Does the Moon Rotate?

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

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby jtb » Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:02 am

Goldminer wrote:Does the Moon rotate?(link)


http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=637

Below is a comment I made to Cornell College concerning their evidence that the moon is rotating. I should get a reply within a week or two.

"I have a comment on the 2 scenarios concerning the rotation of the moon.

In the first scenario you ask a person to walk (sidestep) around a circle always facing the center. Supposedly, since you can see all 4 walls of the room, this proves that you are rotating. However, you get the same effect by sitting sidesaddle on a horse on a merry-go-round (MGR). You are changing direction but not rotating about the axis running through the top of your head.

The second scenario has you walk (sidestep) in a circle facing only one direction. Supposedly this also proves the moon is rotating because an observer on Earth will see all sides of you. On the contrary, it proves that the MGR is changing direction beneath a stationary horse, similar to a weather vane that always points in the same direction no matter where or how it moves.

PS: I tried side stepping in a circle looking in only one direction and it did terrible things to my neck. Smiles!!!

Sorry for being so picky.
jtb"
jtb
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Goldminer » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:19 am

jtb wrote:
Goldminer wrote:Does the Moon rotate?(link)


http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=637

Below is a comment I made to Cornell College concerning their evidence that the moon is rotating. I should get a reply within a week or two.

"I have a comment on the 2 scenarios concerning the rotation of the moon.

In the first scenario you ask a person to walk (sidestep) around a circle always facing the center. Supposedly, since you can see all 4 walls of the room, this proves that you are rotating. However, you get the same effect by sitting sidesaddle on a horse on a merry-go-round (MGR). You are changing direction but not rotating about the axis running through the top of your head.

The second scenario has you walk (sidestep) in a circle facing only one direction. Supposedly this also proves the moon is rotating because an observer on Earth will see all sides of you. On the contrary, it proves that the MGR is changing direction beneath a stationary horse, similar to a weather vane that always points in the same direction no matter where or how it moves.

PS: I tried side stepping in a circle looking in only one direction and it did terrible things to my neck. Smiles!!!

Sorry for being so picky.
jtb"


Now, the merry-go-round is making you dizzy. My weather vane points to the direction from which the wind is blowing. Maybe you should oil the pivot on yours! Or put it outside, on the roof, maybe? Be careful about doing things to your neck, it holds the blood vessels that supply your brain. Did you make a video of your experiment? Did you watch it?
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby jtb » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:09 am

Goldminer, please don't take this personally. I am not attacking you. I am questioning consensus opinion. I live near Cornell College and have many friends that work there. Perhaps I'm wrong. I just haven't seen any evidence to that affect. I appreciate constructive criticism, even when it hurts.
God bless,
jtb
jtb
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Goldminer » Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:19 am

jtb wrote:Goldminer, please don't take this personally. I am not attacking you. I am questioning consensus opinion. I live near Cornell College and have many friends that work there. Perhaps I'm wrong. I just haven't seen any evidence to that affect. I appreciate constructive criticism, even when it hurts.
God bless,
jtb

Neither am I attacking you. I have on occasion, seen the cock spinning on my weather vane, and sometimes it appears to be unable to decide which way to point. Mine (weather vane that is) rotates.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Michael V » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:15 am

for a better perspective try a different view

The rotating weather vane is the wrong model, instead, consider a thrown ball that may, or may not, tumble in flight.

The Moon, and the Earth, and everything else, does not "rotate" about a stationary axis. The Moon is travelling along a helical path with, and "around", the Earth. The Moon is subject to "forces" that tether it to the Earth. It travels its helical trajectory whilst always presenting the same face to the Earth. At the same time, the Moon is also subject to even greater "forces" due to the Sun, and yet it "stays obedient" to the Earth. These are the facts, this is what is happening.

That said, we are also tied to definitions such as "rotation", "synchronous rotation" and "orbit". I am happy enough to accept that the Moon may in fact "rotate" (by definition). However, I remain unconvinced by the argument that the Moon's rotation is definitely proven. As previously stated, I am equally happy to imagine that the Moon might also be described as "moving sideways" or "dragged sideways" in its "orbit". We simply do not see the bigger picture. We are not positioned or evolved to be able to "observe", so we "see" only what evolution has designed us to see. Be very careful not to believe what you see without considering objective logical interpretation.

Michael V
Michael V
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby jtb » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:50 am

Michael V wrote:The Moon, and the Earth, and everything else, does not "rotate" about a stationary axis. The Moon is travelling along a helical path with, and "around", the Earth.


Michael, do you have any references concerning helical paths of heavenly bodies other than Nassim Haramein @ theresonanceproject.org? I am very interested in his theory but would like to see what others are saying about helical paths.

Thanks, jtb
jtb
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Michael V » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:33 am

jtb,

The Earth is travelling along a trajectory (primarily around the Sun). The Moon is travelling with the Earth and at the same time around the Earth, so the Moon's trajectory describes a helix. This is what actually happens and is in no way a disputable fact. As you have become aware, Nassim Haramein has produced an animation showing that the planets also describe a helical path as they travel along with the Sun. However, a point of potential dispute is in the significance, or not, of the helical path. That is to say, is the helical path a primary function or is it simply an unimportant consequence of "orbital rotation"?. Clearly, what is absolutely the case, is that an orbit, and indeed ANY rotation, ends up describing a helix and not what we terrestrially perceive as a simple "rotation" about an axis. That this is the factual reality is not in itself any proof or demonstration that the helical trajectory is the operational method of orbit (and rotation), but it does at least cast some doubt on the ellipse/circle as being the operational method of orbit.

One particular point of interest is that orbits have been historically defined, described and calculated as being elliptical/circular. However, latterly we have come to understand that the Sun travels round the galaxy and the galaxy travels through cosmic space, so at no level can there possibly be a true circular motion, it simply has to be a helical trajectory. One could attempt to justify the elliptical/circular orbit by taking the view that orbits relate to some sort of inertial frame of common underlying velocity vectors. However, orbits are associated with, and in no small part facilitated by, "forces" shared between bodies. The force effects of both gravity and electromagnetism must rely on, and be conveyed by, some virtual/aethereal property of space in order to operate, yet travel of bodies through "space" is given no thought or credit - the logical contradictions are multiple and obvious.

I am not really happy with theresonanceproject presentation of this, as it tends towards the appearance of "neo-hippy spiritual" nonsense that is seemingly portrayed in an anthropocentric light. As such the scientific importance gets pushed to one side, rather than being the primary focus.

Starting from the premise that action-at-a-distance is impossible and so the universe/space must contain, or consist of, a virtual energy field or aethereal field (choose your preferred nomenclature), I did an analysis of gyroscopic function and how an object would need to move to travel, or even to exist in, a randomly moving particle field. The logical answer is quite clear. First of all the object must spin - unless all collisions by the field were directed at the precise centre of the object, then the object must be set spinning. (When I say object, I am principally referring to electrons and protons, i.e. matter.) Secondly, a spinning object with motion relative to a particle field will have to move with a helical trajectory. Even an absolutely stationary object is moving, relative to a moving particle field, so what we detect/perceive as an electron or proton is actually a particle inside a range of motion. So electrons and protons are always in motion and in fact it is that range of motion that defines the object and its interactions with other matter. Furthermore, that inherent, innate, intrinsic motion that defines the object is helical.

Because a matter particle (electron or proton) receives energy from the field (effectively in the form of spin) there is a localised loss of energy density in the vicinity of the matter, which produces a property of matter that we refer to as mass. Thus there is a net loss of ambient field energy-density away from the object with mass; that is, there is more energy-density toward the object than away from the object. So, objects with mass (i.e. matter) cause an effect called gravity.

If the field collides with the electron and provides it with energy, then it is sensible to assume that the electron will in turn collide with the field particles. This will result in a "flow" of energy-density directed away from the electron, which provides the property of matter we refer to as charge. The field energy toward an object can be characterised as random or ambient. But, the charge energy away from the object is a result of the objects innate motion, which is helical. So charge energy away from matter is characterised as helical. One of the defining properties of a helix is that it is handed or chiral, so depending on the "emitting" object or the relative direction of interacting objects, the handedness of charge "photons" (helical energy pulses) results in the effects labelled as positive and negative or north and south.

So, matter receives/takes energy from the field as spin and hence mass, and then "radiates" that energy away again as charge "photons".

If you are interested, you may like to take a look at the "Motion of Matter" thread in the "Future of Science" forum. You will also find links to my paper "On the Motion of Matter". I am aware that the concept of the "true" nature of motion are alien to many of my fellow terrestrials, who prefer to view the universe via straight lines and inertial frames. Matter does not and can not move in straight lines and this is confirmed by an objective examination of our astronomical neighbourhood.


Michael V
Michael V
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Goldminer » Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:48 am

Michael V wrote:jtb,

The Earth is travelling along a trajectory (primarily around the Sun). The Moon is travelling with the Earth and at the same time around the Earth, so the Moon's trajectory describes a helix. This is what actually happens and is in no way a disputable fact. As you have become aware, Nassim Haramein has produced an animation showing that the planets also describe a helical path as they travel along with the Sun. However, a point of potential dispute is in the significance, or not, of the helical path. That is to say, is the helical path a primary function or is it simply an unimportant consequence of "orbital rotation"?. Clearly, what is absolutely the case, is that an orbit, and indeed ANY rotation, ends up describing a helix and not what we terrestrially perceive as a simple "rotation" about an axis. That this is the factual reality is not in itself any proof or demonstration that the helical trajectory is the operational method of orbit (and rotation), but it does at least cast some doubt on the ellipse/circle as being the operational method of orbit.

One particular point of interest is that orbits have been historically defined, described and calculated as being elliptical/circular. However, latterly we have come to understand that the Sun travels round the galaxy and the galaxy travels through cosmic space, so at no level can there possibly be a true circular motion, it simply has to be a helical trajectory. One could attempt to justify the elliptical/circular orbit by taking the view that orbits relate to some sort of inertial frame of common underlying velocity vectors. However, orbits are associated with, and in no small part facilitated by, "forces" shared between bodies. The force effects of both gravity and electromagnetism must rely on, and be conveyed by, some virtual/aethereal property of space in order to operate, yet travel of bodies through "space" is given no thought or credit - the logical contradictions are multiple and obvious.

I am not really happy with theresonanceproject presentation of this, as it tends towards the appearance of "neo-hippy spiritual" nonsense that is seemingly portrayed in an anthropocentric light. As such the scientific importance gets pushed to one side, rather than being the primary focus.

Starting from the premise that action-at-a-distance is impossible and so the universe/space must contain, or consist of, a virtual energy field or aethereal field (choose your preferred nomenclature), I did an analysis of gyroscopic function and how an object would need to move to travel, or even to exist in, a randomly moving particle field. The logical answer is quite clear. First of all the object must spin - unless all collisions by the field were directed at the precise centre of the object, then the object must be set spinning. (When I say object, I am principally referring to electrons and protons, i.e. matter.) Secondly, a spinning object with motion relative to a particle field will have to move with a helical trajectory. Even an absolutely stationary object is moving, relative to a moving particle field, so what we detect/perceive as an electron or proton is actually a particle inside a range of motion. So electrons and protons are always in motion and in fact it is that range of motion that defines the object and its interactions with other matter. Furthermore, that inherent, innate, intrinsic motion that defines the object is helical.

Because a matter particle (electron or proton) receives energy from the field (effectively in the form of spin) there is a localised loss of energy density in the vicinity of the matter, which produces a property of matter that we refer to as mass. Thus there is a net loss of ambient field energy-density away from the object with mass; that is, there is more energy-density toward the object than away from the object. So, objects with mass (i.e. matter) cause an effect called gravity.

If the field collides with the electron and provides it with energy, then it is sensible to assume that the electron will in turn collide with the field particles. This will result in a "flow" of energy-density directed away from the electron, which provides the property of matter we refer to as charge. The field energy toward an object can be characterised as random or ambient. But, the charge energy away from the object is a result of the objects innate motion, which is helical. So charge energy away from matter is characterised as helical. One of the defining properties of a helix is that it is handed or chiral, so depending on the "emitting" object or the relative direction of interacting objects, the handedness of charge "photons" (helical energy pulses) results in the effects labelled as positive and negative or north and south.

So, matter receives/takes energy from the field as spin and hence mass, and then "radiates" that energy away again as charge "photons".

If you are interested, you may like to take a look at the "Motion of Matter" thread in the "Future of Science" forum. You will also find links to my paper "On the Motion of Matter". I am aware that the concept of the "true" nature of motion are alien to many of my fellow terrestrials, who prefer to view the universe via straight lines and inertial frames. Matter does not and can not move in straight lines and this is confirmed by an objective examination of our astronomical neighbourhood.


Michael V

So, a car tire isn't circular? So it's path along the road, if one follows a mark on the sidewall, doesn't make a circle, what effect does that have on anything we have to deal with? You are remarkable in your ability to make some big deal out of information that has no effect.

Where has a "photon" ever been detected that has a charge on it? Go ahead and keep making stuff up, that's how the mainstream does it!
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Michael V » Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:11 am

Goldminer,

Where has a "photon" ever been detected that has a charge on it? Go ahead and keep making stuff up, that's how the mainstream does it!

There is no mention of a "photon with charge".

To be accurate, no "photon", has ever been detected - only the motion of matter is truly detectable. The "photon" is only detected by inference.

At what point do you think my argument fails? and do you have a logically consistent counter-argument?


Michael V
Michael V
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Michael V » Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:51 pm

Goldminer,

....what effect does that have on anything we have to deal with?

"Deal with"?, why do you think that the fundamental operation of the universe is concerned with what humans have to "deal with"?.

You are remarkable in your ability to make some big deal out of information that has no effect.

Orbits do absolutely and definitely without any question whatsoever, result in a helical trajectory. There is nowhere in the universe where an orbit can be considered as elliptical/circular in the way that those geometrical shapes are commonly thought of by us here on Earth. In fact all astronomical and cosmic travel of matter necessitates that it describe a helical trajectory - all travel of matter, without any exception. Also, the method and operation of the force effects between orbiting bodies relies entirely on a system of "communication" between those bodies that does not consist of matter: neither gravity nor electromagnetism is "communicated" between bodies of matter by other matter. Given the foregoing, by what knowledge or reasoning do you so confidently put forth the statement that the trajectory geometry of travel of all matter in the universe is "information that has no effect".

You may be relying on convincing yourself and others because the motion of a given body relative to another given body does not necessarily describe a helix. However, that does not eliminate the fact that the motion of those bodies does describe a helical path. Of course, you may have some knowledge or reasoning that provides for an analysis by which you dispute the significance of the undeniable helical trajectory of all travelling matter. But to dismiss it out of hand by the argument "you're making stuff up just like those other guys do", does not provide me with any confidence that you have fully and objectively considered the entire argument in all its context.

And, no, a point on the rim of a wheel travelling on a flat surface does not describe a circular path, it describes a bouncing arc, termed a cycloid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid.


Michael V
Michael V
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby jtb » Wed Jan 23, 2013 4:55 am

Michael, thanks for the explanation of helical trajectory of heavenly bodies. I previously read about it but didn’t quite understand until now. It’s a consequence of the heliocentric model of the universe. Elliptical/circular orbits originated in the geocentric model.

I feel the same way as you about theresonanceproject; however, I know that I believe 99.9% of everything I hear. If someone tells me their name is John Smith, I don’t ask for ID. I just believe them. Now that I’m older, I am questioning my beliefs and what to hear other’s opinions and their critique of mine.

As an aside, watch the difference between men and women opening a door for the first time. Most of the time a woman will unconsciously read the sign "Pull" and she will pull. A man will unconsciously read the sign "Pull" and he will push. Men have more of a tendency to question what they see.

I am also reading Walter Russell’s “Secret of Light”. He is very hard to follow, but does make some sense.

I downloaded your paper, "On the Motion of Matter", a while ago but haven’t completed reading it yet. I try to understand what I read so it takes me a while to absorb. I may have found it on the web while looking at gyroscopes.
jtb
jtb
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 12:36 am

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Goldminer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 7:59 am

Michael V wrote:And, no, a point on the rim of a wheel travelling on a flat surface does not describe a circular path, it describes a bouncing arc, termed a cycloid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycloid. Michael V

Exactly my point, Sweetypie. Does the car bounce just because the point on the surface describes a "bouncing arc?"
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Michael V » Wed Jan 23, 2013 9:28 am

Exactly my point

Really? "Exactly" your point? Seems more likely to be an obtuse pointless analogy to whatever your point may be. Seeing as how you have worked so hard not to detail your argument, it is also likely that you do not have an argument worth stating.... or do you?....
So, jtb, if the Moon kept the same portion of its surface presented to the Sun as it orbited the Earth, would you then say it is rotating? (We would then get to see the hidden side of the Moon.)

You dodged the question, didn't you? The observer at the center of the track, in your scenario, made one revolution, per orbit of the horse, just as the horse made one revolution per orbit. Now, if the horse didn't "change direction" (rotate) as it orbited the track; we would get to see both sides of the horse from the center of the track, as we revolved watching the horse, wouldn't we?

IMHO, you are beating a dead horse.

If you guys want to make up the definitions of the words you use as you go along, you can claim anything. That's how Commies and Economists do it. Especially the head of the Fed. Oh, yeah, astronomers too, but not in this case.

Now, the merry-go-round is making you dizzy. My weather vane points to the direction from which the wind is blowing. Maybe you should oil the pivot on yours! Or put it outside, on the roof, maybe? Be careful about doing things to your neck, it holds the blood vessels that supply your brain. Did you make a video of your experiment? Did you watch it?

Neither am I attacking you. I have on occasion, seen the cock spinning on my weather vane, and sometimes it appears to be unable to decide which way to point. Mine (weather vane that is) rotates.

So, a car tire isn't circular? So it's path along the road, if one follows a mark on the sidewall, doesn't make a circle, what effect does that have on anything we have to deal with? You are remarkable in your ability to make some big deal out of information that has no effect.

Where has a "photon" ever been detected that has a charge on it? Go ahead and keep making stuff up, that's how the mainstream does it!

Exactly my point, Sweetypie. Does the car bounce just because the point on the surface describes a "bouncing arc?"

...it would seem not. 8 posts and no "point" made, no logical argument stated, no line of reasoning disclosed. What exactly is your point?


Michael V
Michael V
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Goldminer » Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:16 am

Michael V wrote:
Exactly my point

Really? "Exactly" your point? Seems more likely to be an obtuse pointless analogy to whatever your point may be. Seeing as how you have worked so hard not to detail your argument, it is also likely that you do not have an argument worth stating.... or do you?....
So, jtb, if the Moon kept the same portion of its surface presented to the Sun as it orbited the Earth, would you then say it is rotating? (We would then get to see the hidden side of the Moon.)

You dodged the question, didn't you? The observer at the center of the track, in your scenario, made one revolution, per orbit of the horse, just as the horse made one revolution per orbit. Now, if the horse didn't "change direction" (rotate) as it orbited the track; we would get to see both sides of the horse from the center of the track, as we revolved watching the horse, wouldn't we?

IMHO, you are beating a dead horse.

If you guys want to make up the definitions of the words you use as you go along, you can claim anything. That's how Commies and Economists do it. Especially the head of the Fed. Oh, yeah, astronomers too, but not in this case.

Now, the merry-go-round is making you dizzy. My weather vane points to the direction from which the wind is blowing. Maybe you should oil the pivot on yours! Or put it outside, on the roof, maybe? Be careful about doing things to your neck, it holds the blood vessels that supply your brain. Did you make a video of your experiment? Did you watch it?

Neither am I attacking you. I have on occasion, seen the cock spinning on my weather vane, and sometimes it appears to be unable to decide which way to point. Mine (weather vane that is) rotates.

So, a car tire isn't circular? So it's path along the road, if one follows a mark on the sidewall, doesn't make a circle, what effect does that have on anything we have to deal with? You are remarkable in your ability to make some big deal out of information that has no effect.

Where has a "photon" ever been detected that has a charge on it? Go ahead and keep making stuff up, that's how the mainstream does it!

Exactly my point, Sweetypie. Does the car bounce just because the point on the surface describes a "bouncing arc?"

...it would seem not. 8 posts and no "point" made, no logical argument stated, no line of reasoning disclosed. What exactly is your point? Michael V

You will never get my point because it makes your points irrelevant. The GPS system uses an Earth-Moon barycentered, nonrotating reference frame to describe the satellites' ephemeris and set/adjust the satellite clocks used within the system. Do they worry about the helical path everything makes within other reference frames? No. Do they understand about the helical paths? I bet so. Do they care? I bet not.
I sense a disturbance in the farce.
Goldminer
 
Posts: 1024
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: Does the Moon Rotate?

Unread postby Michael V » Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:10 am

Goldminer,

The GPS system uses an Earth-Moon barycentered, nonrotating reference frame to describe the satellites' ephemeris and set/adjust the satellite clocks used within the system. Do they worry about the helical path everything makes within other reference frames? No. Do they understand about the helical paths? I bet so. Do they care? I bet not.

Yet again: no logical argument, no line of reasoning and no point to make.

You hint again here that you believe the fundamental operation of the universe is for the benefit of humans, whereas, in fact, the universe operates with no care for the purposes of terrestrial occupants.
It will no doubt come as a surprise to you to discover that there are those whose aim is to understand how the universe works, rather than how the universe does not work. Quoting the ability of others to perform feats of engineering without achieving or even requiring a deep knowledge or understanding of how matter exists and operates at a fundamental level is irrelevant to any of the issues so far discussed or laid-out.

If you have a logical argument, then please make it. If you have a line of reasoning to develop, then do so. If on the other hand you have no point to make, or more likely, lack sufficient cognitive abilities to perform an objective logical analysis, then perhaps it would be better to hold off making comments about concepts that you are ill-equipped to be able to understand. I mean, "photon with charge"?, <ad hom removed>.


Michael V
Last edited by nick c on Wed Jan 23, 2013 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: inappropriate remark removed
Michael V
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm
Location: Wales

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests