure things out. It was based on "numerology" that astronomers believed Pluto escaped from Neptune.
quote:
Mercury is half the distance away from the sun as Venus. Both planets are uninhabitable. Venus is roughly 10 times as massive as Mercury. They're both very hot. Therefore, Mercury was a moon of Venus, QED. |
Why? Nothing about that comparison supports your conclusion. A number of planets are 1/2 the distance to the next planet, that speaks to how planets form in a collapsing nebula, not how moons get ejected. Whether or not life can survive on a planet is irrelevant, they're hot because of their proximity to the sun and Venus' atmosphere and lack of rotation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Former moons weren't orbiting the sun like planets, they were orbiting planets. The 2:1 ratio is related to where planets form in a collapsing nebula, not where debris orbiting planets fly off to when ejected. |
Do you at least now see how Saturn is not 'pointing' at Pluto even at pluto's perihelion? 26.8 degrees isn't 24.15 degrees.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
If you would read my posts I've repeatedly made it clear this 2:1 ratio applies to the first 7 planets. |
The point is, why should the pattern apply to only the first 7 planets? Why are you ignoring Neptune and Pluto? Or was Neptune also a former moon?
quote:
I'm supporting two different events, the collision of a proto-Earth at the asteroid belt AND Pluto's ejection from a Saturnian orbit. You'd know that if you read more.
I know, I know, it's my fault you aren't reading my posts. |
You brought up the 2:1 nonsense when I was criticizing your assertion WRT Saturn/Pluto. Clearly, it's you who isn't reading my post.
quote:
I'll repeat this: "Pluto's inclination to the ecliptic is ~17.2 degrees. Saturn's axial tilt is ~26.8 degrees. That's very close to a 2/3rds ratio. If a moon was ejected from a planetary orbit following a 26.8 degree angle away from the ecliptic, what angle to the ecliptic would it acquire once it entered it's new orbit around the sun?" |
Incomplete information. You can't say. If you weren't reading my posts, angular momentum isn't conserved since there isn't a central force in the transition, so there's no simple way to determine this.
quote:
We would need to know the speed at which it left on it's journey to a new orbit but I'll bet this theory is well within the realm of possibilities. |
Just about any combination is possible. This 2/3 thing isn't meaningful. More numerology.
quote:
That can be checked mathematically, any takers? Since Pluto is the only planet showing evidence of being ejected from another planet, that 2:1 ratio may be significant. You say it isn't, fine. |
Why is it relevant?
quote:
Mathematical relationships are how we figure out the solar system. And there are formulas that allow us to calculate oribtal parameters. |
I'll repeat:
"What's your point? Pretty much everything can be expressed mathematically. It's a language. That doesn't mean anything expressed in math is based on physics."
quote:
But you don't say physical laws contradict the theory, so why mention "them"? This isn't "numerology", it's how astronomers figure things out. It was based on "numerology" that astronomers believed Pluto escaped from Neptune. |
Astronomers figure things out based on physical principles, not numerical cooincidences.
quote:
Why? Nothing about that comparison supports your conclusion. |
Why not? You asked for connections between the two. I didn't assert that they were meaningful, my point was that you can find patterns in everything.
Last edited by Ramo on 15-12-2004 at 12:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ger - quote:
Another thing that should be mentioned. Despite the fact that it has never been explained why a planet (Saturn) whose ecliptic 'points' at pluto's perihelion when one of that planet's solstices (this would have to be the northern summer solstice IIRC) happens to line up with pluto's perihelion (currently neither of Saturn's solstices line up with pluto's perihelion!) would be likely to have had Pluto as a satellite, I suspect that this fact attracts interest simply for seeming to be too unlikely to be coincidence. |
That's a strange argument after you raised precession.
quote:
consider a triangle with sides a, b, and c where side b is the distance along the solar ecliptic of saturn from the Sun at angle A and side c is the distance of pluto from the sun at it's perihelion, and side a is the distance of saturn from pluto when it is on precisely the same side of the sun ('longitude' as berz called it) as pluto's perihelion. |
Longitude was related to their ascending and descending nodes, not perihelion.
quote:
b = Saturns distance from the Sun at it's own perihelion (as specified by Berz) 1.35 billion km
c = Pluto's distance from the Sun at it's own perihelion : 4.435 billion km
angle A the angle formed by b and c at the Sun (Plutos' oribital inclination) 17.2 degrees
now using
a^2 = b^2 + c^2 - 2bc cosA
we can obtain 3.167 billion km as the distance from saturn to Plutos' perihelion a
using this value we can compute the angle C formed by sides b and a and subtract this angle C from 180 to calculate the tilt of Saturn if it is 'pointing' at Pluto's perihelion using
c^2 = a^2 + b^2 - 2ab cos C
from this C = 155.84 degrees giving a tilt for a Saturn pointing at pluto's perihelion of 24.15 degrees! |
Where did I specify Saturn's perihelion. I used the mean when I did my calculations and that increases the angle. If we used Saturn's aphelion the angle increases even more. Re-calculate using Saturn's mean and aphelion. One more thing, when I did my calculations I had to account for Saturn's inclination to the ecliptic. That made maybe a .5 degree difference (not sure on that one).
Another interesting thing, the ecliptic plane is 7 degrees off the sun's equator. That indicates another large member of the solar system that didn't form within the nebula, another planet with a highly elliptical, retrograde (comets), inclined orbit. Planets formed in a solar nebula should not have 7 degrees of tilt without some outside influence and Mercury (I believe) is inclined to the ecliptic by 7 degrees, same as the sun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
Ramo, I don't know what your problem is, you say you don't read my posts but you keep asking questions I've already answered. Go read!
quote:
The point is, why should the pattern apply to only the first 7 planets? Why are you ignoring Neptune and Pluto? Or was Neptune also a former moon? |
I already explained that 10 AU, the distance between Neptune and Uranus, may be enough for an outer planet to form. That doesn't mean the 2:1 ratio doesn't work for the first 7 planets.
quote:
You brought up the 2:1 nonsense when I was criticizing your assertion WRT Saturn/Pluto. Clearly, it's you who isn't reading my post. |
I brought it up, so what? You asked me why and I told you why, sheesh!
quote:
Incomplete information. You can't say. If you weren't reading my posts, angular momentum isn't conserved since there isn't a central force in the transition, so there's no simple way to determine this. |
There is always a transitional force, the momentum Pluto has upon escape, it's trajectory wrt Saturn's ecliptic, all under the influence - force - of gravity.
quote:
Just about any combination is possible. This 2/3 thing isn't meaningful. More numerology. |
The reason Neptune and Pluto don't come near each other is because of a 2/3rds resonance...just numerology...
quote:
Why is it relevant? |
Numerology. I'm tired of repeating myself, Ramo.
quote:
Astronomers figure things out based on physical principles, not numerical cooincidences. |
They look for numerical "coincidences" to find physical laws. One numerical coincidence astronomers used to conclude Pluto escaped from Neptune was the 2/3rds resonance in their orbits. Another numerical coincidence led to the Titus-Bode law and the discovery of the asteroids.
I just told you and you left my explanation out of that quote, real nice, Ramo.
quote:
You asked for connections between the two. |
No, I asked for connections to support a conclusion.
Your conclusion isn't supported by anything you said.
quote:
I didn't assert that they were meaningful, my point was that you can find patterns in everything. |
Why offer connections that have no connection by your own admission?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Ger -
That's a strange argument after you raised precession.
Longitude was related to their ascending and descending nodes, not perihelion.
Where did I specify Saturn's perihelion. I used the mean when I did my calculations and that increases the angle. If we used Saturn's aphelion the angle increases even more. Re-calculate using Saturn's mean and aphelion. One more thing, when I did my calculations I had to account for Saturn's inclination to the ecliptic. That made maybe a .5 degree difference (not sure on that one).
Another interesting thing, the ecliptic plane is 7 degrees off the sun's equator. That indicates another large member of the solar system that didn't form within the nebula, another planet with a highly elliptical, retrograde (comets), inclined orbit. Planets formed in a solar nebula should not have 7 degrees of tilt without some outside influence and Mercury (I believe) is inclined to the ecliptic by 7 degrees, same as the sun. |
I assumed you had decided to just conveniently ignore precession so I figured it might be fun to see if the correlation meant anything even if we just ignored precession and conveniently lined everything up however we liked.
Since you claim I used the wrong numbers why don't you show us with simple trigonometry just how and under what circumstances Saturn will 'point' to Pluto's perihelion (or whatever it is you claim 'Saturn pointing at pluto' really means).
Let's see the numbers. I suspect they don't add up and even if they do I want to see exaclty which numbers were selected.
However, with respect to saturn's inclination with respect to the ecliptic that will add yet antoher element that will complicate the 'pointing' since now not only will Saturn have to be at it's northern hemisphere summer solstice the solstice will also have to occur at the side of the orbit in which Saturns inclination with respect to the ecliptic helps line it up with pluto. Otherwise the ecliptic deviation will make the correlation even less accurate. So by omiting saturn's inclination with respect to the ecliptic I actually split the difference since sometimes that will line it up and other times that will make the pointing even less accurate.
Last edited by Geronimo on 15-12-2004 at 12:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
in 1986, A.S. Guliev in Azerbaidzhan used orbits of long-period comets to derive the orbital elements of a single Planet X at a distance of 36.2 AU, and more recently the orbital planes with inclination of about 30 arc degrees to the ecliptic for two Planets X at distances of 48.5-56.6 AU and 102-112 AU respectively. |
Hmm...an astronomer using "numerology" to track a possible planet.
Ger quote:
I assumed you had decided to just conveniently ignore precession so I figured it might be fun to see if the correlation meant anything even if we just ignored precession and conveniently lined everything up however we liked. |
I didn't ignore your argument about precession, I said precession on Saturn and Pluto was very small compared to Earth and said it's irrelevant. Now, why did you make an assertion you know isn't true?
quote:
Since you claim I used the wrong numbers why don't you show us with simple trigonometry just how and under what circumstances Saturn will 'point' to Pluto's perihelion (or whatever it is you claim 'Saturn pointing at pluto' really means). |
I already told you the flaws with your calculations, fix it. Don't tell me to fix it for you.
quote:
Let's see the numbers. I suspect they don't add up and even if they do I want to see exaclty which numbers were selected. |
I did this years ago and I'd have to find the book I used for the data and I'm not going to bother. I've done it before, now you can do it.
Last edited by Berzerker on 15-12-2004 at 12:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:17
|
|
quote:
There is always a transitional force, the momentum Pluto has upon escape, it's trajectory wrt Saturn's ecliptic, all under the influence - force - of gravity. |
No, there's no central force during the transition between a Saturn orbit and a solar orbit (each can be approximated as a central force). So angular momentum isn't conserved. The laws of physics certainly don't imply that angular momentum is conserved under an arbitrary force.
quote:
No, I asked for connections to support a conclusion.
Your conclusion isn't supported by anything you said. |
Nor are yours. Which is my point.
quote:
and you left my explanation out of that quote, real nice, Ramo. |
Because it's not relevant to what I was saying. You completely missed the point.
quote:
I already explained that 10 AU, the distance between Neptune and Uranus, may be enough for an outer planet to form. |
Why? Why isn't 5 AU enough for Uranus to form? Why isn't .3 AU enough for Earth to form?
quote:
That doesn't mean the 2:1 ratio doesn't work for the first 7 planets. |
Except it doesn't, given the position of earth. This is all circular.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:17
|
|
So much about Pluto suggests that it's a Kuiper belt object that I wonder why we wouldn't simply assume that it's odd orbit reflects it's displacment from somewhere further out in the KBO. No need for it to be an escaped satellite of anything. After all, comets have been assumed to get displaced from stable extra-KB orbits for decades.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-12-2004 09:29
|
|