Earth - electric oceans

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Native » Tue Feb 04, 2014 12:23 pm

@CharlesChandler,
You wrote:
That leaves the electric force. There, the field does change in sync with the tides, since the degree of ionization in the ionosphere has a tidal cycle. And the electric force can produce both near and far side bulges, accounting for 2 tides per day.

Ad: Where there´s electricity, you cannot rule out magnetism, can you?
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:23 pm

Native wrote:Where there´s electricity, you cannot rule out magnetism, can you?

That depends on whether you're talking about "electricity" (i.e., moving electric charges), which very definitely generate magnetic fields, or just electrostatics, which can exert forces on things, but without any current flowing, and thus without generating any magnetic fields. I'm saying that the electric force between the positively charged ionosphere and the negatively charged crust is lifting up the crust when it is stronger, and dropping it back down when it is weaker. (The total crustal deformation can be as much as 55 cm. The next step will be to calculate exactly how much electric force is there, and how much of a lift it exerts, to prove it, assuming that the data are complete enough, and accurate enough, and that the integral calculus just with those data can safely neglect factors like crustal variations. Anyway...) But that's just electrostatics, where opposite and like charges exert attractive and repulsive forces on each other, and where the magnetic force never comes into play.

Now, since the Earth is revolving, the electric force moves across the surface, which means that these ionospheric and crustal charges are moving, which means that they are generating magnetic fields. Detection of those fields would be confirmation of the moving charges. But would the magnetic fields influence the tides themselves, or is magnetism in this case just an effect, which doesn't do anything itself? The quick answer is obviously "we don't know". Would magnetic fields from other sources be a factor, such as the geo-dynamo, or the fields in the heliospheric current sheet, or from CMEs, or from the extremely weak galactic field? Again the quick answer is that we don't know, until we work all of the way through this. The first step would be to identify the fluctuations in the magnetic field, to see if they are synchronized with the position of the Moon. Since we have great magnetic data, and we know exactly where the Moon is going to be, if there is a correlation, we should be able to see it quite clearly. So somebody just needs to check.

By the way, I found in my study so far to neglect oceanic tides, and to focus on crustal deformation (i.e., "Earth tides"). The reason is that oceanic tides are perturbed by the geometry of the ocean basins, resulting in extreme tides in some places, no tides in others, and varying degrees of phase shift from one place to another. You can easily get lost in all of that, and if you're not looking at how the tidal waves bounce around in the oceans, you can conclude that the Moon and/or Sun and/or whatever else are creating forces that just aren't there. Crustal deformation is simple, and corresponds directly to the position of the Moon, and to a lesser extent, the Sun. So we know that the Moon and Sun are the only measurable prime movers. The crust responds directly to the tidal forces, while the oceans slosh around in ways that only indirectly correspond to the prime mover. So the essential question is, "What forces are the Moon and Sun exerting on the Earth's crust, having already ruled out gravity?"
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby celeste » Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:06 pm

Charles, I have a question on this http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Resea ... s_999.html
It is obvious here that we have the correlation of ocean movement with changing magnetic fields.
My question is if maybe we are partly missing the cause and effect? The mainstream picture is that it is basically just collapsing rock that causes a giant wave. But if a sudden increase/decrease in downward pressure caused by the earthquake or resulting collapse, caused an equally sudden change in compressive ionization,might it be the E-M pulse causing the wave,rather than the just the "splashing" of rock into/under the water?
Don't get me wrong, I understand that the amount of rock that collapses can be enormous, but when we see a speed of sound wave spreading out (dispersing energy), that can pile tons of water on shores thousands of miles away,I'm not convinced the "rock splashing into the water" idea really adds up. I'm not sold on this,but asking your opinion on whether you think it is possible for a sudden change in compressive ionization to drive water in this way.
celeste
 
Posts: 787
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:26 pm

celeste wrote:I'm not sold on this, but asking your opinion on whether you think it is possible for a sudden change in compressive ionization to drive water in this way.

I haven't thought much about tsunamis, and like everything else, I generally start out where everybody else does -- blindly accepting the conventional story. But I have thought about earthquakes, and I definitely do not accept the conventional model there. Earthquakes are said to be the release of elastic strain. But solid rock just isn't good like that -- it isn't homogenous enough over many kilometers for the strain to be distributed evenly, and if irregularities focus the strain in one particular place, the rock fractures instead of warping. And fracturing is an irreversible deformation that stores no elastic force. So I went back to the drawing board, and applied my CFDL model, and identified a runaway release of energy with the right characteristics to explain earthquakes. Under lateral pressure from tectonics, the crust warps. The buckle in the crust relaxes the vertical pressure on the rock underneath. At a reduced pressure, rock that had been forcibly ionized by the pressure can undergo charge recombination. This drives an electric current through microfractures in the rock. Ohmic heating from the electric current causes the crust to expand, which increases the buckle. And the more the crust buckles due to lateral pressure, whether from tectonics or from expansion due to ohmic heating, the more the vertical pressure is relieved under the buckle, and that's what is driving that electric current. So it's a runaway feedback loop, resulting ultimately in the rupture of the fault. But earthquakes are not singular events -- there are actually a series of shock waves sometimes lasting several minutes. In EM terms, we'd call this "sputtering". When the plates first slip, the lateral pressure is relieved a little bit, but pressure at depth is restored, reversing the current, with electrons forced back out of the re-pressurized rock. This current creates hot, high-pressure plasma discharge channels through the rock, creating an enormous lateral pressure. That pressure has two consequences. First, it closes up the discharge channels, shutting off the current. Second, it causes the next slip, which re-opens the discharges channels. Hence the current sputters -- each surge in current shuts itself off, but causes a little bit more slippage, which enables the next surge in current. So each shock front in the quake has its own electro-mechanical energy source, producing a series of waves that can last several minutes. (See Electronic Tectonics for the full write-up, but like I said, the CFDL model appears to have all of the right characteristics to explain earthquakes.)

The magnetic field associated with the tsunami actually has nothing to do with the movement of the water. Magnetic fields actually start changing in the days before the quake, as the buckle in the crust increases. (My model accounts for this as electric currents driven by charge recombination at depth due to relaxed vertical pressure under the buckle. But even researchers who don't have an EM model acknowledge that changing electric and magnetic fields are precursors to earthquakes.) And we really can't attribute such field fluctuations before the quake to the tsunami after the quake. ;) Anyway...

Then comes your question, about whether the tsunami is produced mechanically, by the collapsing buckle in the rock, or by the EM processes. I'll have to think about that. When the buckle flattens back out again, there is an enormous displacement of water. The buckle might only collapse a few meters vertically, as the fault advances as much as tens of meters laterally, but if the buckle was several kilometers across, and hundreds of kilometers long, that's a huge amount of water that rushes in -- and then the sloshing starts. So I'm not convinced that there has to be an EM driver to the tsunami -- it starts out looking like the mechanical sources might be legitimate. But I've been wrong before... ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Native » Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:50 am

@CharlesChandler,
Besides your electric ideas and descriptions which I have to consider, you wrote:
By the way, I found in my study so far to neglect oceanic tides, and to focus on crustal deformation (i.e., "Earth tides"). The reason is that oceanic tides are perturbed by the geometry of the ocean basins, resulting in extreme tides in some places, no tides in others, and varying degrees of phase shift from one place to another. You can easily get lost in all of that, and if you're not looking at how the tidal waves bounce around in the oceans, you can conclude that the Moon and/or Sun and/or whatever else are creating forces that just aren't there. Crustal deformation is simple, and corresponds directly to the position of the Moon, and to a lesser extent, the Sun. So we know that the Moon and Sun are the only measurable prime movers. The crust responds directly to the tidal forces, while the oceans slosh around in ways that only indirectly correspond to the prime mover. So the essential question is, "What forces are the Moon and Sun exerting on the Earth's crust, having already ruled out gravity?"

AD: Regarding the bolded sentence, I agree. One can be somewhat dissy trying to get hold on all the motions and their interactive connections, in which case I try to "keep it simple stupid".

What if the Earth rotation and the tidal motions basically is just a result of sheer centrifugal forces where the oceans are slopping up and down because of the 2 main land masses just like in a vertical washing mashine? This could in itself explain the 2 daily tides and if also taking into account the Earth orbital speed in the elliptic plane, this explains the annual/orbital tides highs and lows.

In my opinion it is very plausibel that the Earth orbital speed must have an pushing effect on the Earth and its atmosphere. I´m living on Bornholm, a minor island in the Baltic Sea, and sometimes an easternly storm can lower the ocean about 1 meter or more, just by pushsing on the ocean surfase, just as an excample of the force of a simple wind pressure.

The main question then seem to be explaining the supposed opposite tidal bulging where I keep thinking on how observations are inserted in assumed laws and mathematical equations in order to fit a hypothesis - and I´m still pondering over how "the 2 opposite bulges" possibly could be misunderstood/misinterpreted.

I`m just reading here about "Amphidromic circulation" -
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth540/content/c6_p1.html

Amphidromic circulation stems from two basic effects. First, the water in a given ocean basin stays in that ocean basin. So when Earth spins under the tidal bulges, rather than the water staying in place as the Earth spins, as we assumed in the equilibrium theory, the water first builds against the west side of the ocean basin, and then sloshes back toward the center of the ocean as the continent spins under the moon, or antipodal to it. The water sloshes from West to East (think of a big basin of water that you tip from side to side --this is the scale that we are thinking in terms of for tides) but rather than going in a direct line, the motion is impacted by the Coriolis effect. In the Northern hemisphere it causes the wave to bend to the right, creating a counter-clockwise circulation, and it's the opposite in the Southern hemisphere. The tidal bulge sloshes from west to east, but ends up against the southern coast of our ocean basin. Then it sloshes back toward the center, from south to north, but it's bent to the right (Northern Hemisphere) and ends up against the East side of the ocean basin. This creates a ccw amphidromic circulation (N.H.) around the amphidromic point.

AD: Here the main land masses comes to account and is described. I think the water will slosh high and low because of the land masses and the centrifugal rotation regardless of the Moon - unless the Moon is shading for an external pressure on the Earth. (Even changing weather systems has pressure/"gravitational" effects).

BTW: Could the opposite bulges possibly be an effect caused by the Earth axis wobbling which causes the axis precessional movement???
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 05, 2014 9:04 am

Native wrote:This could in itself explain the 2 daily tides
They're not 2 "daily" tides. There's 2 for every complete orbit of the moon around the Earth (from Earth's perspective) which is 24 hours and 49 mins.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Sparky » Wed Feb 05, 2014 11:41 am

They're not 2 "daily" tides. There's 2 for every complete orbit of the moon around the Earth (from Earth's perspective) which is 24 hours and 49 mins.


would they be nearly 12hrs apart? :?
"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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 05, 2014 3:40 pm

Sparky wrote:
They're not 2 "daily" tides. There's 2 for every complete orbit of the moon around the Earth (from Earth's perspective) which is 24 hours and 49 mins.


would they be nearly 12hrs apart? :?
Nearly 12 hours apart or alternatively, exactly half a lunar orbit.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Native » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:31 am

@Aardwolf
Native wrote: This could in itself explain the 2 daily tides
They're not 2 "daily" tides. There's 2 for every complete orbit of the moon around the Earth (from Earth's perspective) which is 24 hours and 49 mins.

AD: Of course you're right in this.

Miles Mathis writes here - http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html
Yes, the (secondary) answer to the central question, “Why are there two main daily tides,” is “because there are two major land masses the Moon has to cross every day.” And therefore one of the reasons the two tides are not equal is because the Atlantic Ocean is not equal to the Pacific Ocean. As the Moon is crossing Asia, the tide has a chance to recede further than when the Moon is crossing the Americas.

You will say, “Gee, if that is true, it seems like someone would have seen it before you. It is not a very complex or esoteric theory, is it?” No, it isn't, but it requires that a theorist is looking at the problem in a certain way, and up to this time, historically, no one has been looking at the problem in that way. You see, if you start with the assumption that gravity is the main cause of tides, you are immediately lost.

AD: I agree with MM that that the consensus gravity assumptions are quite out of all natural equations and more celestial mechanics explanations should be applied. (In his linked paper MM describes the oceanic motions very well and plausible) (But I don´t catch and agree on his "lunar electric anode and cathode" hypothesis)

He also writes:
Gravity also could never have been the cause since the gravitational forces are already balanced by the orbit of the Moon. The tangential velocity of the Moon is already said to balance the gravitational forces between the two bodies, so there is no leftover force to create tides. Forces that are balanced cannot at the same time be residual. They are either balanced, to create a stable orbit, or they are unbalanced, to create real pulls and motions. You cannot have both balance and motions caused by imbalance. The entire theory of tides via gravity has been highly illogical from the beginning.

AD: It is also known facts that the Earth is moving away from the Sun annually by 15.6 cm and the Moon away from the Earth by 3.8, which contradicts all gravity theories and "gravity constants".

The Earth centrifugal force itself makes an equatorial bulge and flattening the Earths polar areas and of course the firm land masses affect the fluent oceans in this centrifugal motion.

The Earth´s atmospheric average pressure of 1 kilo per cm2 must come from an "outer source" and here the Earth orbital speed pressure must be the right source for the atmospheric pressure.

So: The tides must origin from a centrifugal force and affected by the orbital speed pressure on the Earth which again is especially affected by shading of the Moon when this is aligned in front of the Earth directional movement.
Earth Drag.01.jpg

If so, the orbital speed dragging force around the Earth with 1 rotational contrary wind and 1 following wind, these dragging effects must cause different results on the Earth atmosphere and thus also different effects on the Earth oceans like "wind creating waves". A minor rotational pushed up bulge must be created in the Earth rotational contrary wind and a larger bulge in the following wind. And when the Moon shades the orbital direction pressure on the Earth, this must cause much less direct pressure and dragging effects and thus also lesser effects on the oceans.

Then the questions also are: How does the supposed dragging force affect the Earth´s atmosphere and oceans on the opposite of the Earth orbital direction? Does it cause lifting effects and thus creating an ocean bulge? And even a double bulge in special circumstances? I think this is possible and plausible.

Tides.Thunderbolt.02.jpg

If taking the "solar wind" seriously, this also must have an pushing effect on the Earth and its atmosphere, a push which can be shaded by the Moon, causing secondary changes in the ocean levels.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Native » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:41 am

2 dimensionally seen, the Earth centrifugal force looks like creating 2 opposite bulges.
Earth Centrifugal Bulges.Comp..jpg
Click to enlarge.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:03 am

Aardwolf wrote:
Sparky wrote:
They're not 2 "daily" tides. There's 2 for every complete orbit of the moon around the Earth (from Earth's perspective) which is 24 hours and 49 mins.


would they be nearly 12hrs apart? :?
Nearly 12 hours apart or alternatively, exactly half a lunar orbit.


Thank you...so the MM hypothesis of charge pushing the oceans is reenforced? http://milesmathis.com/tide5.html.
"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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:38 pm

Sparky wrote:so the MM hypothesis of charge pushing the oceans is reenforced?

What pushes on the opposite side, to produce 2 tides per revolution of the Earth, instead of just 1?
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:49 pm

I'm not going to get into tides, since they are published times......if I need to know. :?

I asked before if the tides were about 12hrs apart.. :? ..If you say they are at the same time.... :?
What is going on? :?

also, I don't understand your "opposite sides" explanation.. :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: Tides on tides off

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:28 pm

Sparky wrote:I'm not going to get into tides, since they are published times......if I need to know.

Then this thread might harsh your mellow, 'cuz it's about nothin' but tides... :D

Sparky wrote:I asked before if the tides were about 12hrs apart...

Yes, the lunar semi-diurnal tides are a little over 12 hours apart. The solar semi-diurnal tides are exactly 12 hours apart. They are both caused by the rotation of the Earth on its axis, so (obviously) the component that we get from the Sun is 1/2 a day. The lunar component is just a tad longer, because the Moon is rotating around the Earth (once every 29.53 days) in the same direction that the Earth is rotating on its axis. So relative to the Moon, the Earth makes a full revolution every 24.84 hours, producing semi-diurnal tides 12.42 hours apart.

But that doesn't explain why there are semi-diurnal tides (i.e., 2 high tides and 2 low tides per day), when the Moon is only overhead once per day. So Mathis is saying that it isn't a gravitational pull that creates high tides -- it's a charge field push that creates low tides. (?) But there are two low tides per day -- one on the near side, and the other on the far side. If the Moon is pushing on the near side, what is pushing on the far side?

Sparky wrote:I don't understand your "opposite sides" explanation..

I'm saying that there is an electrostatic attraction on the near side that produces a concentration of charge on that side. Once charges have been concentrated on the near side, like charges on the far side are repelled, producing a far side bulge of equal intensity.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1786
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Tides on tides off

Unread postby Native » Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:09 am

EASY AND CRUSTY TIDAL MODELS

Hello All,
Here´s an interesting site with 2 explanations of the tidal issues.
I think we all can get some new information´s and see how these fits into our own ideas and approaches.

-------------------------
Simple Tide Model - http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/tides.htm#simple - "The moon's gravity pulls a bulge of water towards it, compensated by an equal bulge on the opposite side".

This simple model has been used for centuries to calculate tide levels all over the world but it has a number of insurmountable problems.

• Wave speed: since the tide is just another gravity wave travelling along the ocean's surface, it must satisfy the laws for waves as explained in the wave chapter. For a wave to travel along the equator of 40,000 km in 25 hours, requires a speed of around 1600 km/hr, which is not sustainable. The maximum wave speed in a 'channel' of 5000m deep is about 800km/hr. Average depth of the ocean is around 3800m, demanding a lower speed still.

• Bouncing off continents: As the tide wave reaches a continent, most of it will be bounced back off the continental shelf, causing a tide wave of almost equal height to run in the opposite direction. This is not observed in real life.

• Starting and stopping: as the tide wave apparently needs to start at one continent and stop at the other, it would be larger at the continent where it arrives and smaller where it came from. During the starting and stopping, far too much energy would be wasted. This is not in accordance with tidal movements world-wide.

• Zero, one and two tides each day: there are places without tide, with one tide and most with two tides each day. This cannot be explained.

• Tide height: the height of the tide, the difference between high and low tide, does not follow the two-bulge idea which suggests that the tide should be maximal around the equator or on opposite sides of a large ocean. Near the equator one can find places without tides and places with near-maximal tides.

• Tide timing: high tide occurs at different times of the lunar cycle, depending more on one's place on Earth than on the position of the moon.

The balancing bulge on the other side is hard to explain.

There is obviously a better explanation of how tides move around the world.

The Buckling Crust Model - "The moon pulls the earth slightly oval. This buckle in the earth's crust travels at high speed. Tide waves form in a circular motion in the ocean basins" - http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/tides.htm#buckle

This new model does away with the objections mentioned for the simple model:

• Tide waves follow shorter paths in twelve hour rotations, never exceeding the maximum wave speed of about 800 km/hr.

• Tide waves do not bounce off continents by hitting them squarely. Instead, they follow along their coasts.

• There is no starting and stopping but a continuous motion. The standing waves absorb minimal energy.

• There is no balancing bulge. Instead, tide waves run in twelve hour circles.

• There can be none, one or two tides per day.

• The time of high tide depends both on the lunar cycle and the place on Earth.

• Tide waves are standing waves, expending the least energy.

Further interesting reading with illustrations here - http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/tides.htm and here - http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/waves.htm#wind

-----------------------------

AD: When reading this and the rest on the website, I think tidal motions are mostly connected to the Earth centrifugal motion as a generally "standing wave", combining with outsides pressures and celestial shadings, leaving "gravity" out of all equations.

So, how do these informations fits your tidal ideas and hypothesis???
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests