Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46

Thread: Time, Matter, and Gravity

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,166
    Welcome to BABB Morris.

    I'll be honest GR/SR equasions are beyound my math abilities.

    I'm a Software Analyst and what math I once had learned has gone largely unused...

    That being said I do however have a tallent of look at huge mind boggeling things, and finding the point of failure (or the bug) in them.

    The only issue I can find with your work is that Gravity is treated as Wave Equasion, which we really don't know if it's a wave mechanic yet.

    At this point of time there is some evidence that Gravity Waves exist, but It could also be that Gravity Waves are a funtion of fluctuations of Gravity, and not the true definition of Gravity itself.

    I'll agree though that Einstien's Curved Space/Time model doesn't explain everything, and in a few very rare cases doesn't fit at all. It's good to see someone working on a new model based on what is known now.

    I'm curious about a few things in your model.

    How does the Anomolus deceleation of the Pioneeer probes fit it with your work? I can't do the math but wonder if your work might actually account for that somehow.

    Can your model explain Gravity as a non wave with a instantatious effect instead of light speed limited, yet allow for Gravity Waves that flucuated at c? (Gravity Duality).

    How does Superliminal space/time fit in with your model? (where a portion of space time moves faster then c, but matter inside it has motions at sub light velocities relative to the space time)

  2. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dgavin wrote
    The only issue I can find with your work is that Gravity is treated as Wave Equasion, which we really don't know if it's a wave mechanic yet.
    I think there is some misunderstanding here. I don't treat gravity as a wave. What I do is describe how the wave characteristics of matter, such as a ball or planet, are influenced by the properties of space. I also discouse how a governing body alters the properties of space. I then simply calculate the natural path of the wave through space. We interprete this as gravity.

    Quote Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons wrote
    Just glancing at your webpage (I haven't opened the pdfs yet), I'm wondering why you wouldn't write equation (1) as z = e^phi' - 1, with phi' = ( MG/c^2 )( 1/r2 - 1/r1 ), or is that where it came from?
    I chose the format of this equation to be consitant with published litterature on the gravitational redshift of General Relativity. Again the equation I have derived is as follows:

    1 + z = 1 / ( SQRT ( e^phi ) )

    Where: phi = ( 2MG/c^2 )( 1/r1 - 1/r2 )

    M = Matter of the governing body
    G = Newton’s gravitational constant
    r1 = Radius from governing body for observation
    r2 = Radius from governing body for light emission
    c = The standard speed of light = 299 792 458.0 m/s
    e = The base of the natural logarithm

    Where as the equation from GTR is:

    1 + z = 1 / ( SQRT ( 1 + phi ) )

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,541
    Hi Morris.
    A particle like electron behave like wave. We cant find an exactly position of the electron around the nucleus but it has still its rest mass and gravity. Does it means the electron is something like oscillating wave around the nucleus ? Does have any sense the diameter of the electron ?

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw
    A particle like electron behave like wave. We cant find an exactly position of the electron around the nucleus but it has still its rest mass and gravity. Does it means the electron is something like oscillating wave around the nucleus ? Does have any sense the diameter of the electron ?
    Electromagnetic and gravitational fields provide evidence that matter occupies space. However, sometimes we think of certain objects such as electrons as a point particles when we are discussing their center of mass. The success of wave mechanics indicates that the best way to describe an electron is in terms of its wave characteristics. Therefore, I would tend to describe it in terms of its wavelength instead of diameter. You may be interested in section 6 of my book Time, Matter, and Gravity where I show how it is possible to describe the mass and diameter of a particle such as a proton in terms of a group of standing waves.



    Quote Originally Posted by dgavin
    How does the Anomolus deceleation of the Pioneeer probes fit it with your work? I can't do the math but wonder if your work might actually account for that somehow.
    I have tried to work on this. However, the anomaly is very small and I have not found a source that shows me how it is calculated. I almost need to have the raw data for this calculation. We need to know exactly how it is calculated in order to make a correct comparison. Specifically: What is the measured frequency shift? What is the expected frequency shift and how is this calculated?

    Overall, from what I have read, I do not think we can arrive at a reliable conclusion with the data we have.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,541
    Hi Morris
    I have read you book very quickly and I see it is very good. I agree with almost all postulates.

    A diameter of a proton is possible to measure because the proton is a system of the standing waves. For an electron it is impossible and we say about its wave length.

    I have another question:
    If the particle are like waves, then what is the medium for them. Every wave have to oscillate, deform its medium to propagate. There is not surely an ether from XIX century, but what? There have to be joint with a gravity field, I think.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,039
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw
    I have another question:
    If the particle are like waves, then what is the medium for them. Every wave have to oscillate, deform its medium to propagate. There is not surely an ether from XIX century, but what? There have to be joint with a gravity field, I think.
    You're thinking of longitudinal waves, which need a medium to propagate. Transverse waves (which light just so happens to be) do not need a medium to propagate. That's what's cool about them.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw
    I have read you book very quickly and I see it is very good. I agree with almost all postulates
    Thanks!


    Quote Originally Posted by czeslaw
    I have another question:
    If the particle are like waves, then what is the medium for them. Every wave have to oscillate, deform its medium to propagate. There is not surely an ether from XIX century, but what? There have to be joint with a gravity field, I think.
    I think of particles as a disturbance in the matter of space. There is a long history of this type of thinking in the form of “Vortex theory”. A quick search on the internet will turn up a lot of information. It appears to me that this theory went by the wayside when relativity came along. However, this was not required. I demonstrate in Section 6 of my book that if particles are formed out of waves then you get the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transformations. In other words you can still have a medium associated with space and not to be able to detect it with the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is because the experimental apparatus itself behaves as a wave just like the light it is measuring.

    If you think about it even the General Relativity requires a medium to space. It is often referred to as "Space-Time" or the "Fabric of Space"

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    555
    Morris, I also read through parts of your book, and very impressive, raising de Broglie and Planck works to a new level, with lightspeed c as the basic unit of time (if I understand it correctly, though my unsophisticated math leaves me lost at times). If I may heap praise, I think you are standing on some great shoulders of physics, and added to that. Really cool.

    I have a theoretical question, or two:

    1) In your examples of orbital precession, I note Mercury's is highest, and then precess gets progressively lower for more distant planets. Have you found any correlation to these precessions with the Sun's equatorial spin (it spins differently for different levels, so equator may be best gauge) where the Sun's moment of inertia is transferred (per the inverse square law) to the planetary orbits? I am assuming that all the planets in their orbital planes and the Sun's rotation all move in the same direction. Does this idea, of inertial transfer from Sun to planets, match with your wave propagation computations for orbital mechanics? In other words, can the Sun's spin account for planetary precession, acting at a distance?

    2) The second question is more to do with hypothesis: If particle wavelength decreases moving through a gravitational field, then can the same be assumed for light photons? If yes, then is this not a natural redshift of light passing through great cosmic distances? However, this leaves the possibility, hypothetically supported by MOND, that gravity is much greater once beyond the galaxy, which would translate into all mass in deep space, such as gas clouds, having a greater gravity field proportional to what it is here in our solar system. (I had posted elsewhere on BADD how gravity may be an inverse proportional to energy, using the de Broglie-Planck-Einstein equations, but it had been universally 'condemned' as unworkable, and wrong, so not pursuing it further for now.) So the question I have is:

    Does your hypothesis of decreased wavelength in a gravitational field allow for the possibility of greater gravity in intergalactic space, something like MOND, to account for natural light redshift over cosmic distances?

    If it does, then we can dispense with the ad hoc 'dark matter' postulate? Regrettably, would it not also have to put into question the idea of Newton's G being a 'universal constant', as now believed.

    Your thoughts, if you can see where my questions are going? Many thanks.

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    I think you are standing on some great shoulders of physics
    I agree! It is amazing how much we are all dependent on those who have come before us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    1) In your examples of orbital precession, I note Mercury's is highest, and then precess gets progressively lower for more distant planets. Have you found any correlation to these precessions with the Sun's equatorial spin (it spins differently for different levels, so equator may be best gauge) where the Sun's moment of inertia is transferred (per the inverse square law) to the planetary orbits? I am assuming that all the planets in their orbital planes and the Sun's rotation all move in the same direction. Does this idea, of inertial transfer from Sun to planets, match with your wave propagation computations for orbital mechanics? In other words, can the Sun's spin account for planetary precession, acting at a distance?

    I don’t really think so. I can accurately predict the precession of the orbits of all the planets in our solar system without including this influence of the Suns rotation. However, I think the Suns rotation probably does have a minor influence similar to the concept of “Frame dragging” as outlined in the general theory of relativity. This influence deserves further investigation in light of the definitions and postulates presented in my book.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    2) The second question is more to do with hypothesis: If particle wavelength decreases moving through a gravitational field, then can the same be assumed for light photons? If yes, then is this not a natural redshift of light passing through great cosmic distances? However, this leaves the possibility, hypothetically supported by MOND, that gravity is much greater once beyond the galaxy, which would translate into all mass in deep space, such as gas clouds, having a greater gravity field proportional to what it is here in our solar system. (I had posted elsewhere on BADD how gravity may be an inverse proportional to energy, using the de Broglie-Planck-Einstein equations, but it had been universally 'condemned' as unworkable, and wrong, so not pursuing it further for now.) So the question I have is:

    Does your hypothesis of decreased wavelength in a gravitational field allow for the possibility of greater gravity in intergalactic space, something like MOND, to account for natural light redshift over cosmic distances?

    If it does, then we can dispense with the ad hoc 'dark matter' postulate? Regrettably, would it not also have to put into question the idea of Newton's G being a 'universal constant', as now believed.

    In my view the wavelength of interaction depends on the properties of the particle or photon and the properties of space as given in equation 6-15 on page 56 of my book. However, the wave length of a particle or photon can also be altered by doing work on or extracting energy from the wave. For example: If we have a photon moving through space in which there is some hydrogen gas. Then every time the photon passes one of these atoms it will be deflected slightly by the gravitational field of the atom. While this interaction will be extremely week, it will nevertheless transfer a small amount of momentum from the photon to the hydrogen atom. This transfer of momentum will produce a corresponding reduction in the energy of the photon which will also increase its wavelength. In other words you would expect the wave length of light to increase as it passes through space that is filled with gas, dust, or anything else.

    Also from Section 10.5 of my book Time, Matter, and Gravity:

    If we know the gradient of the speed of light, we can predict the path of motion. We have derived this for a single governing body system based on the properties of matter in our solar system. In the regions between galaxies the type of matter and the properties thereof may be different. Therefore, equation (7-12) may not be valid in the space between galaxies. However, equation (7-9) should still give the correct results.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by Morris
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    2) The second question is more to do with hypothesis: If particle wavelength decreases moving through a gravitational field, then can the same be assumed for light photons? If yes, then is this not a natural redshift of light passing through great cosmic distances? However, this leaves the possibility, hypothetically supported by MOND, that gravity is much greater once beyond the galaxy, which would translate into all mass in deep space, such as gas clouds, having a greater gravity field proportional to what it is here in our solar system. (I had posted elsewhere on BADD how gravity may be an inverse proportional to energy, using the de Broglie-Planck-Einstein equations, but it had been universally 'condemned' as unworkable, and wrong, so not pursuing it further for now.) So the question I have is:

    Does your hypothesis of decreased wavelength in a gravitational field allow for the possibility of greater gravity in intergalactic space, something like MOND, to account for natural light redshift over cosmic distances?

    If it does, then we can dispense with the ad hoc 'dark matter' postulate? Regrettably, would it not also have to put into question the idea of Newton's G being a 'universal constant', as now believed.

    In my view the wavelength of interaction depends on the properties of the particle or photon and the properties of space as given in equation 6-15 on page 56 of my book. However, the wave length of a particle or photon can also be altered by doing work on or extracting energy from the wave. For example: If we have a photon moving through space in which there is some hydrogen gas. Then every time the photon passes one of these atoms it will be deflected slightly by the gravitational field of the atom. While this interaction will be extremely week, it will nevertheless transfer a small amount of momentum from the photon to the hydrogen atom. This transfer of momentum will produce a corresponding reduction in the energy of the photon which will also increase its wavelength. In other words you would expect the wave length of light to increase as it passes through space that is filled with gas, dust, or anything else.

    Also from Section 10.5 of my book Time, Matter, and Gravity:

    If we know the gradient of the speed of light, we can predict the path of motion. We have derived this for a single governing body system based on the properties of matter in our solar system. In the regions between galaxies the type of matter and the properties thereof may be different. Therefore, equation (7-12) may not be valid in the space between galaxies. However, equation (7-9) should still give the correct results.
    My thought was that if so-called 'dark matter' is about 9/10ths of mass in the universe, it might mean the gas, dust, various non-luminous bodies out in deep space, may exhibit higher mass 'density', hence higher G proportional to the actual mass out there. Thus, if the speed of light is bouncing around through these regions of non-baryonic matter in higher mass density regions of space, photons are slowed more than expected (i.e., redshifted at a 'faster' rate than if Newton's G were universally the same), so that we might be looking at cosmic light redshifted due to higher 'mass density' between galaxies (the 9/10th portion) than the normal universal G would account for. This is just a conceptual spec, so don't have more data on that for now, but it might handily explain what the postulated 'dark matter' might be. Thanks for your references and reply, will read up your truly neat stuff some more.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Paris, France
    Posts
    5,737
    Quote Originally Posted by lunatik
    My thought was that if so-called 'dark matter' is about 9/10ths of mass in the universe, it might mean the gas, dust, various non-luminous bodies out in deep space, may exhibit higher mass 'density', hence higher G proportional to the actual mass out there.
    I'm gonna disagree with you on this one. higher density just means more mass in a certain area (by definition). We take G to be a constant. the only factors effecting force are Mass and distance (so far) there may be higher order terms that we don't know of yet.


    oh, also dark matter supposedly only accounts for 3/10 of the known universe. most of the rest goes to "dark energy"
    My travel blog Currently about living in Europe with many older blog posts about riding a motorcycle across the US and Europe.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    555
    Test for spectral analysis from outer solar system as a test of gravity and lightspeed?

    I had this curious idea, which may not make a lot fo sense (since I'm a little jetlagged from my trip to Rome, just got back) but thought to run it by you.

    If v = fL (where L is light wavelength), and v = c, then f = v/L = c/L. Now, if c is greater in deep space than what we measure in Earth's 1 AU, then c' > c, so that if f'= c'/L' for v' = c', then it should follow that f' = f, which means there should be no change in cosmic light frequency. Only the wavelength changes, but the frequency remains the same, so spectral analysis is not affected. The difference is that for any given frequency, wavelength L' shifts to the red, i.e., redshift of cosmic light. This is due to the fact that if light travels a greater distance, per v' = d'/t, its wavelength is stretched out. I am also assuming that contrary to SR, t' = t always, though we cannot observe it this way from where we sit.

    The idea here is that deep space gravity, if greater out there than here, light should travel faster, cover greater distance, than here, but blueshift back to our known values once it enters the inner solar system where gravity is weaker. This is based on a speculative assumption that closer to a hot radiant star means lower gravity (per mass) than farther from star, where gravity (as expressed in the proportional of G) is greater.

    Therefore, if spectral analysis of distant cosmic light is taken from deep space, at multiple AUs from Earth's, that redshift should appear to be greater for the same spectral analysis of such light frequency as now found from Earth's ~1 AU observations. In fact, this redshift should be more deeply redshifted if measured from Cassini, at about 9.5 AU, for example, but relatively blueshifted back (to our known redshift values) when again observed from Earth's location. This test could be done from existing spacecraft already far out in the solar system, if the probes instruments can be directed to do this.

    So, if frequency of light does not change in deep space, but greater G' yields to increased light c' = v' > c, but greater velocity of light traveling greater distances for same time t in deep space G' should show up as greater redshift values for deep space (as measured in Newton's G proportional for mass), where gravity is orders of magnitudes greater than for inner solar system. This test for deep space redshift should provide a test for Einstein's variable time Special Relativity (in non-relativistic mathematical parameters) with in-situ measurements of cosmic light redshift, and also for the second postulate of v = c as a maximum velocity of light in space. Redshifted light should not be Doppler related, of necessity, but may be a factor of lightspeed in deep gravity space.

    This may be one way to design a 'double blind' test for gravity in deep space away from Earth's ~1AU, by testing for redshift spectral analysis out there. If it reads differently from what we know in our near Earth based measurements, it might be exciting. Another test would be to measure CMB from the outersolar system, which I suspect should show up as a higher reading than what we see from Earth, but have not thought about that one much, so only a guess. Maybe worth considering though, in the interest of science? Actually, now that I think of it, they're both a guess!

    Of course, another test for possible variable G is this asteroidal proposal.

    PS: I should note that the above is 'as if I were the photon' traveling, so in fact from a relativistic observational point of view, the opposite effect should be registered, where 'accelerated' light of deep space would be seen as 'blueshifted' while the slowed, decelerated light of inner solar system would show as 'redshifted', from our point of view. This may seem counterintuitive, but so is relativity in general. So scratch the observational expectations for a distant AU probe's reading of greater redshift, where it may in fact show up as 'bluer' than the redshifts seen from Earth. That's why it may be important to actually go out there to see how it looks, if light is not a universal constant.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    31
    Morris, if you're still out there. I found your paper very interesting but there wasn't much discussion about galactic rotations curves or dark matter. How do you account for those things?

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    If v = fL (where L is light wavelength), and v = c, then f = v/L = c/L. Now, if c is greater in deep space than what we measure in Earth's 1 AU, then c' > c, so that if f'= c'/L' for v' = c', then it should follow that f' = f, which means there should be no change in cosmic light frequency. Only the wavelength changes, but the frequency remains the same, so spectral analysis is not affected. The difference is that for any given frequency, wavelength L' shifts to the red, i.e., redshift of cosmic light. This is due to the fact that if light travels a greater distance, per v' = d'/t, its wavelength is stretched out. I am also assuming that contrary to SR, t' = t always, though we cannot observe it this way from where we sit.

    The idea here is that deep space gravity, if greater out there than here, light should travel faster, cover greater distance, than here, but blueshift back to our known values once it enters the inner solar system where gravity is weaker. This is based on a speculative assumption that closer to a hot radiant star means lower gravity (per mass) than farther from star, where gravity (as expressed in the proportional of G) is greater.

    Therefore, if spectral analysis of distant cosmic light is taken from deep space, at multiple AUs from Earth's, that redshift should appear to be greater for the same spectral analysis of such light frequency as now found from Earth's ~1 AU observations. In fact, this redshift should be more deeply redshifted if measured from Cassini, at about 9.5 AU, for example, but relatively blueshifted back (to our known redshift values) when again observed from Earth's location. This test could be done from existing spacecraft already far out in the solar system, if the probes instruments can be directed to do this.
    I agree that the frequency of light does not change as it passes through a static gravitational field. However, the frequency of matter (such as a clock) or a light source is a function of position in a gravitational field (see equation 5-30 from my book “Time, Matter, and Gravity”. This has been confirmed with data by what is referred to as the Pound and Rebka experiment in 1959.

    However, it is interesting to note that the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) may only provide a 1st order approximation of the gravitational redshift as I have outlined on my web page Time, Matter, and gravity

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    555
    Quote Originally Posted by Morris
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    If v = fL (where L is light wavelength), and v = c, then f = v/L = c/L. Now, if c is greater in deep space than what we measure in Earth's 1 AU, then c' > c, so that if f'= c'/L' for v' = c', then it should follow that f' = f, which means there should be no change in cosmic light frequency. Only the wavelength changes, but the frequency remains the same, so spectral analysis is not affected. The difference is that for any given frequency, wavelength L' shifts to the red, i.e., redshift of cosmic light. This is due to the fact that if light travels a greater distance, per v' = d'/t, its wavelength is stretched out. I am also assuming that contrary to SR, t' = t always, though we cannot observe it this way from where we sit.

    The idea here is that deep space gravity, if greater out there than here, light should travel faster, cover greater distance, than here, but blueshift back to our known values once it enters the inner solar system where gravity is weaker. This is based on a speculative assumption that closer to a hot radiant star means lower gravity (per mass) than farther from star, where gravity (as expressed in the proportional of G) is greater.

    Therefore, if spectral analysis of distant cosmic light is taken from deep space, at multiple AUs from Earth's, that redshift should appear to be greater for the same spectral analysis of such light frequency as now found from Earth's ~1 AU observations. In fact, this redshift should be more deeply redshifted if measured from Cassini, at about 9.5 AU, for example, but relatively blueshifted back (to our known redshift values) when again observed from Earth's location. This test could be done from existing spacecraft already far out in the solar system, if the probes instruments can be directed to do this.
    I agree that the frequency of light does not change as it passes through a static gravitational field. However, the frequency of matter (such as a clock) or a light source is a function of position in a gravitational field (see equation 5-30 from my book “Time, Matter, and Gravity”. This has been confirmed with data by what is referred to as the Pound and Rebka experiment in 1959.

    However, it is interesting to note that the General Theory of Relativity (GTR) may only provide a 1st order approximation of the gravitational redshift as I have outlined on my web page Time, Matter, and gravity
    See this NewScientist.com article, item 2. This relates to another article on MOND where a variable speed of light may resolve the so-called 'dark matter' issue, where deep space gravity is extra strong and not responsive to inverse square law as it is here.

    I don't think we will know, however, whether or not both light and gravity are variables, until we dedicate observations away from our known ~1 AU location to check for these anomalies. They may both appear relativistic, per GR and SR, but with adjustments for how they behave far out in deep space, which may be different from what we observe from here on Earth. Of course, the spin off from such a variable will be that both the cause of CMB and BB will be put in question, possibly even showing that the observed cosmic expansion may be merely an optical illusion of variable c traveling through varibale G.

  16. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Lunatik
    I don't think we will know, however, whether or not both light and gravity are variables, until we dedicate observations away from our known ~1 AU location to check for these anomalies. They may both appear relativistic, per GR and SR, but with adjustments for how they behave far out in deep space, which may be different from what we observe from here on Earth. Of course, the spin off from such a variable will be that both the cause of CMB and BB will be put in question, possibly even showing that the observed cosmic expansion may be merely an optical illusion of variable c traveling through varibale G.
    I agree.

    One of the benefits of my approach is that I have been able to separate the equation of motion from the influence of a governing body on space. It turns out that the motion of an object is a function of the speed of light and the gradient in the speed of light at its location in space. Therefore, we can use this equation (see equation 7-9 on page 71 of my book) to calculate the motion of an object in a space where properties may be different than here on earth. This gives us the ability to try all kinds of combinations. In my book, I use this ability to show that we must modify Newton's law of gravity in order to accurately calculate the precession of an orbit. You could use this same ability to investigate some of your ideas.

Similar Threads

  1. Dark matter or gravity
    By andro in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2010-Sep-11, 09:22 PM
  2. Another Gravity Question. Surface Gravity This Time.
    By BigDon in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-May-07, 01:21 AM
  3. Properties of matter with negative gravity?
    By robross in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2009-May-09, 05:49 PM
  4. Dark Matter from Quantum Gravity?
    By sanman in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2009-Apr-22, 03:11 PM
  5. Gravity/Dark Matter
    By Mild mannered in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2009-Feb-18, 09:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: