Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like

    Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
    A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is the force carrier for the electromagnetic force, even when static via virtual photons. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has zero rest mass; this allows long distance interactions. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when its position is measured.

    The modern photon concept was developed gradually by Albert Einstein to explain experimental observations that did not fit the classical wave model of light. In particular, the photon model accounted for the frequency dependence of light's energy, and explained the ability of matter and radiation to be in thermal equilibrium. It also accounted for anomalous observations, including the properties of black-body radiation, that other physicists, most notably Max Planck, had sought to explain using semiclassical models, in which light is still described by Maxwell's equations, but the material objects that emit and absorb light do so in amounts of energy that are quantized (i.e., they change energy only by certain particular discrete amounts and cannot change energy in any arbitrary way). Although these semiclassical models contributed to the development of quantum mechanics, many further experiments[2][3] starting with Compton scattering of single photons by electrons, first observed in 1923, validated Einstein's hypothesis that light itself is quantized. In 1926 the optical physicist Frithiof Wolfers and the chemist Gilbert N. Lewis coined the name photon for these particles, and after 1927, when Arthur H. Compton won the Nobel Prize for his scattering studies, most scientists accepted the validity that quanta of light have an independent existence, and the term photon for light quanta was accepted.

    In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry. The photon concept has led to momentous advances in experimental and theoretical physics, such as lasers, Bose–Einstein condensation, quantum field theory, and the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. It has been applied to photochemistry, high-resolution microscopy, and measurements of molecular distances. Recently, photons have been studied as elements of quantum computers and for applications in optical imaging and optical communication such as quantum cryptography.
    Well, as far as i can tell, the photon is not absorbed by mass. it reflects off of it, and, that is why we see things. basically, the photon excites the electron bonds of objects and that is why it is illuminated - that it is burning like a candle of sorts, and, that it is not absorbed, as, then it would gradually 'dim out.' okay, let's say it goes into a cave, if it shines onto each 'rock mass' it will eventually run out of reflections for each rock to rebound onto the next - like a bouncing ball? - and slowly be absorbed into the rocks, or, it could be that it reflects a lot of what was previously shone onto and then eventually only has black in it. if you close your hands together, you will see the shadows grow, meaning, that the light source will gradually be closed and that it is not absorbed, but rather just reflected from various positions.

    Anyways, if the photon is massless, then how does it travel? i would say it must have mass to to travel, otherwise it would have no 'weight' to be thrown around, yes? of course, this goes against classical physics, but, if we were to observe the light traveling, i mean, what makes it travel? if it travels, well, what is traveling? we know it reflects off of surfaces, but not gases. if it reflected off of gases, then it would stop at the ozone layer, yes? it must have mass to penetrate the ozone layer, or, be massless to do so. if it has no mass, then what are we seeing with the 'reflections?'

    So, we have our photon. simple little thing come to think of it. if we were to observe that it has mass, it shows as not being infinite, as, it stops when it reaches our eyes - it does not bounce around all over the place over and over as then we could see in the dark, yes? then, there would be no night time! if we were to observe that the photon has mass, then what sort of mass is it?

    If we look at the sun, we will find that it is a burning ball of gas, yes? that means it will have mass too, as, it makes planets spin around it, like a normal particle. if then we would say that the photon has mass, as i am, how do we prove it? we could simply show that we 'feel' the sun on our necks, yes? if the warmth of the light makes us warmer, it must affect us with mass.
    !! Servant of Gaia !!

  2. #2
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan
    Anyways, if the photon is massless, then how does it travel? i would say it must have mass to to travel, otherwise it would have no 'weight' to be thrown around, yes?
    Sound travels and clearly has no mass (waves can travel), why would we assume something must have mass in order to travel?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sound travels and clearly has no mass (waves can travel), why would we assume something must have mass in order to travel?
    Sound does have mass. this is because if you were to hear something, it is the mass of that sound affecting your ear drum, as, if it had no mass, it would have no effect, yes? traveling takes energy, and energy comes from mass being used in some way, because it is being moved by force, it must have force to polarize it against the other force, thus, movement.
    !! Servant of Gaia !!

  4. #4
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan View Post
    Sound does have mass. this is because if you were to hear something, it is the mass of that sound affecting your ear drum, as, if it had no mass, it would have no effect, yes?
    No, I think you are misunderstanding what is happening when we hear a sound. Sound has no mass, sound is a wave moving through some medium. It affects your eardrum by moving the medium of your ear drum, not by it having mass itself.






    Because the medium has a mass does not mean that the wave itself has mass, the wave is the effect moving through the medium.

    A very basic guide to this can be found here: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cape Town South Africa
    Posts
    402
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, I think you are misunderstanding what is happening when we hear a sound. Sound has no mass, sound is a wave moving through some medium. It affects your eardrum by moving the medium of your ear drum, not by it having mass itself.






    Because the medium has a mass does not mean that the wave itself has mass, the wave is the effect moving through the medium.

    A very basic guide to this can be found here: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/sound
    You hear because of your nerves being exposed to some force, yes? how can your nerves be affected by nothing or no mass? waves have mass too, that is how they travel - can an engine that is smaller be more powerful? maybe, but if they are made by the same people, the bigger one will be better. now, if there is no engine, or it is a nano engine?
    !! Servant of Gaia !!

  6. #6
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan
    You hear because of your nerves being exposed to some force, yes? how can your nerves be affected by nothing or no mass? waves have mass too, that is how they travel


    I think you are confusing the fact that the medium in this specific example has mass with the idea that the wave itself has mass.



    When you hear, your nerve endings are detecting the movement of a fluid in sympathy with the sound wave. The sound wave has energy, which moves the particles of fluid, but those particles are not the same thing as the wave itself. It was the same sound wave when moving through the air going to your ear as it was in the liquid of your ear. The wave is a form of energy that moves through mass (though not always as in the case of EM radiation), the fact that it moves through mass does not mean that it has mass itself. Otherwise we would have to bizarrely conclude that the “mass of sound” is determined by the environment and that the mass of a scream is different underwater than it is on a mountain top.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Charlatan View Post
    Well, as far as i can tell, the photon is not absorbed by mass. it reflects off of it, and, that is why we see things. basically, the photon excites the electron bonds of objects and that is why it is illuminated - that it is burning like a candle of sorts, and, that it is not absorbed, as, then it would gradually 'dim out.' okay, let's say it goes into a cave, if it shines onto each 'rock mass' it will eventually run out of reflections for each rock to rebound onto the next - like a bouncing ball? - and slowly be absorbed into the rocks, or, it could be that it reflects a lot of what was previously shone onto and then eventually only has black in it. if you close your hands together, you will see the shadows grow, meaning, that the light source will gradually be closed and that it is not absorbed, but rather just reflected from various positions.

    Anyways, if the photon is massless, then how does it travel? i would say it must have mass to to travel, otherwise it would have no 'weight' to be thrown around, yes? of course, this goes against classical physics, but, if we were to observe the light traveling, i mean, what makes it travel? if it travels, well, what is traveling? we know it reflects off of surfaces, but not gases. if it reflected off of gases, then it would stop at the ozone layer, yes? it must have mass to penetrate the ozone layer, or, be massless to do so. if it has no mass, then what are we seeing with the 'reflections?'

    So, we have our photon. simple little thing come to think of it. if we were to observe that it has mass, it shows as not being infinite, as, it stops when it reaches our eyes - it does not bounce around all over the place over and over as then we could see in the dark, yes? then, there would be no night time! if we were to observe that the photon has mass, then what sort of mass is it?

    If we look at the sun, we will find that it is a burning ball of gas, yes? that means it will have mass too, as, it makes planets spin around it, like a normal particle. if then we would say that the photon has mass, as i am, how do we prove it? we could simply show that we 'feel' the sun on our necks, yes? if the warmth of the light makes us warmer, it must affect us with mass.
    Squatch is more or less right when he responds:

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sound travels and clearly has no mass (waves can travel), why would we assume something must have mass in order to travel?

    [AND]

    I think you are confusing the fact that the medium in this specific example has mass with the idea that the wave itself has mass.
    But I wouldn't use air waves as an example, although it's true.

    The salient information that you're not accounting for is what the concept of "massless" means. If you only understand the Newtonian picture of physics, you will have no understanding of what "masslessness" is. The massless particle a new primative concept in the Special Theory of Relativity which you must add in addition to your understanding of what a massive particle is. (There's also quantum issues, but they aren't important here)

    Massless fields are fields which have no rest frame, they must be traveling at the speed of light, but they are allowed to carry momentum and energy. So long as their interactions are weak, they obey the follow dispersion relationship:

    frequency/wavelength = c = 3 x 10^8 m/s

    Which is essentially the statement that they're traveling at the speed of light.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  8. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  9. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sound travels and clearly has no mass (waves can travel), why would we assume something must have mass in order to travel?
    Sound can't exist without mass. If there is no medium for the wave to travel through then there is no sound. The ingredients of sound are a medium + the movement of said medium. This movement happens to be in the form of a wave. But a wave only exists as a concept, the physical part of a wave is the medium.

    Something doesn't have to have mass to travel. But a medium which possess the property of mass must exist to allow something to travel. Actually removing mass kind of makes the entire concept of traveling nonsensical. How can you go from point A to point B if there is no point A or B?
    abc

  10. #9
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    But a medium which possess the property of mass must exist to allow something to travel. Actually removing mass kind of makes the entire concept of traveling nonsensical. How can you go from point A to point B if there is no point A or B?
    Why would this necessarily be the case? I think you are confusing dimensionality with mass. Point A and Point B refer to dimensionality, a physical place. But they don't require there to be mass at that place. I could have a point A and point B that both exist at points in space in which no mass exists, right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why would this necessarily be the case? I think you are confusing dimensionality with mass. Point A and Point B refer to dimensionality, a physical place. But they don't require there to be mass at that place. I could have a point A and point B that both exist at points in space in which no mass exists, right?
    Sorry, I meant matter not mass.

    Sound can't exist without matter. If there is no medium for the wave to travel through then there is no sound. The ingredients of sound are a medium + the movement of said medium. This movement happens to be in the form of a wave. But a wave only exists as a concept, the physical part of a wave is the medium.

    Something doesn't have to have mass to travel. But a medium which possess the property of mass must exist to allow something to travel. Actually removing matter kind of makes the entire concept of traveling nonsensical. How can you go from point A to point B if there is no point A or B?
    abc

  12. #11
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Sorry, I meant matter not mass.

    Ok, I don't think that really changes my response though.

    I think you are confusing dimensionality with [matter]. Point A and Point B refer to dimensionality, a physical place. But they don't require there to be [matter] at that place. I could have a point A and point B that both exist at points in space in which no [matter] exists, right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, I don't think that really changes my response though.

    I think you are confusing dimensionality with [matter]. Point A and Point B refer to dimensionality, a physical place. But they don't require there to be [matter] at that place. I could have a point A and point B that both exist at points in space in which no [matter] exists, right?
    No. If you have a physical place there must be something physical there. Everything that exists is made of something, be it matter or something else which we would call by another name because its properties are to different from matter to be classified as such.
    abc

  14. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    No. If you have a physical place there must be something physical there.
    Where do you get this idea from? There are plenty of points in space that are devoid of matter. As I stated before, you seem to be confusing dimensionality (ie something exists within our physical universe) with matter (a material that exists within the bounds of that dimensional universe). Point A is a place, not a thing. A place does not have to have a matter in it right?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Where do you get this idea from? There are plenty of points in space that are devoid of matter. As I stated before, you seem to be confusing dimensionality (ie something exists within our physical universe) with matter (a material that exists within the bounds of that dimensional universe). Point A is a place, not a thing. A place does not have to have a matter in it right?
    True. But devoid of matter doesn't mean devoid of everything. It is my belief that it is impossible for nothing to exist.
    abc

  16. #15
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,711
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    True. But devoid of matter doesn't mean devoid of everything. It is my belief that it is impossible for nothing to exist.
    Perhaps, but that is certainly by no means certain (I don't see anything obviously incoherent about a region of our universe being absolutely devoid of mass or energy), unless you mean something far more expansive by the term "everything." Regardless, let's set aside that point for a second and return to the original discussion. If points A and B can exist absent mass, we don't necessarily need a medium with mass in order to have travel correct?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    There is much to puzzle the layman here and much to surprize him. It is said that science appeals to common sense but modern science has gone way beyond the common sense barrier. What concerns the scientist is explanation that fits the facts however strange the explanation may be. I was taught that weight is the pull of the earth but mass is the material content, so no mass means no material to me. Yet we are told the sun looses millions of tons every minute into space.
    Let me be clear I'm not a doubter of science for I know its achievements, but a lot of the explanations make little sense.

  18. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    I think the thing to keep into mind is that matter can transform into energy and vice verse through various processes. So the son through fusion can turn particles with mass into particles of energy which are transmitted out into space and thus loose mass in this way though what it emits doesn't necessarily have mass itself. turning mass into energy is something we are pretty familiar with, however it is possible to go the other way. Recently an experiment was performed that collided photons together to create particles of matter.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  19. #18
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Thanks for your reply and explanation it seems to answer the problem. Does this mean that all we see and detect with our various intruments is infact energy created from material ( mass) inside stars? So logic would suggest that most of the mass in the galaxy is being converted into energy. Is it true that total mass and energy is conserved? Where will all this energy go ?

  20. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Sorry, I meant matter not mass.

    Sound can't exist without matter. If there is no medium for the wave to travel through then there is no sound. The ingredients of sound are a medium + the movement of said medium. This movement happens to be in the form of a wave. But a wave only exists as a concept, the physical part of a wave is the medium.

    Something doesn't have to have mass to travel. But a medium which possess the property of mass must exist to allow something to travel. Actually removing matter kind of makes the entire concept of traveling nonsensical. How can you go from point A to point B if there is no point A or B?
    A quick note before I begin: Just to be clear here, I'm not calling you stupid for thinking these things, these are finer points that stymied some of the best physicists in history for half a century, nevertheless it is important to emphasize that these perspectives are outdated and incorrect.

    This is erroneous intuition is essentially what leads one to conclude that the obsolete and incorrect theory of electromagnetic ether must be true and it led physicists on a half-of-a-century goose chase to find something that was neither necessary nor extent. A lot of important physics was discovered during this search, but the intuition, and the conclusions that it leads one to, are nevertheless quite wrong. In other words, ether theorists believed that there must be some medium through which electromagnetic fields propagate, which is some material that's like water or air. This is almost correct, but not completely and with important consequences. The electromagnetic field is the thing which exists; it says that there's electromagnetic field at every point in space an time, and sometimes its values will oscillate. These oscillations in the EM field lead to EM waves that propagate, and in particle limit of the field, it will look like a single (or a set) of photons. The fundamental building blocks of the universe are fields, and the waves (such as photons) are oscillations in those fields, but there's no underlying mechanistic description beyond the field. The field is the primitive concept.


    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    No. If you have a physical place there must be something physical there. Everything that exists is made of something, be it matter or something else which we would call by another name because its properties are to different from matter to be classified as such.
    Yes, everything that exists is made of quantum fields. The salient information about quantum fields is that they have regimes where they look like particles, such as photons; they have regimes where they have huge numbers of particles with averaged effects, and thus might look like a fluid or a solid; regimes where they are coherent states, such as the rays of light emitted from your light bulb; and some regimes which you have absolutely no real life experience with, such as when strong quantum effects dominate (for instance, the quark/gluon physics inside of atomic nuclei). Some fields, such as the electron field, cannot have coherent states and thus can only be seen as particles.


    Quote Originally Posted by kaptonok View Post
    There is much to puzzle the layman here and much to surprize him. It is said that science appeals to common sense but modern science has gone way beyond the common sense barrier. What concerns the scientist is explanation that fits the facts however strange the explanation may be. I was taught that weight is the pull of the earth but mass is the material content, so no mass means no material to me. Yet we are told the sun looses millions of tons every minute into space.
    Let me be clear I'm not a doubter of science for I know its achievements, but a lot of the explanations make little sense.
    Well, that's unfortunately not quite correct. Science doesn't appeal to common sense (nor does mathematics) nor does it commit itself to such, but it does appeal to evidence and reason. Wherever that evidence and reason leads one to is what a scientist is compelled to believe.


    Quote Originally Posted by kaptonok View Post
    Thanks for your reply and explanation it seems to answer the problem. Does this mean that all we see and detect with our various intruments is infact energy created from material ( mass) inside stars? So logic would suggest that most of the mass in the galaxy is being converted into energy. Is it true that total mass and energy is conserved? Where will all this energy go ?
    1.) Experimental physicists detect particles created from inside the Sun, yes; energy, is one property that we can measure from these particles. More specifically, the Sun spits out a lot of photons, neutrinos, and charged particles (electrons, protons, some muons, etc). But photons/light and these other particles aren't "pure energy"; that's a meaningless concept, for the most part. The light, neutrinos, and the other particles the Sun emits have energy, but they also have momentum, pressure, strain, angular momentum, charge (or no charge), mass (or no mass), cross sections, decay times, etc. In other words, they have properties, one of which is that they have a certain amount of energy.

    2.) Yes, a lot of ordinary matter (meaning things made out of nuclei, or more generally "baryons") is converted into light from the fusion that takes place in stars and will never be converted back to ordinary matter.

    3.) It's true that the total energy is conserved locally. Meaning if I take a region of the universe, and I put a box around it, the amount of energy that flows out of the box will be equal to the amount of energy decreased inside the box. But globally, energy is not conserved in our universe and is related, but not directly due to, the fact that it's expanding.
    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

  21. Thanks MyXenocide thanked for this post
  22. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    138
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Harnessing the photon.

    To me this is all quite remarkable, yet scientists are compelled to believe it. I wonder if it ever will produce the theory of everything that the amazing Steven Hawkins has chased in his life of scientific endeavour. Its almost as if these brilliant men inhabit two worlds; one the apparently real world we all know and the other a sort of mind- world which only they can penitrate. Thanks for your explanations.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •