Saturn System Breakup 5,000 Years Ago

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: Current status of The Saturn Myth

Unread postby celeste » Thu Apr 03, 2014 6:54 pm

dougettinger wrote: The Saturn Myth certainly is given some excellent and intriguing support from Talbott's interpretation of myths but fails to be supported by any adequate celestial mechanics including the combining of gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena.


But there is this: Sunspots, which are associated with at least small scale Birkeland currents flowing to the sun's surface, start at the sun's polar region, and migrate to the sun's equatorial region. So there IS some mechanism (whether we understand it or not) that can take current filaments aligned along the sun's polar direction, and bring them down to the equator. What Dave Talbott is describing, is no more than a larger scale example of this. (and I'm not even sure if they are larger scale,if you read what is happening here viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14943 )

My point is this: We don't yet have a mechanism to explain why small scale Birkeland currents can move from the sun's pole to the sun's equator, but they DO behave that way. For Dave Talbott's ideas of the planets (also strung on current filaments) migrating from poles to equator, we only need the same mechanism . But rest assured, that mechanism DOES exist.
celeste
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:36 am

I'm just an armchair fan of the Electric Universe with no degrees in math or science. So take this answer for what it's worth.

Don Scott's book THE ELECTRIC SKY describes the "rapid" (within a human lifetime) migration of certain stars from one region of the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram to another. This sort of behavior should be impossible according to the Standard Model, which views stars as isolated balls of gas fusing under the pressure of their own gravity.

The electric star model suggests a different interpretation for stellar classification, and how a star might dance about the H-R diagram. One item noted in Scott's book is that after a nova-like event, a system often shows another star—which fissioned off the parent star to relieve electrical stress. I had assumed planets might form in the same fashion.

From what I've read, planets might also form in a Herbig-Haro object. So we have both a fusing-compressing mechanism (z-pinch) and a fissioning mechanism to explain the various objects in the universe. Build up and break down; the universe recycles.

Another basic tenet of the EU is that big changes may occur very rapidly—a stark contrast to the Standard Model where things change over immense spans of time, or not at all ("it's always been like this"). I must constantly remind myself that grasping EU ideas may be inhibited by relying too heavily, even unconsciously, on Standard Model assumptions. For example, Saturn is allegedly less dense than water (on average), and children's astronomy books will show Saturn floating in a bathtub. Is this really true? There's another thread in one of these forums (I apologize for not providing a direct link) about whether or not the established masses and densities of Solar planets and moons are correct.

EU is pretty radical—a paradigm shift without touching the clutch. Although, I also see EU as a long neglected, overlooked piece of the puzzle. Charge is one of the most basic aspects of all matter. EU may not be the answer to everything, but one gets some very weird concepts if electricity is left out.

I have not read THE SATURN MYTH, but perhaps "explode" is the wrong term for Saturn. (I must track down a copy of that book.) I can imagine planets forming along with Saturn (z-pinch), or fissioning from it, but not "exploding" out of it.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Current status of The Saturn Myth

Unread postby dougettinger » Fri Apr 04, 2014 7:44 am

Thank you, Celeste, for your reply. I enjoyed reading your references about the "electric Sun" and its connection or circuitry to the helio-magnetosphere. I am still baffled by what mechanism could possibly form planets inside the Sun or for that matter inside a gas giant such as Saturn. And, then expel the planets to become an orbiting family.

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

Re: Current status of The Saturn Myth

Unread postby Sparky » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:00 am

what mechanism could possibly form planets inside the Sun or for that matter inside a gas giant


The most obvious mechanism would be much like the sun's cme, where billions of tons of matter are thrown off. Another would be the explosive fracturing of a comet. Combine the two, with a relative charge stress of a comet, and you get something the size of Jupiter fracturing off a large chunk of plasma, which will organize into a spherical body and evolve into a planet or moon. ;)
"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: Current status of The Saturn Myth

Unread postby nick c » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:16 am

I am still baffled by what mechanism could possibly form planets inside the Sun or for that matter inside a gas giant such as Saturn. And, then expel the planets to become an orbiting family.


Here is an excerpt from Scott's website:

Fissioning
Wal Thornhill once said:
"….. internal electrostatic forces prevent stars from collapsing gravitationally and occasionally cause them to "give birth" by electrical fissioning to form companion stars and gas giant planets. Sudden brightening, or a nova outburst marks such an event. That elucidates why stars commonly have partners and why most of the giant planets so far detected closely orbit their parent star."
If a sphere of fixed volume splits into two smaller (equal sized) spheres, the total surface area of the newly formed pair will be about 26% larger than the area of the original sphere. (If the split results in two unequally sized spheres, the increase in total area will be something less than 26%.) So, to reduce the current density it is experiencing, an electrically stressed, blue-white star may explosively fission into two or more stars. This provides an increase in total surface area and so results in a reduced level of current density on the (new) stars' surfaces. Each of two new (equal sized) stars will experience only 80% of the previous current density level and so both will jump to new locations farther to the lower-right in the HR diagram.
A possible example of two equal sized offspring may be the binary pair called Y Cygni. This is a pair of giant O or B type stars that orbit each other in a period of 2.99 days. Each star is some 5 million miles in diameter and 5000 times as luminous as our Sun - absolute magnitudes about -4.5. They are some 12 million miles apart (less than 2.5 times their diameters!). Their masses are 17.3 and 17.1 times the mass of our Sun.

If the members of the resulting binary pair turn out to be unequal in size, the larger one will probably have the larger current density - but still lower than the original value. (This assumes that the total charge and total driving current to the original star distributes itself onto the new stars proportionally to their masses.) In this case, the smaller member of the pair might have such a low value of current density as to drop it, abruptly, to "brown dwarf" or even "giant planet" status. That may be how giant gas planets get born (and are in close proximity to their parents).

There was an interesting statement made in this regard in the Jan. 1, 2001 issue of Science Now magazine (p.4). "Astronomers are scratching their heads over a strange new planetary system. A team discovered a huge gas ball -- apparently a failed star called a brown dwarf -- circling a star that holds another planet in its sway. But no one understands how something so massive as a brown dwarf could form so close to a normal star with a planetary companion." This was in an article called "An awkward trio disturbs astronomers" by G. Schilling.

The final distribution of mass and current density is sensitive to the mechanics of the splitting process. Such a process can only be violent - possibly resulting in a nova eruption. Some mass may be lost to the plasma cloud that later can appear as a planetary nebula or nova-remnant that surrounds the binary pair. If the charge on the original star was highly concentrated on or near its surface, and the fissioning process is similar to the peeling off of a onion's skin, then most of that original charge (and current) may end up on the offspring star that is constituted only of the skin of the original star. In this way the smaller, rather than the larger of the two members of the resulting binary pair, can be the hotter one. In any event, both stars will move to different positions in the HR diagram from where their parent was located.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby dougettinger » Fri Apr 04, 2014 9:39 am

Hello Metryq,
Thank you for supplying your thoughtful and prompt reply.

Perhaps the word "explosion" is too strong. The better word is "fissioning". Early developing theories of solar system formation envisioned a fission process for creating planets around the Sun. This fission process involved either a fast rotation of a very molten body that flung material outward or a collision with another body. This process was eventually abandoned in favor of what you call the "Standard Model" or the nebular hypothesis involving a gravitational source of a higher density region causing collapse of a large molecular cloud that eventually accreted planets. (By the way, I disagree with this part of the Standard Model.). The book, The Saturn Myth, does not utilize a standard fission model. Perhaps the book assumes a Herbig-Haro object-type ejection of planets. But typically Herbig-Haro objects are produced in polar jets of forming proto-stars and are ejected to enormous distances of light years. Of course, this is an excellent example the electromagnetic phenomena.

Lets assume that Saturn was once a red dwarf star and spit out Herbig-Haro objects to become planets, how do these planets find orbits around the equatorial plane of the parent body? And, of course, how would these same planets ever become re-arranged around the Sun while mankind on planet Earth witnessed the whole process? I certainly like the ideas of the "Electric Universe" but have a very difficult time reconciling the Saturn Myth written in 1980 with the current tenants of the current "Electric Universe" and "Symbols of an Alien Sky".

You mentioned the "dance of stars" on the HR diagram. I know of no such instance except for the times when man has witnessed a star becoming a nova or supernova. In a nova-like event, another star may very well appear. A dying star is expanding its circumference in a nova (the name may be mis-applied) and encompassing a gas planet or dwarf star that is orbiting it. This body then sweeps some the expanding material to perhaps become more luminous and better observed.

Saturn is postulated to have an iron core, but the combination of its mostly lighter gases produces and overall density of less than one (the density of water). Hence, Saturn though uniquely different, should have the same mechanism of formation as the other planets.

I am ready for a paradigm shift; I personally do not like the Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter, and black holes. However, I do accept some basic parts of the Standard Model which needs to adopt a better awareness of the Electric Universe.

The Saturn Myth in 1980 was a first stab at explaining a very well researched ancient symbols of the alien sky by David Talbott. I am hoping to provide another, perhaps better, model of the celestial realm and its creation to explain these symbols without the need of The Saturn Myth's ideas. I am trying to get the attention of the Thunderbolts Project's staff.

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

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby nick c » Fri Apr 04, 2014 12:22 pm

Are you familiar with the work of Dwardu Cardona?
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2181
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby dougettinger » Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:28 pm

Hello Nick,

I am not familiar with Dwardu Cardona. What can I learn from him? Metric introduced me to Don Scott's website which is excellent. I have read most of it.

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

Re: Current status of The Saturn Myth

Unread postby dougettinger » Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:31 pm

Nick,
I am reading Don Scott's website now and catching up on the Electric Universe. Thanks.

Doug
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Apr 04, 2014 6:17 pm

dougettinger wrote:You mentioned the "dance of stars" on the HR diagram. I know of no such instance except for the times when man has witnessed a star becoming a nova or supernova. In a nova-like event, another star may very well appear. A dying star is expanding its circumference in a nova (the name may be mis-applied) and encompassing a gas planet or dwarf star that is orbiting it. This body then sweeps some the expanding material to perhaps become more luminous and better observed.


That's the Standard Model interpretation—a dying star flares up as it consumes its own planets. If I understand the electric star model (of which I gather there are several), the photosphere "surface" of the Sun is actually an atmosphere, or corona. The Sun has a region called the corona, an example of a "glow mode" plasma, while the photosphere is "arc mode" plasma. (The rest of the Solar system being a "dark mode" plasma.) But that photosphere "surface" is "too perfect" a sphere, showing no oblateness. Also, sunspots appear to be "holes" in the photosphere to a darker, cooler region below. Thus, a "red giant" is really the glow mode region of a star, like living inside a fluorescent light tube. Page 84 of Thornhill's and Talbot's THE ELECTRIC UNIVERSE suggests that planets embedded in the glow mode plasma of a brown dwarf might even be an ideal abode for new life. That, I believe, is the basic concept of "the Saturn myth"—that Saturn and its brood of planets were sustained in a glow mode plasma, until wandering into the realm of the Sun, which then overwhelmed Saturn's electrical domain.

In short, the H-R diagram is really an indicator of a star's current flow and has nothing to do with its age. The most outstanding star mentioned in Scott's THE ELECTRIC SKY is FG Sagittae. James P. Hogan also mentions this star in his EU article "The Cosmic Power Grid."

Naturally, you've seen Celeste's reply in your other thread on the Saturn myth concerning the migration of currents from the poles to the equator of the Sun. Thus, if Saturn and planets were a formed in the z-pinch of a Herbig-Haro object, the planets might have migrated to equatorial orbits around Saturn, or perhaps that did not happen until Saturn wandered into the Sun's neighborhood, becoming a "planet" itself.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby dougettinger » Sat Apr 05, 2014 10:39 am

Hello Metryq,
Thanks again for introducing me to the current thinking of the Thunderbolt Project. I have also read Don Scott's website and am quickly becoming updated.

I definitely have problems with the Electric Universe modeling chiefly involving orbital configurations.

1. But first, I cannot comprehend that if the hot corona expands around a dying star to become a red giant how any life or proto-life would survive on a planet that found itself inside this plasma glow envelop. The volatiles and any life forms would be burned-off as the plasma-glow envelop swept pass the planet.

2. Current studies of Herbig-Haro objects and their associated jets do not reveal any evidence of the jets of objects bending to begin orbiting their parent. These jets are moving very fast developing light year distances. Yes, this electromagnetic phenomena does display z-pinch points that may eventually create other stars and/or planets. And, yes, there is a possibility that smaller dwarf stars do not have powerful jets and their jettisoned objects may become gravitationally connected. However, it is difficult to envision an outcome similar to most star systems with the orbital plane being identical to the parent star's spin plane.

3. The Saturn Myth supposedly accounts for the Earth's first star, Saturn, being observed at the Earth's northern pole. In that case the Earth would orbit Saturn but rotate like a wheel in its orbit. Also, the radiation received from Saturn would be mostly in the northern hemisphere. The south pole should be one large Ice Cap creating monster storms due to the Earth's tilt. This configuration just does not make any sense.

4. Let's assume Mars, Earth, Venus, and maybe Mercury orbited Saturn close to its equatorial plane at an earlier time which is presently inclined at 29 degrees. How does mankind who supposedly witnesses this configuration prior to the present orbital configuration ever survive the transfer of orbits? Celestial mechanics utilizing gravitational principles just does not allow such a transfer without some type of pinball-type collisions for each planet. And, then the planets should be utterly destroyed unless inelastic impact took place. And, no electromagnetic phenomena can transfer these orbits unless somebody or Thornhill or Scott can show me otherwise.
Changing orbits requires immense energy perhaps scalable to changing electron orbits.

Thanks again for being my teacher and friend.

Wisdom is always gained by both teacher and student,

Douglas Ettinger
Pittsburgh
dougettinger
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 12:25 pm

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby Metryq » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:39 pm

Doug, you are very gracious. Again, keep in mind that I am an armchair fan of science. So at most, I can pursue topics that fascinate me and perhaps be swayed by arguments and evidence that appear sound. I am relatively new to EU—only a few years or so. Although I have spent around 30 years both learning the Standard Model, much of which never satisfied me, and then learning about all the holes in it.

My first exposure to "plasma cosmology" was Eric Lerner's 1991 THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED. I didn't absorb as much EU that first time out as I did counter arguments to the Big Bang, and Lerner's treatment of social and scientific history swinging in tandem like a pendulum. (Henry Bauer's DOGMATISM IN SCIENCE AND MEDICINE introduced this approach as science and technology studies.)

Along the way I discovered Tom Van Flandern's DARK MATTER, MISSING PLANETS AND NEW COMETS. This book introduced an alternative cosmology called the Meta Model, mostly a "thought experiment," yet still a serious alternative to the Standard Model. Flandern led me to Halton Arp, and so on. Eventually I came around to more books on EU. Perhaps it "makes sense" to me because I am an electronics repair tech. (Not a degreed EE.) All these writers took the time to explain complex ideas (including the "wrong" ones, thus illuminating why they are wrong) in a way the layman can understand. In his book, Bauer quotes Rutherford as saying, "specialists who really understand their subjects should be able to explain them to their local barmaid." (In short, no "turbo incabulator.")

The critical aspect of these and other books is to discover the rarely or never heard "other side" of the story. Books selling the Standard Model will not tell you all the things wrong with the Big Bang. Or that the Doppler effect is not the only mechanism that can cause redshifting. Every science book I've read claims the famous Michelson-Morley experiment failed to discover any sign of an aether—which is not true, whether or not they messed up on their math.

So to borrow a line from Yoda, "You must unlearn what you have learned." Not all of physics is wrong, but many authors argue that some of the biggest detours occurred during the mid-1800s. Science is supposed to be self-correcting. Hopefully that is what EU is all about.

Now with all that jawboning out of the way...

I cannot comprehend that if the hot corona expands around a dying star to become a red giant how any life or proto-life would survive


Thornhill and Talbot said "brown dwarf" not "red giant." And you must work to overcome the Standard Model life cycle of stars that has been burned into your brain. Here is page 84. I highly recommend the whole book.

If Saturn were such a brown dwarf with its handful of planets all stacked along the same axis, none of the planets would experience night, as they would be enveloped in the "dim" glow of the plasma. Saturn would lose that plasma glow upon entering the Sun's stronger field. At a time when Birkeland currents were merging, the Solar system would have been a much more electrically active place—perhaps sufficiently active enough to move the planets about without waiting for the slow and mechanical billiards imagined by gravity-only astronomers. (Keep in mind that EM forces are 39 orders of magnitude, that's 10^39, times stronger than gravity.)

If—big if—mankind were around at the time, they would have been witness to some truly spectacular upheavals that might scar their psyches as badly as the plasma scarred the planets. I've seen it suggested (Talbot?) that prehistoric art before the Great Upheaval was simple and mild—recordings of animal hunts, daily life, and yes even some lewd graffiti—while post Upheaval art shows the spoked wheels in the sky, the squatter man and phantoms wandering the Earth (electric discharge bolts and "dust devils"?).

You don't have to believe any of this stuff, but in the process of reading you will learn where all the weaknesses (and yes, some strengths) exist in the Standard Model. Just don't expect any Big Bang proponents to point out all the flaws. I've seen the opinion expressed in many books and interviews that "yes, the Big Bang is flawed, but I will stay with it because there are no alternatives." Such people are either willfully ignorant, or lead very sheltered lives.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby dougettinger » Sun Apr 06, 2014 8:22 am

Hello Metryq,

I am very happy to hear from you again. Do you live near Pittsburgh, PA? I have a need for an "electrical hands-on person" and collaborator to help me with an experiment regarding the relationship between gravity and electrons.

I am beginning to see the possibilities of life living around a brown or red dwarf planet inside the "anode glow".
Thanks for your reference from the Electric Universe. I have developed my own model of star systems utilizing electromagnetic phenomena (starting in the 80's) without even knowing that the people of the Thunderbolt Project existed. If you are interested see "Supernova Seeding Hypothesis" and "Colocation of Stars and Planets" found in the EttingerJournals.com.

I do not comprehend what is meant by "If Saturn were such a brown dwarf with its handful of planets all stacked along the same axis". Could you possibly send me a diagram or reference one that shows what is meant.

Whether a planet or star, I always picture their primary children orbiting preferably in the plane similar to the parent's rotational plane with their orbital and spin vectors all aligned. In my EU model this is only possible by applying electromagnetic phenomena. Gravitational phenomena comes into play in the latter parts of star system formations.

I also need a convincing explanation of the forces, either gravitational or electromagnetic or both, that peel off Saturn's planets into a very organizing planetary system around the Sun in spite of very massive Jupiter trying to intervene. I have experimented with gravitational computer program and introduced planetary trajectories that cross each other. Over short times of repeating their orbital periods all hell breaks loose. No concentric orbital patterns are ever possible. Of course, the program did not consider any electromagnetic phenomena.

Best regards,

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

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby Metryq » Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:23 pm

Greetings, again, Doug,

I have bookmarked your site and will read your articles. It has always fascinated me that there are at least four major theories of Lunar origin, and every model of Solar system formation has something wrong with it. On top of that, we're also very vague about the origins of life on Earth. If the Standard Model is correct, all of this was within the last 4.5 billion years or so. Meanwhile, Big Bang proponents presume to tell us exactly what happened in the picoseconds following the great Let-There-Be-Light moment. (Ever seen the movie DARKSTAR ?)

I'm afraid I live in central Massachusetts, so the commute to PA would be killer. But if you make any headway on the electric gravity front, I know everyone here would be interested. Electric gravity is one of those things I'm still trying to wrap my head around. "Warped space" doesn't make one bit of sense, either, and it's also circular reasoning.

"Stacked planets" illustrations can be found in several threads here. I think the general idea is that the jets known as Herbig-Haro objects produce a plasmoid that becomes a new star. Then either that new star gives birth to planets in the same fashion, or the original jet spits out a few more plasmoids, or perhaps the string of plasmoids are diocotron instabilities from the original jet. I don't know if anyone has nailed all of this down yet. (If a plasma focus cost as much as the LHC, maybe the public would take EU more seriously. But if your petri dishes get moldy, there's no way you can do good science.)
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 398
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: The Explosion of Saturn to Create other Planets

Unread postby dougettinger » Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:58 am

Hello Metryq and other forum moderators,

Thanks for submitting the diagram of "stacked planets" of the "Saturn Polar Configuration" , (SPC) hypothesis. I read all the forum commentary for SPC. Now I understand much better what the current(?) thinking is of the Thunderbolt Project staff. I do have many problems with this concept. I have my own concept of solar formation which may improve the Thunderbolts Project image with the scientists of the "Standard Model". It has no resemblance to the SPC.

I will list some of my very basic problems briefly:
1. No mechanism is described about how a higher concentration of heavier metals of the galaxy are gathered to form rocky planets and the iron cores of other larger planets.
2. No mechanism is described about how Saturn or other stars are formed in the first place.
3. No mechanism is described about how satellite systems form within the parent's rotational spin plane.
4. No observational or laboratory experimental evidence is available that proto-planets or proto-stars form from HH objects.
5. The capture of the Sun's system and the proposed Saturn system is virtually impossible. Please think about two small specs of dust separated by a city block and blowing wildly in the wind; will these specs ever meet to form any kind of attraction even though they are part of the same galactic system ?
6. And finally, the most incredulous idea is how the planets of two separate stars neatly arrange their planets and planets' satellites into approximate co-spinning, co-orbital alignments around the most massive star. And, to make this story even more incredulous is to assume that the planets are initially stacked in polar alignment for both stars. Wowser!

As I have already mentioned, I am still impressed with the Thunderbolt Project and most of its other generated concepts since 2005. This "Saturn Polar Configuration" idea of the 1980's should either be replaced or at least be still considered along with other more plausible models (not the Standard Model) of the formation and arrangement of celestial bodies. As I mentioned, I have a model that utilizes both gravitational and electromagnetic phenomena; and, more importantly addresses the "Symbols of an Alien Sky".

All the best,
Doug Ettinger
Always a student of
Astrophysics, planetary science, and cosmology
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 3 guests