Solar System and Planet Formation

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: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue May 13, 2014 2:38 am

dougettinger wrote:To Viscount aero,

Thank you for your lengthy reply. I am just beginning to understand the controversy between gradualism and catastrophism in fossils. I read all your suggested references.

A question arose for me about the dating of a column of geological strata on Earth. Earth is really the only known solar system body with significant plate tectonics, continental drift, volcanism, along with wind and water erosion and the wasting of land masses. Hence, Earth may be the only celestial body in the solar system to have such strata that can reveal a timeline of catastrophies for the solar system. The other bodies can only show the build-up or accumulation of electrical arcing affects over the eons of time including those of actual impacts. Hence, it is difficult to create any timeline of major solar system events on the moons and other planets except for possible crater counting methods. Do you agree with this conclusion?


Doug, it's my pleasure, you're welcome.

This is one of the most fascinating topics as it directly ties the Earth into the vast cosmological conversation. You are providing fertile ground for discussion. I must reiterate that for all purposes establishment geology insofar as dating of rock strata by "superposition" has been proven false. Sedimentary layering and boundaries are not epochal from bottom to top. The stratification represents a singular event as demonstrated in the documentary film links I provided above (as well as described in the articles). If you have not yet viewed the YouTube installments I implore you do so as it will change your entire perspective and suddenly. They tested this in a lab. It is therefore repeatable and incontrovertible. This was evidenced, furthermore, via the lake to which the Mount St. Helens catastrophe suddenly displaced. Telltale geologic strata were formed in that event and very instantaneously.

To your statements: "Hence, Earth may be the only celestial body in the solar system to have such strata that can reveal a timeline of catastrophies for the solar system."

I think yes and no. Earth has fluvial action not apparent on other bodies' surfaces. Whether this reveals a "timeline" is exactly the debate as concepts of age or timeline cannot be determined. Epochs can be seen to have arisen and gone but at what time? That isn't known. Mass extinction events are clearly true as there is evidence. But the how and the when isn't actually known. These events may not have happened in deep geological time, but instead much more recently. The YouTube installments explain this very clearly. In other words, evidence for catastrophes exists. But a coherent timeline for them actually doesn't. The Earth is actually too dynamic for a timeline to remain steadfastly recorded. This is my view based on what I have learned.

"The other bodies can only show the build-up or accumulation of electrical arcing affects over the eons of time including those of actual impacts. "

Again, are we looking at impacts? I think yes we are--in some cases. But clearly in other cases we are not, ergo, Hyperion (at Saturn). When you look at Hyperion and believe it is covered with impact craters, in light of the deep structures you can see going into the moon, then that belief entirely overlooks and ignores the moon's internal structure. Impactors could not have created Hyperion's surface appearance because these structures continue deep within the interior body.

Or Phobos (at Mars). There are myriad crater chains on that body (as well as on Earth's Moon and Mercury). How are these explained by errant impactors? These are more than likely made by electrical arcing events. But insofar as when--how can that be known? It cannot be. Surely some craters are old as they are half-buried under regolith (as is seen on Mars). Or are they? How long did it take the crater to become filled with dirt and when did the crater occur? Wind erosion could blow dust and silt into new craters and very rapidly. So where is the basis for an absolute timeline?

"Hence, it is difficult to create any timeline of major solar system events on the moons and other planets except for possible crater counting methods."

See above. And consider Mars again: Vallis Marineris. That is clearly a giant scar running across the face of the planet. That was created in a colossal event and probably all at once. It was excavated from the surface. That has nothing to do with crater dating methods. Even as the Martian southern hemisphere is higher above the baseline than the northern, as is festooned with craters (whereas the north isn't)--how can these craters be used as accurate dating markers? From what time do they represent? Clearly something removed them all from the northern hemisphere as well as trillions of cubic acres of geology. When? What?

dougettinger wrote:I should assume if electrical plasma discharges were being released on the Earth's surface at various times to petrify fauna and flora into rock material, then the plasma only existed in broad linear finite sheets that did not cover the entire landmass. Otherwise, all life would have been extinguished. These plasma ribbon most likely following magnetic field lines on the Earth's surface running generally longitudinally. Do you agree with this conclusion?


You've suggested a lot in one paragraph. Plasma discharges tend to be formed in lighting or bolts, not sheets to my knowledge. There are also no such things as "field lines." Magnetic fields are a continuum, an envelope. The ionosphere or heliosheath is not composed of lines. These are bubble structures. Petrification may be a confluence of mineralogical/mechanical/fluvial processes with electrical. Life may continue to exist regardless of catastrophe but again there is evidence for mass extinction events, ie, a sudden disaster. The fossil record clearly shows this. These events, too, probably happen with "regularity" in terms of deep time. Yes life is extinguished yet it comes back and flourishes albeit in different forms. Life itself is endemic to Earth (including panspermia which also works in "reverse" whereby life leaves this planet and goes elsewhere) and will return regardless. That is my view.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Tue May 13, 2014 12:15 pm

Hello Viscount aero,

Thank you for another lengthy reply. I read all your suggested references and U-tube presentations and found them very enlightening.

This is one of the most fascinating topics as it directly ties the Earth into the vast cosmological conversation. You are providing fertile ground for discussion. I must reiterate that for all purposes establishment geology insofar as dating of rock strata by "superposition" has been proven false. Sedimentary layering and boundaries are not epochal from bottom to top. The stratification represents a singular event as demonstrated in the documentary film links I provided above (as well as described in the articles). If you have not yet viewed the YouTube installments I implore you do so as it will change your entire perspective and suddenly. They tested this in a lab. It is therefore repeatable and incontrovertible. This was evidenced, furthermore, via the lake to which the Mount St. Helens catastrophe suddenly displaced. Telltale geologic strata were formed in that event and very instantaneously. To your statements: "Hence, Earth may be the only celestial body in the solar system to have such strata that can reveal a timeline of catastrophies for the solar system."

Yes, I understand how strata locations may not reveal accurate ages. I saw the all the presented experiments. However, to see the sediments revealed by the Grand Canyon anyone must reflect on millions of years for these sediments to occur regardless as to whether certain sectors are younger under older sediments.

I think yes and no. Earth has fluvial action not apparent on other bodies' surfaces. Whether this reveals a "timeline" is exactly the debate as concepts of age or timeline cannot be determined. Epochs can be seen to have arisen and gone but at what time? That isn't known. Mass extinction events are clearly true as there is evidence. But the how and the when isn't actually known. These events may not have happened in deep geological time, but instead much more recently. The YouTube installments explain this very clearly. In other words, evidence for catastrophes exists. But a coherent timeline for them actually doesn't. The Earth is actually too dynamic for a timeline to remain steadfastly recorded. This is my view based on what I have learned.

Regardless of the recently discovered errors in the thinking of geologists, you certainly believe that certain types of timelines can be constructed such as periods of Glaciation, great extinction periods, sea level history, DNA history, the Younger Dryas Period, etc. The absolute values are not so important as the relative length of spans and order of various epochs and possible alignments of different timelines.

Again, are we looking at impacts? I think yes we are--in some cases. But clearly in other cases we are not, ergo, Hyperion (at Saturn). When you look at Hyperion and believe it is covered with impact craters, in light of the deep structures you can see going into the moon, then that belief entirely overlooks and ignores the moon's internal structure. Impactors could not have created Hyperion's surface appearance because these structures continue deep within the interior body.

I am not debating that many or most surface features were caused by electromagnetic phenomena; but, I certainly do not rule out impacts as another possibility.

Or Phobos (at Mars). There are myriad crater chains on that body (as well as on Earth's Moon and Mercury). How are these explained by errant impactors? These are more than likely made by electrical arcing events. But insofar as when--how can that be known? It cannot be. Surely some craters are old as they are half-buried under regolith (as is seen on Mars). Or are they? How long did it take the crater to become filled with dirt and when did the crater occur? Wind erosion could blow dust and silt into new craters and very rapidly. So where is the basis for an absolute timeline?

Thornhill has definitely convinced me of electrical arcing events occurring. But what caused these events? Are we talking about plasma emissions from the Sun, or close encounters, or galactic arcing at the crossing of its disk plane?

See above. And consider Mars again: Vallis Marineris. That is clearly a giant scar running across the face of the planet. That was created in a colossal event and probably all at once. It was excavated from the surface. That has nothing to do with crater dating methods. Even as the Martian southern hemisphere is higher above the baseline than the northern, as is festooned with craters (whereas the north isn't)--how can these craters be used as accurate dating markers? From what time do they represent? Clearly something removed them all from the northern hemisphere as well as trillions of cubic acres of geology. When? What?

When is not that important. But what caused this electric arcing is important. If there is not a weapon, body, or motive, then there is no crime.

You've suggested a lot in one paragraph. Plasma discharges tend to be formed in lighting or bolts, not sheets to my knowledge. There are also no such things as "field lines." Magnetic fields are a continuum, an envelope. The ionosphere or heliosheath is not composed of lines. These are bubble structures. Petrification may be a confluence of mineralogical/mechanical/fluvial processes with electrical. Life may continue to exist regardless of catastrophe but again there is evidence for mass extinction events, ie, a sudden disaster. The fossil record clearly shows this. These events, too, probably happen with "regularity" in terms of deep time. Yes life is extinguished yet it comes back and flourishes albeit in different forms. Life itself is endemic to Earth (including panspermia which also works in "reverse" whereby life leaves this planet and goes elsewhere) and will return regardless. That is my view

Petrification sounds like a possible lab experiment to learn about its cause. The field lines that I referenced are what cause a compass to align its needle on the Earth's surface. When currents of ions or electron enter our atmosphere at the poles they likely follow magnetic field lines through the Earth's surface conductor, the seas, unless you have a better idea.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue May 13, 2014 2:04 pm

dougettinger wrote:Yes, I understand how strata locations may not reveal accurate ages. I saw the all the presented experiments. However, to see the sediments revealed by the Grand Canyon anyone must reflect on millions of years for these sediments to occur regardless as to whether certain sectors are younger under older sediments.


The age of the Grand Canyon is unknown considering radiometric dating may not be accurate. But even if the dating can give a relative age then what is the age relative to?


dougettinger wrote:Regardless of the recently discovered errors in the thinking of geologists, you certainly believe that certain types of timelines can be constructed such as periods of Glaciation, great extinction periods, sea level history, DNA history, the Younger Dryas Period, etc. The absolute values are not so important as the relative length of spans and order of various epochs and possible alignments of different timelines.


Yes I agree. In this new way of seeing geology there is a big problem however: Sediments and their fossils (and alleged ages via radiometry) must now be seen as regional events that cannot give an absolute global perspective of timelines. Ages of species and their development are now unknown. This threatens the theory of evolution as it is presently regarded.


dougettinger wrote:I am not debating that many or most surface features were caused by electromagnetic phenomena; but, I certainly do not rule out impacts as another possibility.


Exactly. Impacts simply happen. They are observed to happen. However they cannot be used as solar dating measurements. Because electrical arcing appears evident along with impact cratering then this creates a big problem: the features are intermixed. Which is which? Certainly some structures have left telltale evidence for either but what about highly eroded craters? Regardless, the face of the Moon now becomes highly chaotic as to what we're actually looking at.

dougettinger wrote:Thornhill has definitely convinced me of electrical arcing events occurring. But what caused these events? Are we talking about plasma emissions from the Sun, or close encounters, or galactic arcing at the crossing of its disk plane?


That's another problem ;) Inasmuch as EU eschews the 'heavy bombardment" epoch it adopts a new one with the "heavy arcing" epoch. So did that really happen? Both theories require a primordial stage where there was chaos and catastrophe.
And why are giant electrical arcs not seen anymore in this solar system? Shouldn't that be happening continually? If not then why? Why has the electrical potential lessened? Is it happening elsewhere? If so then where?

dougettinger wrote:When is not that important. But what caused this electric arcing is important. If there is not a weapon, body, or motive, then there is no crime.


Yes the jury is still out.

dougettinger wrote:Petrification sounds like a possible lab experiment to learn about its cause. The field lines that I referenced are what cause a compass to align its needle on the Earth's surface. When currents of ions or electron enter our atmosphere at the poles they likely follow magnetic field lines through the Earth's surface conductor, the seas, unless you have a better idea.

Well again there is no such thing as a magnetic field line.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Wed May 14, 2014 5:15 am

Hello Viscount aero,

It sounds like you have a case of hypothesis-itis. Anyway, I still enjoy the EU society questioning the standard model. I miss the proposals by EU that NASA normally provides when new surprising data is discovered and announced. Then I have the perfect right to reject, accept, or develop my own proposal.

I am not sure what you have against the term, "magnetic field lines". Wikipedia says they are like contour lines on a topographic map. The lines are representation. I have yet to string beads on a magnetic field line or trip over a contour line in the field. In that way of thinking these lines certainly do not exist.

All the best,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed May 14, 2014 3:07 pm

dougettinger wrote:It sounds like you have a case of hypothesis-itis.

Don't know what you mean by that.

dougettinger wrote:Anyway, I still enjoy the EU society questioning the standard model.

You enjoy it despite what?

dougettinger wrote: I miss the proposals by EU that NASA normally provides when new surprising data is discovered and announced. Then I have the perfect right to reject, accept, or develop my own proposal.

Such as?

dougettinger wrote: I am not sure what you have against the term, "magnetic field lines". Wikipedia says they are like contour lines on a topographic map. The lines are representation. I have yet to string beads on a magnetic field line or trip over a contour line in the field. In that way of thinking these lines certainly do not exist.

I explained it beforehand. There is no such thing as a magnetic field line. A topographic map doesn't talk of the terrain in terms of lines. Mountains and valleys are continual surfaces. Yet magnetism is spoken of in terms of "lines" and "when the magnetic field lines are broken and recombine..." which is all misleading and false.

And that you source the establishment's lockstep Wikipedia generally lessens your argument's validity :)
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby seasmith » Wed May 14, 2014 7:04 pm

dougettinger wrote:
I am not sure what you have against the term, "magnetic field lines". Wikipedia says they are like contour lines on a topographic map. The lines are representation. I have yet to string beads on a magnetic field line or trip over a contour line in the field. In that way of thinking these lines certainly do not exist.

I explained it beforehand. There is no such thing as a magnetic field line. A topographic map doesn't talk of the terrain in terms of lines. Mountains and valleys are continual surfaces. Yet magnetism is spoken of in terms of "lines" and "when the magnetic field lines are broken and recombine..." which is all misleading and false. -VA



Would magnetic 'flux' work ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Wed May 14, 2014 7:34 pm

seasmith wrote:
dougettinger wrote:
I am not sure what you have against the term, "magnetic field lines". Wikipedia says they are like contour lines on a topographic map. The lines are representation. I have yet to string beads on a magnetic field line or trip over a contour line in the field. In that way of thinking these lines certainly do not exist.

I explained it beforehand. There is no such thing as a magnetic field line. A topographic map doesn't talk of the terrain in terms of lines. Mountains and valleys are continual surfaces. Yet magnetism is spoken of in terms of "lines" and "when the magnetic field lines are broken and recombine..." which is all misleading and false. -VA



Would magnetic 'flux' work ?


How about "magnetic field."
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Thu May 15, 2014 7:40 am

Hello Seasmith and Viscount aero,

dougettinger wrote:
I am not sure what you have against the term, "magnetic field lines". Wikipedia says they are like contour lines on a topographic map. The lines are representation. I have yet to string beads on a magnetic field line or trip over a contour line in the field. In that way of thinking these lines certainly do not exist.

I explained it beforehand. There is no such thing as a magnetic field line. A topographic map doesn't talk of the terrain in terms of lines. Mountains and valleys are continual surfaces. Yet magnetism is spoken of in terms of "lines" and "when the magnetic field lines are broken and recombine..." which is all misleading and false. -VA[/quote]


Would magnetic 'flux' work ?[/quote]

How about "magnetic field."[/quote]

Magnetic flux or magnetic field will do. However, magnetic field lines help me envision the flux as seen by actual lines that iron filings form around a bar magnet. I can also then see the possible flow of electron sspiraling along these field lines. I need pictures to help me understand.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Thu May 15, 2014 7:58 am

Hello Viscount aero,

viscount aero wrote:
dougettinger wrote:It sounds like you have a case of hypothesis-itis.

Don't know what you mean by that.

I have a feeling that the EU society analyses new discoveries and data very well, but only wants to use their analysis to dispute the standard model and not begin to propose their own models or hypotheses.

dougettinger wrote:Anyway, I still enjoy the EU society questioning the standard model.

You enjoy it despite what?

My intuition definitely leads me away from the proto-Saturn polar alignment concept which the EU definitely supports without recognizing any other possible options. EU is supporting its own paradigm.

dougettinger wrote: I miss the proposals by EU that NASA normally provides when new surprising data is discovered and announced. Then I have the perfect right to reject, accept, or develop my own proposal.

Such as?

NASA releases new data and tries to propose how it may fit into the standard model, but listing reservations. EU interprets the new data as fitting into the electromagnetic interpretations and concepts, but never proposing any source or trigger for events that the new data reveals.

And that you source the establishment's lockstep Wikipedia generally lessens your argument's validity :)


I am sure you will be happy to know that I also use Thunderbolts website as another "quick source". I use Wikipedia like a scientific dictionary.

Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu May 15, 2014 10:07 am

dougettinger wrote:Magnetic flux or magnetic field will do. However, magnetic field lines help me envision the flux as seen by actual lines that iron filings form around a bar magnet. I can also then see the possible flow of electron sspiraling along these field lines. I need pictures to help me understand.


Yes we all need aids for understanding. But often the aids become mistaken for actual things. In science today the term "Magnetic field lines" are used so often that people actually believe there are "lines" that can be "broken' and then "reconnect." This is false. People are not taught to regard a magnetic field as a continuum envelope. It is, instead, "actually" composed of "lines." This is highly misleading and false. Therefore when you speak of "magnetic field lines" you are referring to non-existent things.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu May 15, 2014 10:08 am

dougettinger wrote:I am sure you will be happy to know that I also use Thunderbolts website as another "quick source". I use Wikipedia like a scientific dictionary.


Using Wiki as a "scientific dictionary?" You do? :lol: You're a comedian.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby seasmith » Thu May 15, 2014 10:18 am

by viscount aero » Wed May 14, 2014 7:34 pm

seasmith wrote:
dougettinger wrote:
I am not sure what you have against the term, "magnetic field lines". Wikipedia says they are like contour lines on a topographic map. The lines are representation. I have yet to string beads on a magnetic field line or trip over a contour line in the field. In that way of thinking these lines certainly do not exist.

I explained it beforehand. There is no such thing as a magnetic field line. A topographic map doesn't talk of the terrain in terms of lines. Mountains and valleys are continual surfaces. Yet magnetism is spoken of in terms of "lines" and "when the magnetic field lines are broken and recombine..." which is all misleading and false. -VA



Would magnetic 'flux' work ?


How about "magnetic field."



viscount,
It's just helpful to keep the nouns and verbs distinguished. There are fields of naturally, but they are the resulting state from the action of fluxation,
Here, "fluxation" could be provisionally described as ponderomotive force/motion, that is readily apparent whenever magnetic flux is propagated, in the vicinity of atoms and molecules, especially 'ionized' ones. We use it to perform work every day.
Once the flux has stopped, so does the induction, and any visible flow of charge. That's why AC devices are so common.

So the field would then be the topology/morphology, depicted with whatever geometries one chooses, i.e. densities, lines, envelopes, domains and etc.
Of course definitions can Always be honed to a better edge, to suit the particular application.

Ever look at light polarization effects in 'strained' glass. May be sort of a macro analogy ?
seasmith
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby viscount aero » Thu May 15, 2014 10:23 am

seasmith wrote:viscount,
It's just helpful to keep the nouns and verbs distinguished. There are fields of naturally, but they are the resulting state from the action of fluxation,
Here, "fluxation" could be provisionally described as ponderomotive force/motion, that is readily apparent whenever magnetic flux is propagated, in the vicinity of atoms and molecules, especially 'ionized' ones. We use it to perform work every day.
Once the flux has stopped, so does the induction, and any visible flow of charge. That's why AC devices are so common.

So the field would then be the topology/morphology, depicted with whatever geometries one chooses, i.e. densities, lines, envelopes, domains and etc.
Of course definitions can Always be honed to a better edge, to suit the particular application.

Ever look at light polarization effects in 'strained' glass. May be sort of a macro analogy ?


You can use whatever you need to understand the idea but realize there are no actual/physically real "lines." Those do not exist. Yet people think they do because of mis-education.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby seasmith » Thu May 15, 2014 10:32 am

They are not necessary, and i haven't used the term in my posts. They are mainly a mathematical construct and artifact of Detection Devices.
Magnetic fields and domains are real at micro And macro scale. They don't just "add", any more than light waves only "add".


http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5882&p=94183#p94183
seasmith
 
Posts: 2710
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: How old is the solar system per EU's estimation?

Unread postby dougettinger » Thu May 15, 2014 10:39 am

Hello Viscount aero,

I answered some of your questions inside a quotation box which you may have missed. See my answers to your questions below.

viscount aero wrote:
dougettinger wrote:It sounds like you have a case of hypothesis-itis.

Don't know what you mean by that.

I have a feeling that the EU society analyses new discoveries and data very well, but only wants to use their analysis to dispute the standard model and not begin to propose their own models or hypotheses.

dougettinger wrote:Anyway, I still enjoy the EU society questioning the standard model.

You enjoy it despite what?

My intuition definitely leads me away from the proto-Saturn polar alignment concept which the EU definitely supports without recognizing any other possible options. EU is supporting its own paradigm.

dougettinger wrote: I miss the proposals by EU that NASA normally provides when new surprising data is discovered and announced. Then I have the perfect right to reject, accept, or develop my own proposal.

Such as?

NASA releases new data and tries to propose how it may fit into the standard model, but listing reservations. EU interprets the new data as fitting into the electromagnetic interpretations and concepts, but never proposing any source or trigger for events that the new data reveals.


Always a student,
Doug Ettinger
Pittsburgh, PA
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests