what is charge?

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

junglelord wrote:Which is why it is distributed in APM.
Hmmm....distributed is unspecific to me. Space is distributed? Guess so...but so would be three seperate point charges.

If charge has the dimension of space it means it is equivalent to a single length dimension, which in itself is quite meaningless. Space itself contains no action, we need time dimensions for that too. One dimensional charge action is energy (one dimensional mass). Two dimensional charge action is momentum, three dimensional charge action is mass/inertia as we know it.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: what is charge?

StevenO wrote:
junglelord wrote:Which is why it is distributed in APM.
Hmmm....distributed is unspecific to me. Space is distributed? Guess so...but so would be three seperate point charges.

If charge has the dimension of space it means it is equivalent to a single length dimension, which in itself is quite meaningless. Space itself contains no action, we need time dimensions for that too. One dimensional charge action is energy (one dimensional mass). Two dimensional charge action is momentum, three dimensional charge action is mass/inertia as we know it.
I don't know if this helps to clarify or mudify. The context is with regard to "double layers" but does speak to the APM concepts of dimension and charge.

"Dimension" is a lower order of reality than "charge." There are no layers in dimension distributions, but there are layers in unit distributions. The unit of angular momentum forms a layer with the Aether unit. The common layer is called the strong charge. The order of the various dimensions is not as simple as it might first seem. Physical mass is more primary than physical electromagnetic charge. It would require a whole new chapter to explain the subtleties of the dimensions and their orders of existence.

Dave (Thomson)

(replying to the question, "Is the double distributed charge dimension, a double layer Dave or is it incorrect to see it that way?")
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

arc-us wrote:I don't know if this helps to clarify or mudify. The context is with regard to "double layers" but does speak to the APM concepts of dimension and charge.

"Dimension" is a lower order of reality than "charge." There are no layers in dimension distributions, but there are layers in unit distributions. The unit of angular momentum forms a layer with the Aether unit. The common layer is called the strong charge. The order of the various dimensions is not as simple as it might first seem. Physical mass is more primary than physical electromagnetic charge. It would require a whole new chapter to explain the subtleties of the dimensions and their orders of existence.

Dave (Thomson)

(replying to the question, "Is the double distributed charge dimension, a double layer Dave or is it incorrect to see it that way?")
If charge is real space and dimensions are a human concept, I can agree to the lower order reality. However I'm still confused on "There are no layers in dimension distributions, but there are layers in unit distributions" statement. Units as used in Tensor calculus, or ether units? Or...
"The unit of angular momentum forms a layer with the Aether unit."
This describes Plank's constant for me...
The order of the various dimensions is not as simple as it might first seem. Physical mass is more primary than physical electromagnetic charge. It would require a whole new chapter to explain the subtleties of the dimensions and their orders of existence.
I think Dave is just adding to the classical mess here. Mass is three dimensional energy, momentum is two dimensional mass and energy is one dimensional mass. Energy comes from the action between the space and time dimensions. The unique geometric properties of three dimensional space lead to quantum behaviour and matter as we know it. The classical mess comes from trying to map all action onto a single time dimension.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

Re: what is charge?

Thats why APM is not mapped with a single time domain, rather it has 3 length 2 frequency. Distributed frequency is essential to understand the quantum world, macroscopic linear time is only one variable that we see imposed at our macroscale life, but the quantum world is space-resonante. Since the Aether unit spins both forward and back time and left and right, space-resonace is distributed.

Angular Momentum is Plancks constant. Great call.

Here is a quote from APM webpage and their paper on the Unified Field Theory and the Quantum Constants.
Discussion of the Forces
The electrostatic force in the Aether Physics Model is the same as the static electromagnetic force in
the Standard Model. In the Aether Physics Model, the electrostatic charge shows specifically to have
spherical angle and one spin. Although the charges do not have inherent associated length, their
distributed nature allows for distributed existence on surfaces. A positive and negative electrostatic
charge resides separately in each half of the Aether unit, creating the Aether electrostatic dipole.
In addition to an electrostatic dipole, the Aether unit also has four spin positions; one each for the
electron, antiproton, proton, and positron. When primary angular momentum inhabits any of the spin
positions, the angular momentum interacts with the conductance of the Aether to produce
electromagnetic charge. The electromagnetic charge has tubular loxodrome geometry in five
dimensions of space-resonance (three dimensions of length and two dimensions of frequency). The two
dimensions of frequency in space-resonance are the frequency of forward/backward time and the
frequency of right/left spin direction. To our four dimensional space-time perspective, the
electromagnetic charge has tubular cardioid geometry, which has surface area mathematically equivalent
to toroidal geometry. Since the angular momentum producing the electromagnetic charge only spins in
the forward direction of time and either the right or left spin direction, the electromagnetic charge also
has half spin. The electromagnetic charge produces north and south magnetic poles, creating the
magnetic dipole of the subatomic particle.

Compared to the scanned surface of the electromagnetic charge, the ligamen circulatus, which contains
the very small mass of the subatomic particle, appears orthogonal to the electromagnetic charge due to
its perpendicular motion.

The electromagnetic charge is the carrier of the strong force, which binds the subatomic particles in an
atomic nucleus. In the Aether Physics Model, quarks are not small particles composing protons and
neutrons, but rather quarks are the debris of broken subatomic particles as the Aether collapses and the
encapsulated angular momentum of the visible matter spills back to the sea of dark matter.
Due to the movements of the LC within the toroidal geometry of the subatomic particles, when two
protons or two neutrons bind together, their toroidal geometries shrink the major radius and expand the
minor radius, which results in spherical geometry. While the subatomic particle is in its free state, the
Aether unit force constant prevails over the toroidal geometry, but as two subatomic particles bind, the
geometry shifts to spherical, and the Coulomb constant prevails as the force mediator constant.
Therefore, the strong force can appear to have variable strength during the binding and unbinding
processes.

In the APM, the neutron quantifies as a bound electron and proton, which has captured dark matter
between the bound strong charges. The captured angular momentum contributes to the total angular
momentum of the neutron while it is bound. When the electron and proton bind in a neutron, their north
magnetic poles are facing each other, thus there is magnetic repulsion fighting against electrostatic
attraction. The magnetic moments of the electron and proton in a neutron cause the distance between
the electron and proton to vary in length, as well as the angle between strong charges to vary. When the
two magnetic moments synchronize such that the electron and proton push against each other with
maximum effect, the distances between the electron and proton separate far enough for the electrostatic
bond to break. The ratio of the electrostatic charge to electromagnetic charge is thus the so-called weak
force, or weak interaction. The relative strength of the force between the electrostatic and
electromagnetic charges will vary depending upon distance, charge angles, and charge geometry; hence,
the weak interaction will have a great range of values, depending on the conditions.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Calculations_UFT.pdf
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Thats why APM is not mapped with a single time domain, rather it has 3 length 2 frequency. Distributed frequency is essential to understand the quantum world, macroscopic linear time is only one variable that we see imposed at our macroscale life, but the quantum world is space-resonante. Since the Aether unit spins both forward and back time and left and right, space-resonace is distributed.
If Dave uses 3 space and 2 time dimensions, then I understand why he still has trouble describing mass...
In the APM, the neutron quantifies as a bound electron and proton, which has captured dark matter
between the bound strong charges
If APM is solving classical mess, then why do they have to rely on "dark matter" ?
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

Re: what is charge?

Totally different definition. Dark Matter in APM is not dark matter of the failed standard model.
Charge is not the same, angular momentum, strong charge, etc, are all properly quantified as quantum constants.
So while the name sucks, it does describe the universe accurately, at least to me it does, and dark matter is another way of expressing virtual particles before they become a particle for a brief but fleeting moment, only to return to the dark state. Just as the casmire effect produces real photons, one must explain where they come from.

Mass is linear, is a quantum constant, and is very well explained in APM. It is a product of phi and therefore has a vortex form.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

junglelord wrote:Totally different definition. Dark Matter in APM is not dark matter of the failed standard model.
Hmmm... I don't think the track record of APM is already better than this "failed model".
Charge is not the same, angular momentum, strong charge, etc, are all properly quantified as quantum constants.
So while the name sucks, it does describe the universe accurately, at least to me it does, and dark matter is another way of expressing virtual particles before they become a particle for a brief but fleeting moment, only to return to the dark state. Just as the casmire effect produces real photons, one must explain where they come from.
Help! It's all just some form of gibberish to me...so APM renames well know definitions, calls everything that can't be explained a quantum constant, and then it suddenly all becomes crystal clear? Please enlighten me too...
Mass is linear, is a quantum constant, and is very well explained in APM. It is a product of phi and therefore has a vortex form.
If you restrict one time dimension you will get stuck with the vortex form, restrict another one and the world becomes even stranger, like having 'wave and particle duality', laws of 'Special Relativity' and more....
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

Re: what is charge?

Steven I am surprised at you! Your very guilty of making comments that are biased without any study of the model, I can see that. Your definition of quantum constants in APM is your own making. How you came up with that is beyond me?

I have been very clear as to what quantum constants are and what they mean as quantum constants. I have made repeated posts that have identifed and quantified them. Too throw out some biased remark about "APM renames well know definitions, calls everything that can't be explained a quantum constant, and then it suddenly all becomes crystal clear?"

Everything that cannot be explained, where did you come up with that?

Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge, are all quite understandable and certainly not something that cannot be explained. Spherical geometry, I mean what could be more simple? This is what you say is what APM takes and throws quantum constants at them because they cannot be explained?

If your definition of quantum constants like, compton wavelengh, coulombs constant, newtons gravity constant, mass of the electron etc, are unreasonable as quantum constants for length, charge, gravity or mass respectively then I really think we are on different planets. This explanation of these simple four things, length, frequency, mass, charge with observed constants is not rocket science, neither is it absurd.

Please review this one abstract about the UFT APM. The "unexplained quantum constants" as you put it, are in a nice chart. Everyone of those "unexplained" quantum constants is accepted in every field of science. I really don't know what your driving at. If you read this, and can tear it apart, please do.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Calculations_UFT.pdf

You can enlighten yourself with a good review of their webpage.
http://www.16pi2.com/

I certainly did that with Collective Electrodynamics. You really need to either put some effort into it, or just ignore it, but those comments from you are a big surprise to me. I would never expect you to teach me or enlighten me with your work. I would however take your links and do my own leg work to enlighten myself. I certainly would not throw out haphazard comments that disparage CE with no investigation of my own. That is not scientific, that is biased and dogma of reductionism if I ever heard it. I really would expect that kind of response at other web pages about the EU, I would not expect it from you or here.

PS I will say it again, CE only takes you to a better position as a EE. It would never take us to the final stage of a UFT. I think while CE is very impressive, it is self limiting. I fear your so stuck on CE, that nothing else really matters to you. I think that due to its impact in your specialized profession, that it has blinded you to anything else beyond your specialized talents. I really can't see how someone as smart as you could just say what you just did, unless you stuck in some paradigm. The accuracy of your view of APM is not scientific, not based on any study, and totally unfounded.

APM is not limited and more then equally as impressive. One does not have accuracy in formulating the electron binding energy level for all atomic elements with "unexplained" constants.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_bin ... uation.pdf

Again if you can tear apart the electron binding energy, piece by piece, go ahead, but those all inclusive non scientific rebuttal responses won't cut it with me.

If you took a close look you would see APM describes the work you love so much, wave theory.
http://www.biocrawler.com/w/index.php?t ... edirect=no

I see APM written all over that because I took two weeks to do some serious study of your love for CE and also APM. I am a compartive methodology kind of person, and I see no difference! I feel like Ed Whitten pointing out 5 string theories is one M Theory.
Last edited by junglelord on Sun May 25, 2008 2:48 pm, edited 3 times in total.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

Steven I am surprised at you! Your very guilty of making comments that are biased without any study of the model, I can see that. Your definition of quantum constants in APM is your own making.
Please don't get me wrong. Don't want to discredit anybody, just came to the defense of the standard model...
Also if you refer to 'quantum constants' you assume everything becomes clear to me, but I really don't understand :
dark matter is another way of expressing virtual particles before they become a particle for a brief but fleeting moment, only to return to the dark state.
What is a 'virtual particle' as opposed to the real particle? What is the 'dark state': is that a non-radiating state?
Just as the casmire effect produces real photons, one must explain where they come from.
It is unclear to me what 'real photons' are in the sense that I should know what 'unreal' photons are...
Length, Frequency, Mass, Charge, are all quite understandable
Lenght and Frequency should be clear, but on the definition of mass and charge APM is different for reasons that are still unclear to me...
I have been trying to download the APM white paper but it always get's stuck. At least I managed to download one of their papers, so that can hopefully clear up some of the naming and constant confusion.
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

Re: what is charge?

Mass is the observed mass of each subatomic particle steven.

Charge is based on coulombs constant for electrostatic charge and electromagetic charge is based on angular momentum times the conductance of the aether. So all particles have the same eletrostatic charge, and each particle has a individual em charge. Those two charges exist in the one electron, proton. Electostatic is sherical and in the center, electromagnetic is a waving toroidal that is surronding electrostatic sphere. Both expand and contract. Its a shimmering cloud, not a solid, not a particle, but definitely waving. Since EM is unique to each particle it is seen to actually be expressed as the strong charge and is responsible for the nucleus due to the waving of the em toroidal cloud and its expansion compression functions, the strong force is not mediated by glueons. The weak interaction is a effect of the electrostatic charge and electromagnetic charge relationship.

There are three simple forces at play, electrostatic, electromagnetic, gravity. Each of them both attract and repel. Gravity is both attactive and repulsive. Matter attracts matter, anti matter attracts antimatter, matter and antimatter repel.

Since we see subatomic "particles" as 1/2 spin and photons as 1 spin, then an aether unit is a 2 spin rotating magnetic field that encapsulates with angular momentum (plancks constant) and with the five dimensions to form matter via the quantum constants. This explains the spin issue and quantum spin at the same time. Matter is only 1/4 of the total Aether unit. Light is only 1/2.

What could be more simple then that?

PS
Now why would you come in defense of the standard model>????
Its broke, unfixable, does not work. Give it up dude, its a bad drug.
Your first clue should be that gluons do not exist, and that em is the strong charge in the nucleus...also one charge is missing and the weak interaction is the relationship between those two charges. The proper model has only three known forces, not four. Two of them are charge.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

StevenO
Posts: 894
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: what is charge?

junglelord wrote:Mass is the observed mass of each subatomic particle steven.
That's a recursive answer...so what constitutes the mass of a subatomic particle then? (BTW: let's move the APM discussion to the APM thread and focus here on the charge part.)
<...> So all particles have the same electrostatic charge, and each particle has a individual em charge. Those two charges exist in the one electron, proton. Electostatic is sherical and in the center, electromagnetic is a waving toroidal that is surronding electrostatic sphere. Both expand and contract. Its a shimmering cloud, not a solid, not a particle, but definitely waving. Since EM is unique to each particle it is seen to actually be expressed as the strong charge and is responsible for the nucleus due to the waving of the em toroidal cloud and its expansion compression functions, the strong force is not mediated by glueons. The weak interaction is a effect of the electrostatic charge and electromagnetic charge relationship.
I see no relief in APM if it also sticks to the particle model... But, I'll come back to the APM charge postulates in a next post.
Now why would you come in defense of the standard model>????
Its broke, unfixable, does not work. Give it up dude, its a bad drug.
Your first clue should be that gluons do not exist, and that em is the strong charge in the nucleus...also one charge is missing and the weak interaction is the relationship between those two charges. The proper model has only three known forces, not four. Two of them are charge.
I was referring to the standard model of particle physics, not the cosmologic model (just to make sure we are on the same wavelenght). Even though it might be hocus-pocus for most people it represents our state of knowledge, there is agreement on the observations and all phycisist will agree that the model needs work. I think the fog can be mostly cleared up by dropping the particle paradigm and realizing that all observed effects are wave phenomena. A gluon is a particle model of a wave phenomenom, just like magnetic fields are a model of a wave phenomenom. I think we have no right as armchair philosophers to claim that we really know better, that's hubris...
Also, APM mentions "Some aspects of the theory derive from the Standard Model...", so why pick on it?
First, God decided he was lonely. Then it got out of hand. Now we have this mess called life...
The past is out of date. Start living your future. Align with your dreams. Now execute.

junglelord
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am

Re: what is charge?

WOW what a disconnect.

One more time. There are no particles. I never said there were, and you even cut and paste that I said there was not, then said APM is a particle model......it is a shimmering waving cloud, never a particle, never solid. The word "particle" is an expression of the modern language, I use this word when speaking of the cloud in that quote, but it is not a particle. It is a shimmering cloud. That is not solid and not a particle. From now on I will just call it what it is, a shimmering waving cloud theory. So your wave model is implicit and explicit in APM. So we all agree, no particles, only waves.

The standard model of particle physics is based on the four force model. How can we not be talking about the same thing????

There are only three forces, not four. No gluons, no seperate weak force.
Electrostatic, electromagnetic, gravity. Therefore this thread goes to the heart of the matter. APM gives the clue to what charge is and why it can replace the standard four force model. There are no gluons, no seperate weak interaction. There are only two charges and gravity. Each one both attracts and repulse. EM is also the strong charge due to the flexibility and waving nature of the EM toroidial shimmering waving cloud, the weak interaction is the relationship of ES to EM. Gravity is gravity.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord

bboyer
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: what is charge?

junglelord wrote: One more time. There are no particles. I never said there were, and you even cut and paste that I said there was not, then said APM is a particle model......it is a shimmering waving cloud, never a particle, never solid. The word "particle" is an expression of the modern language, I use this word when speaking of the cloud in that quote, but it is not a particle. It is a shimmering cloud. That is not solid and not a particle. From now on I will just call it what it is, a shimmering waving cloud theory. So your wave model is implicit and explicit in APM. So we all agree, no particles, only waves.
Good example of how our science reflects the confusion and inexactitudes of our linguistics/semantics. New word time? "Fogicle"? "Shimcloudicle"? "Shimwavicle"? Particle-shmarticle?
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. [---][/---] Maitri Upanishad

kovil
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:04 am

Re: what is charge?

What is charge?
I answer with a question - What is Energy?

Charge is a potential energy that is frustrated by not reaching equilibrium or equalization.
Therefore Charge is Frustration, and the Universe is made of frustration,

when it rains the water is trying to get to the center of the earth, but the rocks are in the way,
the rocks are also trying to get to the center of the earth, but the metallic core is in the way,
the earth is trying to get to the center of the sun, but with little inter solar system resistance it keeps orbiting,
and the sun is trying to get to the center of the galaxy, etc.
But that's gravitational frustration.

Energy frustration is opposite electric charges separated by a distance beyond what they can jump to equalize.

Energy frustration is exhibited by Charge, the potential energy of attraction or repulsion.
We use the analogy of charge existing within a field to describe how charge behaves and acts.
Physics describes very well how charges behave and act, yet what charge truly is remains a subject of debate over descriptions.

In a philosophical description Charge is seeking a state of undividness with its opposite charge, that of charge equalization.

In a mathematical description of Charge it is an amplitude away from zero that maintains itself over time.

In a Dobsonian cosmological description Charge is the manifestation of the Infinite (Energy) within the Undivided (the Space field) and exhibiting the principle of undividedness (the attraction of gravity, and the attraction between opposite electrical charges) amongst itself (the opposite charges).

How we describe Charge and Energy will continue to find new metaphors of description, the mathematics will remain the same for how charge and energy behave in reality, but what charge and energy are at their primary level of manifestation in existence will keep being a puzzle directly related to our perception methods and means.

lizzie
Guest

Re: what is charge?

New Axiom Based Logical Physics
http://www.telestream.com/~singtech/pages/Apocal.html
From a small set of nine (9) quantum vs. quantum motion related axioms it has been possible to deduce a completely new model for the unit charge of a charged particle. From that new model it became simple, even intuitively obvious, to deduce the unit gravitational charge and unify electromagnetism and gravity.

From this new model for the unit gravitational charge it became very simple to then immediately deduce a new or rather hitherto unknown property of a gravitational field, to wit: a strong charge separation effect.

This physics utilizes the topology of a torus to express the compact manifold geometry of the universe. It is only in this geometry where physical and mathematical concepts such as curl and divergence (both important aspects of Maxwell's equations) can be fully articulated. This topology provides the vehicle for the full expression of the velocity potential which then allows for the concept of charge to emerge as a function of dynamics and geometry. The unit charge then emerges naturally as a new type of metric (for counting purposes) which is seen to be composed of a finite number (n-1) of velocity potentials in a universe of n particles. In a universe of n particles in a compact manifold of toroidal geometry we see that particles must emerge as charge conjugate pairs, and not as particle anti-particle pairs.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests