Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Chromium6 » Sun Mar 23, 2014 10:04 pm

This topic is to discuss the papers and theories of Miles Mathis. Particular focus will be on how his Charge Field is mechanical in nature. Also, this topic can cover how his theories fit, or don't fit, with the overall theories of the wider EU community.

Note: This topic is focused more on his Charge Field and physics papers than on his mathematics/logic/art papers which have been discussed elsewhere on the Thunderbolts forum. If you have criticisms of his mathematics/logic/art papers please post on another topic unless they relate to the Charge Field in a specific way.

Website:
http://milesmathis.com/

Found this paper of particular interest on how pyramids tend to attract lightning:

A Preliminary Study of the Pyramid as an Electrical Structure
by Miles Mathis
http://milesmathis.com/pyramid.html
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:36 am

I find that his Charge Field is is compatible with EU concepts in a lot of ways. This must be the case as Mathis states that the charge field underlies the E/M field. So any E/M interaction the EU points to must by definition also have something to do with the Charge Field.

-The EU recognizes the Solar Wind as en E-Field and an E-Field can accelerate particles (E/M effect)
<>
-Miles Mathis has all bodies emit charge and the Sun is the biggest emitter, Mathis his Charge Field is the E-Field (physically).

So it the ideas fit and go well together, there is no discrepancy.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Mar 25, 2014 7:01 pm

No Force of Attraction
One of the things I like most about Mathis' theory is that he has no "actions at a distance", also called forces of attraction. That's one reason I eventually lost some of my interest in EU theory. I still agree that electric forces have a lot of influence in the universe, but I don't regard them as a force of attraction. Thornhill is the main EU theorist and he's considerably influenced by Ralph Sansbury, who I think theorizes that electric dipoles are the main force in matter. Dipoles are said to be due to electrons spending most of their time on one side of a nucleus during its orbit around it. He accepts the mainstream belief that electrons and protons attract each other. Belief in attraction seems to be superstition or belief in magic. It's easy to see how objects can collide and bounce off each other, but there's no explanation for "attraction" except for a form of repulsion, in which objects in a high pressure area tend to spread out into low pressure areas.

No Matter Expansion Either
Mathis' initial explanation of gravity was matter expansion, and though some don't admit it, space expansion too, or distance expansion between matter objects, because, if distances didn't expand, the matter expansion would be immdeiately obvious, since distances between objects would appear to shrink constantly. Matter expansion would supposedly explain gravity as due to the outward expansion, instead of due to an inward push. But, as I pointed out in my blog, matter expansion would require constant creation of expanding layers of matter within every particle of matter, because a constantly accelerating movement of matter requires a constantly accelerating movement of matter pushing on it. In the real world accelerating matter only acceleerates for a very limited time before it starts coasting or runs into a larger object. Bodies under the influence of gravity only accelerate inward toward larger bodies until they hit the atmosphere or the body. Objects that orbit other bodies are said to be accelerating, but it's not the same kind of acceleration. And besides, Mathis says that gravity alone isn't what causes objects to orbit, but that the charge field is also involved. So I never bought his matter expansion theory and that kept me from endorsing Mathis until he found an alternative cause of gravity, viz. universal spin. I have another alternative myself, namely high and low pressure photons or charge fields, but universal spin seems plausible too. Expansion on the other hand seems almost totally absurd.

Charge Photons Vs Charge Ions
Mathis says electric charge is outward pressure from photon emission (recycling) from all matter, but mostly from protons (and antiprotons). All matter, esp. ions, absorbs photons and re-emits them. The Sun is absorbing photons from the galactic center and emiting them over a broad spectrum. The Earth is absorbing them from the Sun and elsewhere and emiting them as mostly IR radiation. The Sun's photon emission powerrs the solar wind. I.e., solar photons push the electrons and protons out of the photosphere toward the heliopause. Earth's photon emission prevents the atmosphere from collapsing onto the surface and makes the air buoyant for birds and aircraft etc.

Poles and Equators
Mathis says particles and large objects receive photons mostly in their poles and emit them mostly equatorially. I believe that's plausible for particles, but not for large objects. He says planetary poles are cold because the photons are going inward at the poles and somehow pulling heat inward with them. But it's more plausible that ions that are pushed into the poles are what cool them, since ions move through cold outer space down to the poles and surely absorb heat from them and transport it away. I'm very skeptical that more photons enter the poles of large objects than the lower latitudes. And I suppose long-wave radiation, like radio waves, are the photons most likely to enter large objects.

Accretion
EU theory claims that stars form in galactic electric filaments via magnetic pinches, but Charles Chandler points out that magnetic fields would accelerate positive and negative ions in opposite directions, and I think the pinches are too weak to compress matter significantly. Magnetic pinches can pinch aluminum cans at their centers, but atmospheric pressure can collapse cans when they're sealed with some steam inside and cooled suddenly, as with cold water, leaving a partial vacuum inside. Mathis and Charles both have similar ideas about how stars from via accretion. They both say gravity is too weak to cause accretion, but Charles says the electric force is responsible for accretion, while Mathis says the charge field is responsible. Charles has a more detailed theory worked out in which he says accretion leads to compressive ionization of matter and development of current-free double-layers (electrically attracted to each other). Charles says electrons are squeezed out of matter under extreme pressure and heat, whereas Mathis agreed that outward photon pressure would more likely cause electrons to move out of inner layers of matter. Charles says the attractive electric force between negative and positive layers is what causes the Sun's photosphere to be so smooth and distinct, despite being possibly as sparse as Earth's atmosphere. That seems plausible to me, but I don't know how Mathis' theory would explain such electrical "attraction" between double layers.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Chromium6 » Wed Mar 26, 2014 11:07 pm

I wonder how this case might fit. What photons would it be "recycling"?
-------

Dark alien planet discovered by NASA

Scientists are unsure what causes the planet to be so dark, but they believe it could be 'a chemical we haven't even thought of yet.'

By: Space.com
Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Whereas Jupiter has clouds streaking it white and red, reflecting more than a third of the sunlight reaching it, TrES-2b apparently lacks reflective clouds, super-heated as its atmosphere is to more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit (980 degrees Celsius) by a star just 3.1 million miles (5 million kilometers) away from it.

"However, it's not completely pitch black," co-author David Spiegel of Princeton University said in a statement. "It's so hot that it emits a faint red glow, much like a burning ember or the coils on an electric stove."

The researchers propose that light-absorbing chemicals such as vaporized sodium and potassium or gaseous titanium oxide in the planet's atmosphere could help explain why it is so dark. Still, none of these can fully explain why the world is as stealthily cloaked as it is.

"It's a mystery as to what's causing it to be so dark," Kipping said. "There's a good chance it's a chemical we haven't even thought of yet."

The astronomers think TrES-2b is tidally locked like our moon, such that one side of the planet always faces the star. This would lead it to change phases as it orbits its star just as our moon waxes and wanes from new to crescent to full, causing the total brightness of the star plus the planet to vary slightly over time.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/ ... ed-by-nasa
On the Windhexe: ''An engineer could not have invented this,'' Winsness says. ''As an engineer, you don't try anything that's theoretically impossible.''
Chromium6
 
Posts: 534
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 5:48 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:38 am

High and Low Albedos
This thread shows Saturn's moon, Iapetus, which has a dark and a bright side: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=820&start=75#p26897.

This site, http://www.myexistenz.com/ourexistenz2/article/article3/Saturn.1.html, says Iapetus' dark side albedo averages .04 (other sites say it ranges from .03 - .05), like coal, while the bright side is .6, like Jupiter's moon, Europa.

Tom van Flandern theorized that a planet once exploded and the debris covered some of the planets and moons. If a moon like Iapetus rotated very slowly, the debris would cover only one side.

Cardona theorizes that Saturn flared up about 10,000 years ago, which could have the same effect as an exploding object.

The site above also says Enceladus, another Saturn moon, an ice moon, which has the brightest albedo of all, and the possible source of some of Saturn's rings, was also found to have an atmosphere. Ice seems to be the main cause of the high albedo, of .8, but the atmosphere might enhance it somehow.

Re "Dark alien planet discovered by NASA", the darkness may be due to black material, like coal, and, since the images are likely in visible light, they would likely not show the IR and other frequency radiation from the planet. So I don't think it would contradict Mathis' theory of photon emission.

This site, http://www.seasky.org/solar-system/saturn-enceladus.html, says "Enceladus has the highest albedo of any known object in the Solar System. It reflects almost 100% of the sunlight it receives. [http://www.redorbit.com says: (Visual geometric albedo of 0.99)] This high reflectivity is caused by a very smooth surface of fresh water ice. Since Enceladus reflects so much of the sunlight it receives, its surface temperature is a chilling -330° F (-201° C)." Mathis said in one of his papers from last year, I think, that some of the high albedos are caused by strong magnetic effects, such as due to an object orbiting in the "wrong" direction.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Mar 27, 2014 9:30 am

Earth's photon emission prevents the atmosphere from collapsing onto the surface and makes the air buoyant for birds and aircraft etc.
Slight modification: As far as I know, air is not buoyant except for lighter than air objects, and all flying objects, heavier than air, use the lift from impacting air molecules, and a bit of bernoulli... :? ;)

I had forgotten about atmosphere collapse prevented by photon emission .... ;) :oops:
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:10 pm

The Strange Moon Enceladus. http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf , Where we discover this moon is far too bright for current theory to explain.

More on Enceladus and Albedo. http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf . I show that the mainstream has covered up the brightness of all celestial bodies, including the Moon. I replace "opposition surge" with a mechanical explanation using the charge field.

REMCB
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:04 pm

Lift on a Wing. http://milesmathis.com/lift.pdf. Plus extended comments on buoyancy and on the raindrop problem.

REMCB
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby moses » Thu Mar 27, 2014 7:21 pm

Mathis has no attraction, so we get 'push gravity'.
This means that universal emissions (UEs) are coming at us from all directions, however the nucleii in the atoms of the Earth block, or absorb, some of these UEs. This means that there is less push on us fron the direction of the Earth, and so a net push towards the Earth, which is gravity.

Now we ask whether the UEs can cause the repulsion of two protons and the attraction of an electron and a proton. The UEs absorbed by the proton energize it and causes the proton to spin. In this state the proton emits from it's equator, and not from it's poles. If the two protons have their axis parallel then the emissions from each equator will push the other proton away, and so this could explain the repulsive force.

In a nucleus the protons might arrange so that one sits at the pole of another, as described by Miles, I think. A neutron might be a slow-spinning proton, and after getting UEs (or other emissions) the neutron speeds up and becomes a proton. A proton might lose energy and become a neutron.

Now for the electron and the proton.
When working out the gravitational attraction between two bodies, the absorption of the UEs occurs only by the nucleii. So for two nucleii separated by D the angle formed by (the diameter of the nucleii)/D is dramatically small, plus the UEs blocked from reaching the other nucleii drops off with the distance squared.

The electron is much much closer to the nucleii, or proton, so enormously more UEs are blocked because of the bigger angle above, and the mass of the electron is very small so the resultant acceleration of the electron towards the proton is extremely high. The electron could also avoid the area near the equator of the proton, or regions of larger emissions from a nucleus.

UEs may be much greater than we think because of 'tired light' and galaxies being enormously closer than we think and also the possibilities of there being untold galaxies whose light does not reach us, but these tiny UEs from these galaxies may well reach us.

I'm hopeful that some physicist or Miles will consider the above.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Past Changes in "Gravity"

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Mar 27, 2014 8:02 pm

Mathis & Saturn Theory of Increasing Gravity

Two months ago I started a thread here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14836 when I found that Mathis may have an explanation for the evidence that Earth's gravity has changed greatly over several recent millennia.

The following quote from Mathis' photon paper at http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf is what impressed me.
[T]he velocity c is a function of the photon's mass and radius. In other words, its speed is determined by its size in the field, just as we would expect. [] [A]ccording to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge density. Charge [i.e. PHOTONS] should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc^2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.

I figured this may mean that, when the Earth and Saturn entered the solar system, and slowly approached the vicinity of the Sun, the greater photon density near the Sun may have increased the mass of the Earth and its gravity, which could have helped reduce the maximum size that plants and animals could grow, at least on land, although denser atmosphere in the past could also have had major effects.

Mo
Mo, your idea is interesting, but it's hard to understand without a demonstration. Do you want to try to explain further? If you change some of the wording, maybe it'll clear up for me.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Mar 28, 2014 4:14 am

Mo and Lloyd,

The best explanation for push gravity ( with UE, universal emission) is from Xavier Borg, although a bit out of date and preceding Miles it still says interesting things >
http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-intro.asp

And in his proof, i think he is measuring the charge field by Miles directly >
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/borg3.pdf

"The Experimental result proves beyond any doubt, that electromagnetic radiation, pushing matter
towards matter is the driving mechanism behind gravity. It definitely rules out the false
hypothesis of an innate pulling force within matter, and finally answers the big question, 'What is
Gravity?'"


Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1206
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby moses » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:32 am

Mo, your idea is interesting, but it's hard to understand without a demonstration. Do you want to try to explain further? If you change some of the wording, maybe it'll clear up for me.
Lloyd

Perhaps I could do better, and I will try to do so, but I'll wait a while.

Daniel, what I am saying probably works using electromagnetic radiation as the universal emissions (UEs), however particles are preferred by me, and I like Miles' charge photons that have complex spin and mass.
Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby LongtimeAirman » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:08 pm

Mo, Lloyd,

I believe that we are at about the same spot. I cannot accept the notion that gravity is the result of expanding matter. Where the surface of all matter, including the photon, is accelerating outwards in all directions at the rate of gravity. I have a hard time believing that the unified field could maintain the large scale structure observed throughout the universe while expanding. Like Lloyd said, it seems that space would need to be expanding as well. But that is not allowed, so there's a contradiction.

Nor can I yet imagine how a hierarchy of spins, from the photon to the universal (which depends on that same large scale structure), would result in gravity either.

Like the both of you, given Miles' charge field, it seems there must be some sort of push gravity.

I personally believe that the inward push must be the result of the photon field's orthogonal component, the charge field's pre magnetic field. Also that the push is confined to the interacting charge fields and not to the larger universe. I imagine that the constant rain of tangential force is a sort of an accelerating orthogonal surface pressure that can result in reducing the distance between objects until that field component is balanced by the strictly outward component of the charge field.

Gravity only could never explain orbits. How do you deliver the tangential force? Well, obviously, now we have the tangential force. I think there's got to be an inward vector there somewhere.

REMCB
LongtimeAirman
 
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:59 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Mar 28, 2014 2:41 pm

More on Dark Planet
Cr6 mentioned "Dark alien planet discovered by NASA" and I said above, "the darkness may be due to black material, like coal, and, since the images are likely in visible light, they would likely not show the IR and other frequency radiation from the planet. So I don't think it would contradict Mathis' theory of photon emission." But I just realized that the coaldust-covered idea would likely only apply to a small body. I looked up the link and I see the new exoplanet is said to be Jupiter-sized and 750 LY away. So the exoplanet is likely showing a black atmosphere, not a black solid surface. I don't know if an atmosphere could consist of anything like coaldust, but Charles Chandler has a model for exotic stars, which explains them as forming with relativistic rotation speeds, which cause them to have powerful magnetic fields and makes them natural tokamaks. He found that it's possible by that model for exotic stars to emit no light, which would make that category a virtual black hole. It seems unlikely offhand that such an exotic would exist close to a normal star, but I'll ask him if he knows if that may be very conceivably possible anyway.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Miles Mathis and his Charge Field

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:06 pm

Push Gravity Proven on Video
I checked out the video on the BlazeLabs site at http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/emrptt.avi and it does show that the disk balance mechanism moves to the horizontal position, as per push gravity, instead of to the vertical position, as per pull gravity. It looks like the experiment and the logic may be sound, but it seems a bit amazing if such a small device, maybe 8 inches in diameter, would be so sensitive to gravity. The reasoning said that if gravity is a pull, then when the device is set at a 45 degree angle, the center of gravity should be slightly below the center of mass, causing the disk to move to a vertical orientation. But, if gravity is a push from outside, and if the push is partially blocked on the lower side by the Earth, then the disk should move into a horizontal position by the even push on both sides of the axis.

Puzzle
moses wrote: Mathis has no attraction, so we get 'push gravity'. This means that universal emissions (UEs) are coming at us from all directions, however the nucleii in the atoms of the Earth block, or absorb, some of these UEs. This means that there is less push on us fron the direction of the Earth, and so a net push towards the Earth, which is gravity.

That's what I was getting at in LloydBlog. I called the UEs photons. In order for the incoming photons to overpower the emitted photons, the Earth and other large bodies must absorb more than they emit. This might produce slow expansion of large bodies. The main puzzle for me on this issue is how the Earth emission is able to lift the atmosphere, if the incoming UE photons have greater pressure than the photons emitted by the Earth. Does anyone have ideas? For Mathis it's not a problem, since he resorts to matter expansion and or universal spin to account for gravity.

Subatomic Particles
Now we ask whether the UEs can cause the repulsion of two protons and the attraction of an electron and a proton.

Mathis says the electrons are repelled too, but being smaller they can get closer.
The UEs absorbed by the proton energize it and causes the proton to spin.

I think Mathis says collisions from photons cause particles to spin.
In this state the proton emits from it's equator, and not from it's poles. If the two protons have their ax[e]s parallel then the emissions from each equator will push the other proton away, and so this could explain the repulsive force.

I think the protons' axes would be turning end over end too, so they'd likely not stay constantly parallel. And that's why they would normally repel in all directions, if they're not stuck in an ion or molecule.
In a nucleus the protons might arrange so that one sits at the pole of another, as described by Miles, I think. A neutron might be a slow-spinning proton, and after getting UEs (or other emissions) the neutron speeds up and becomes a proton. A proton might lose energy and become a neutron.

I think Mathis says the z-spin of the neutron is in the opposite direction as for a proton, which blocks the equatorial emission, so that it has to emit polarly, but mostly just keeps recycling its charge, making it neutral.
Now for the electron and the proton.
When working out the gravitational attraction between two bodies, the absorption of the UEs occurs only by the nucleii. So for two nucleii separated by D the angle formed by (the diameter of the nucleii)/D is dramatically small, plus the UEs blocked from reaching the other nucleii drops off with the distance squared. - The electron is much much closer to the nucleii, or proton, so enormously more UEs are blocked because of the bigger angle above, and the mass of the electron is very small so the resultant acceleration of the electron towards the proton is extremely high. The electron could also avoid the area near the equator of the proton, or regions of larger emissions from a nucleus.

That's the part that's hard to follow.

Here's something John and I discussed last year at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=4741-4760-5079-9754.9331&rsPage=1 under Questions for Miles Mathis

Neutron Stability
Mathis says neutrons have a slightly different spin pattern than do protons and that the spin pattern changes to that of a proton when a positron collides with the neutron. The collision also transforms the positron to an electron. (The spins are what produce the wave patterns characteristic of EM radiation.) Is the neutron stable inside an atom because the atom shooting out charge photons keeps positrons away?

Proton Stability
If the neutron is unstable outside the atom because of positron collisions, shouldn't protons likewise be unstable because of electron collisions? Or is it stable for the same reason that atoms are, because the proton emits photons to keep other particles away, whereas neutrons emit very little photonic charge and are thus prone to collisions?

Neutronium
Might there be a process that could condense neutrons into neutronium, which is theorized to be the core of pulsars or neutron stars? I think in some versions of neutronium theory only the surface would be unstable, so the neutronium would decay very slowly from the outside inward. What about that?

2013-08-12, 13:03
tharkun
Re: Questions for Miles Mathis
"Is the neutron stable inside an atom because the atom shooting out charge photons keeps positrons away?"
I think this is a reasonable explanation. The emitted charge field of the greater atomic structure 'shields' the minimally emitting Neutron. On its own, the Neutron has little emission to knock any rogue particles from a collision course. To me, thise explains why free neutrons decay within about 15 min.

"If the neutron is unstable outside the atom because of positron collisions, shouldn't protons likewise be unstable because of electron collisions?"
It seems that stability is tied directly to the emitted charge field of the particle itself. The more charge it emits, the greater its ability to protect itself and thus remain stable.

"Might there be a process that could condense neutrons into neutronium, which is theorized to be the core of pulsars or neutron stars?"
It would have to be shown that such condensation could occur with a charge field through-put. As Miles explains it is the charge channels that determine the greater nuclear structure; but with minimal charge through a neutron, I'm not sure any condensation would be stable for any length of time. Its an interesting idea, I just never have bought into the 'neutron star' concept. Seems like too much fantasy to cover a hole in a gravity-only theory.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Next

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests