Jump to content
Science Forums

Time Is Not A Physical Entity


Recommended Posts

Scientific skepticism and critical thinking is a difficult to learn, witnessed by how lucrative so many credulous and pseudoscientific books, movies, and TV shows are. As someone acquainted with psychology and social science, your GF should recognize our judgement of truth is a very social process, in which judge accept people who appear to be authorities to be truthful, and in which appearance in books, movies, and TV give a strong appearance of authority. As with learning anything, learning critical thinking requires first having the desire to learn it, which requires some degree of accepting that it is useful and true. There’s a circular catch 22 here: before learning to distinguish science from pseudoscience, you must accept that such a distinction can be made, and that there are learnable techniques to do so. If you accept that, you pretty much already have the techniques.

 

One way to lead a person to be sympathetic toward, and eventually, accepting of skepticism and critical thinking, is to have them be sympathetic toward well know skeptics. Try the 2014 documentary An Honest Liar, about James Randy, the founder of the JREF, the organization famous for administering a challenge with a prize of $1,000,000 for the scientific demonstration of any paranormal ability. It shows a vulnerable, human side to Randy that was rarely visible in his decades as a famous debunker of scam and pseudoscience.

Very well said.

 

I will copy the challenge.

 

$1,000,000 for the scientific demonstration that time exists physically.

 

Having in consideration that if time is not a physical entity, then time can't dilate at all.

 

I have found that time is just a measure, a concept, not so part of the structure of the universe.

 

In order to accept theories implying flowing time, dilatation of time, possible reversal of time, and more, by applying the scientific method, it calls for the demonstration of evidence of an existing time before recognizing the multiple results obtained by the subjective presence of time.

 

This is not disrespecting anyone, but is the following the rules of science.

 

Same as well that we ask or the evidence of paranormal activity, we also as for the evidence of an existing time.

 

Evidence means the detection of time by our senses or instruments. To show the "effects or consequences" of phenomena caused by "time" is not evidence, because such is what paranormal defenders use, the effects or consequences. Same with religion which claims "miracles" as evidence that a god exists.

 

Evidence must be direct, observable, testable. like when we prove the existence or air or winds. We use an instrument, we use our senses, and we can observe it, perceive it, make tests with it.

 

If no evidence can be provided showing the existence of time, then the question arises. how this theory of relativity passed from pseudoscience to science without fulfilling the requirements stipulated by the scientific method?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think I can sort of see what may be the problem. Time is like length or distance. It is a dimension by which we measure physical things: an axis of a coordinate system for relating objects and event

So you're sure you're not sure, or are you not sure you're sure?    Can you elaborate on that, :phones: Buffy

Maybe you should read what Newton said about the difference between true time, and time as we measure it (relative, or apparent time, he called it).   If you're saying something like "time becomes obs

I have found that time is just a measure, a concept, not so part of the structure of the universe.

Um. Okay.

 

Are you in the same spot you were an hour ago? A year ago?

 

That you can be in different places at different times is what some would argue is part of the "structure of the universe."

 

 

This is not disrespecting anyone, but is the following the rules of science.

The rules of science say if you're going to disregard all previous evidence contradicting your theory, that you kinda have to explain why its okay to disregard it.

 

That doesn't mean you can't have a theory that disregards previous evidence, just that you have to *explain* it.

 

"I have found" doesn't quite cut it.

 

 

 

Evidence means the detection of time by our senses or instruments.

Most folks use a clock. Most clocks work on that "displacement in time" concept, whether its a pendulum, a wheel with a spring, or measuring the electromagnetic (you like that one, right?) oscillations of a cesium atom.

 

So it would seem we've satisfied that requirement right there.

 

To show the "effects or consequences" of phenomena caused by "time" is not evidence, because such is what paranormal defenders use, the effects or consequences. Same with religion which claims "miracles" as evidence that a god exists.

If you're going to eliminate "effects or consequences," then you're also eliminating "detection...by our senses or instruments" which only measure "effects or consequences"...so whadda ya gonna do?

 

The problem with paranormal and religious hypotheses is not in the measurement of effects, but rather being unable to show any causation to the correlation of effects. You don't really have that problem with time because the causation is directly observable....unless you invoke paranormal explanations!

 

Evidence must be direct, observable, testable. like when we prove the existence or air or winds. We use an instrument, we use our senses, and we can observe it, perceive it, make tests with it.

I got a pendulum you can borrow! I can take you down to the university and show you the electron microscope that'll let you watch the atoms oscillate! :cheer:

 

If no evidence can be provided showing the existence of time, then the question arises. how this theory of relativity passed from pseudoscience to science without fulfilling the requirements stipulated by the scientific method?

Of course the human factor in science comes down to the brains of individuals who refuse to accept evidence. Evidence is objective. Human perceptions of it are not.

 

And that's the only reason there are any real arguments in science! :cheer:

 

 

Science is more a set of guidelines than actual rules. Welcome to Hypography Miss Turner!

 

 

Time is the thing that keeps everything from happening at once, :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Um. Okay.

 

Are you in the same spot you were an hour ago? A year ago?

 

That you can be in different places at different times is what some would argue is part of the "structure of the universe."

 

 

 

The rules of science say if you're going to disregard all previous evidence contradicting your theory, that you kinda have to explain why its okay to disregard it.

 

That doesn't mean you can't have a theory that disregards previous evidence, just that you have to *explain* it.

 

"I have found" doesn't quite cut it.

 

 

 

 

Most folks use a clock. Most clocks work on that "displacement in time" concept, whether its a pendulum, a wheel with a spring, or measuring the electromagnetic (you like that one, right?) oscillations of a cesium atom.

 

So it would seem we've satisfied that requirement right there.

 

 

If you're going to eliminate "effects or consequences," then you're also eliminating "detection...by our senses or instruments" which only measure "effects or consequences"...so whadda ya gonna do?

 

The problem with paranormal and religious hypotheses is not in the measurement of effects, but rather being unable to show any causation to the correlation of effects. You don't really have that problem with time because the causation is directly observable....unless you invoke paranormal explanations!

 

 

I got a pendulum you can borrow! I can take you down to the university and show you the electron microscope that'll let you watch the atoms oscillate! :cheer:

 

 

Of course the human factor in science comes down to the brains of individuals who refuse to accept evidence. Evidence is objective. Human perceptions of it are not.

 

And that's the only reason there are any real arguments in science! :cheer:

 

 

Science is more a set of guidelines than actual rules. Welcome to Hypography Miss Turner!

 

 

Time is the thing that keeps everything from happening at once, :phones:

Buffy

I "have found" is explained the following way:

 

Time is the comparison of motion of physical means.

 

You use the regular motion of a physical mean and you compare it with the motion of other physical means.

 

Example: the rotation of earth.

 

The rotation of earth is a regular motion. You compare this motion with your traveling from New York to South Carolina. With stops for eating, bathroom needs, relaxing the body, you left New Your at noon on Friday and arrived to South Carolina at noon on Saturday. This is to say, a complete period of an earth's rotation.

 

This is time, nothing but this measure we have invented for organizing our daily duties.

 

________________________________________________________________

 

We invented the clock to organize better our duties as well. A clock is nothing but a device calibrated to make tic tic tic. Clocks do not measure the flowing of time, but only make tic tic tic. The atomic clock is a device with a receiver which counts the frequent vibrations of the atom of Cesium. When it counts 9,192,631,779 vibrations, the receiver makes a tic.

 

The principle is the same, the model to use for comparison is a regular motion which is the vibration frequency of that atom. With this motion as model, we compare the motion of other micro particles.

 

Nothing indicates a flowing time.

 

_____________________________________________________________

 

You said,

 

 

The problem with paranormal and religious hypotheses is not in the measurement of effects,but rather being unable to show any causation to the correlation of effects

I disagree.

 

The idea of flowing time doesn't show any causation to the correlation of effects. Flowing time is imaginary as any paranormal hypothesis.

 

When you send an atomic clock to outer space and the data given by that clock differs from the data given by similar clocks on ground zero, the reason is because the clock itself has been affected by a different gravity plus by acceleration.

 

While the accepted theory states that time suffered of dilatation, the physical event is that clocks suffer of malfunction when are exposed to an environment other than the one where they were calibrated.

 

It is a solid fact, that everything going to outer space from earth suffer of alteration in their atomic level. Astronauts suffer of several health conditions because the difference in gravity. Liquid metals which can't be mixed on earth ground zero can be mixed in outer space.

 

The main error of relativity is to claim that with the difference in speed and gravity the body doesn't suffer any alteration but time is the affected one, physical reality says and demonstrates totally the contrary.

___________________________________________________________

 

If you were right, and time indeed exists in the physical universe, then you won't have any problem showing the evidence.

 

Same as well, if you follow a theory, a theory of science is not a theory when lacks of explaining the mechanism acting in the observed/tested phenomena.

 

A theory is not writing equations and formulas and waiting for phenomena to coincide with the calculations, because Ptolomey calculations were the best demonstrating that the Sun orbits around earth.

 

The explanation of the mechanism is what is required by the scientific method. Relativity claims dilatation of time but won't explain the process of how it happens.

 

This leads to the conclusion that surrounding this theory there is a lot of mathematical manipulation but none objective evidence.

 

Until time is not detected, then time is not a physical mean, and the consequence is that this theory of relativity is not science but perhaps is philosophy.

 

My regards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I "have found" is explained the following way:

 

Time is the comparison of motion of physical means.

 

You use the regular motion of a physical mean and you compare it with the motion of other physical means.

 

Example: the rotation of earth.

 

The rotation of earth is a regular motion. You compare this motion with your traveling from New York to South Carolina. With stops for eating, bathroom needs, relaxing the body, you left New Your at noon on Friday and arrived to South Carolina at noon on Saturday. This is to say, a complete period of an earth's rotation.

 

This is time, nothing but this measure we have invented for organizing our daily duties.

Dude, dude, dude, you're making this WAY too complicated!

 

Don't worry about the Earth spinning or distances of hundreds of miles! You'll just confuse yourself!

 

No, no, no, just keep it to what you can see in front of you. It'll make it easier! Honest! :cheer:

 

Now, find a grandfather clock or other similar pendulum clock. You'll see a pendulum in it. The pendulum moves: first it's on the left, then it's on the right and then it's on the left again. 

 

It's in different places at different times. It's not in both places at the same time. so just as you can take a ruler and measure the distance between where it is when it's on the left and where it is when it's on the right, you can "measure" the distance in time from *when* its on the left to *when* it's on the right.

 

The first measurement is in "centimeters" and the other is in "seconds."

 

There's literally no difference in the "physicality" of the first measure and the second measure. They're both real physical things you're measuring.

 

Now it's true that some people are uncomfortable that you can't move in any direction in time like you can in the other three dimensions, but that's just a measure of difficulty. Heck there was a time when it was nearly impossible to move "up" because we hadn't invented airplanes yet, but that doesn't mean that up and down don't exist as physical entities!

 

 

We invented the clock to organize better our duties as well. A clock is nothing but a device calibrated to make tic tic tic. Clocks do not measure the flowing of time, but only make tic tic tic. The atomic clock is a device with a receiver which counts the frequent vibrations of the atom of Cesium. When it counts 9,192,631,779 vibrations, the receiver makes a tic.

 

The principle is the same, the model to use for comparison is a regular motion which is the vibration frequency of that atom. With this motion as model, we compare the motion of other micro particles.

 

Nothing indicates a flowing time.

Yep, time *is* useful! :cheer:

 

And yes, we've come up with ways to measure it! :cheer:

 

But those tic, tic, tics are just like the "ticks" on a ruler we use to measure distance! :cheer:

 

As I say, it's important to think about this in terms of what you can see right in front of your nose: if you see things move, you're "seeing the flow of time!" :cheer:

 

You said,

 

 

The problem with paranormal and religious hypotheses is not in the measurement of effects,but rather being unable to show any causation to the correlation of effects.

 

 

I disagree.

Cool, cool, cool. In science it's okay to disagree!

 

 

 

The idea of flowing time doesn't show any causation to the correlation of effects.

And this is why you keep to the simple, what you can see in front of you.

 

Since you don't like Einstein, to prove this we can just use Newton.

 

A pendulum moves because of gravity. It's "downward" movement on each swing is "caused" by gravity, and as you're probably familiar with Newton's laws of gravitation, that movement is measured in distance as a function of time!

 

So when you see it move, you're seeing Newton's gravity equations in real time!

 

Now I know you understand this because you show some familiarity with it:

 

When you send an atomic clock to outer space and the data given by that clock differs from the data given by similar clocks on ground zero, the reason is because the clock itself has been affected by a different gravity plus by acceleration.

But then you go off the rails a little bit:

 

While the accepted theory states that time suffered of dilatation, the physical event is that clocks suffer of malfunction when are exposed to an environment other than the one where they were calibrated.

Now science asks you to explain this, and so you try:

 

It is a solid fact, that everything going to outer space from earth suffer of alteration in their atomic level. Astronauts suffer of several health conditions because the difference in gravity. Liquid metals which can't be mixed on earth ground zero can be mixed in outer space.

And who knows? That might even be true that they go all wonky cuz they're in space.

 

But unfortunately, the experiments that do this often are just put the clock on an airplane and fly it around, because it turns out even subsonic speeds are enough to show dilation on highly accurate atomic clocks.

 

Further, when you do go into orbit and are traveling at a healthy 16,000 miles per hour, that dilation is in exact proportion to the speed differential versus flying in a plane!

 

Now I can see with cosmic rays and what not, or lack of oxygen or whatever excuse you might come up with that would case a "malfunction" in space or even a plane, but if all the numbers align no matter how fast you're going, Einsteinian dilation is pretty much verified as a good model for the physical effect you're seeing.

 

Moreover, if it is a "malfunction" why does it magically disappear when you get back to Los Angeles? Can you explain the cause of the "malfunction?"

 

 

 

If you were right, and time indeed exists in the physical universe, then you won't have any problem showing the evidence.

Which we do all the "time!"

 

Same as well, if you follow a theory, a theory of science is not a theory when lacks of explaining the mechanism acting in the observed/tested phenomena.

That's true! That's what makes dilation so cool! It's a theory, and the experiments exactly match what's measured! :cheer:

 

 

A theory is not writing equations and formulas and waiting for phenomena to coincide with the calculations, because Ptolomey calculations were the best demonstrating that the Sun orbits around earth.

Pretty much all theories are based on equations and formulas. And you have to experiment to get measurements and compare them to your theory.

 

Note that we figured out Ptolemy was wrong *way* before we could go out in space and actually had tools to measure much about where things were in the solar system, and the reason we figured it out is that Ptolemy's theory DID NOT match what people observed! That got folks like Copernicus and Kepler thinking about alternative theories, and by the time of Kepler, we had pretty much all of the planets worked out to very fine degrees of accuracy, with the exception of that weird anomaly of Mercury that literally turned out to be because of relativistic effects due to it's proximity to the Sun!

 

The explanation of the mechanism is what is required by the scientific method. Relativity claims dilatation of time but won't explain the process of how it happens.

Oh sure it does! It's literally saying "time is a dimension just like the other 3 we're familiar with, and just like those dimensions, you can bend it!"

 

That's all there is to understand! :cheer:

 

So, no,

 

This leads to the conclusion that surrounding this theory there is a lot of mathematical manipulation but none objective evidence.

We've got lots of evidence! You just need to look! It's literally right in front of you!

 

 

Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away, :phones:

Buffy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can sort of see what may be the problem. Time is like length or distance. It is a dimension by which we measure physical things: an axis of a coordinate system for relating objects and events in the physical world, but in itself abstract.

 

Distance or length only becomes tangible when spoken of in relation to physical manifestations  - objects, fields etc. The same goes for time. 

 

Is that fair?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I can sort of see what may be the problem. Time is like length or distance. It is a dimension by which we measure physical things: an axis of a coordinate system for relating objects and events in the physical world, but in itself abstract.

 

Distance or length only becomes tangible when spoken of in relation to physical manifestations  - objects, fields etc. The same goes for time. 

 

Is that fair?

So you think time is like a length or distance which i agree on but i was curious on how you would say it in a scientific way 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well said.

 

I will copy the challenge.

 

$1,000,000 for the scientific demonstration that time exists physically.

 

Having in consideration that if time is not a physical entity, then time can't dilate at all.

 

I have found that time is just a measure, a concept, not so part of the structure of the universe.

 

In order to accept theories implying flowing time, dilatation of time, possible reversal of time, and more, by applying the scientific method, it calls for the demonstration of evidence of an existing time before recognizing the multiple results obtained by the subjective presence of time.

 

This is not disrespecting anyone, but is the following the rules of science.

 

Same as well that we ask or the evidence of paranormal activity, we also as for the evidence of an existing time.

 

Evidence means the detection of time by our senses or instruments. To show the "effects or consequences" of phenomena caused by "time" is not evidence, because such is what paranormal defenders use, the effects or consequences. Same with religion which claims "miracles" as evidence that a god exists.

 

Evidence must be direct, observable, testable. like when we prove the existence or air or winds. We use an instrument, we use our senses, and we can observe it, perceive it, make tests with it.

 

If no evidence can be provided showing the existence of time, then the question arises. how this theory of relativity passed from pseudoscience to science without fulfilling the requirements stipulated by the scientific method?

 

Wait, this was changed from yesterday, Prove that time is a physical substance, yesterday it was something about supernatural and I deleted my post. I was going to reply to this yesterday, all I am going to say is look up Quantum foam as that is the destabilization of uncertainty in space, uncertainty can be shown as a Energy-Time in Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, measure individual Planck Lengths and look to see if Quantum Foam is actually there. If it is there the Quantum foam then time is physical, if not then it is not physical in space.

 

Heisenberg-Uncertainty-Principle.jpg

 

I01-16-quantumfoam.jpg

 

Observe this and force Learning Science to give you 1,000,000$, as h = EΔt

 

and not  TpC = L and Tp = (Lp/C)

 

 

You may not get your money it may not be there as of reports like this https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html

 

Which would even make me wrong if Quantum foam is actually there you will get a second achievement.

 

FJd8N3D.png

 

buoyantbtch-your-tears-are-delicious.png

 

Time is there but it is not a physical entity before generating space (Planck Lengths) and time dilation is there but that still does not make time physical as it is gravity's curvature on space that does Length Contraction and Time Dilation. 

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/

 

So, I will hold your 1,000,000$ you owe me Learning Science until a person proves me wrong or right.

 

 

If Quantum Foam is there Time is truly physical before binding into space, which means time itself is physical above that level as Individual Planck Lengths does not matter as proof, it must be physically manifested smaller than that to prove me wrong and that Time is physical before forming space.

Edited by Vmedvil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, this was changed from yesterday, Prove that time is a physical substance, yesterday it was something about supernatural and I deleted my post. I was going to reply to this yesterday, all I am going to say is look up Quantum foam as that is the destabilization of uncertainty in space, uncertainty can be shown as a Energy-Time in Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, measure individual Planck Lengths and look to see if Quantum Foam is actually there. If it is there the Quantum foam then time is physical, if not then it is not physical in space.

 

Heisenberg-Uncertainty-Principle.jpg

 

I01-16-quantumfoam.jpg

 

Observe this and force Learning Science to give you 1,000,000$, as h = EΔt

 

and not  TpC = L and Tp = (Lp/C)

 

 

You may not get your money it may not be there as of reports like this https://phys.org/news/2015-03-einstein-scientists-spacetime-foam.html

 

Which would even make me wrong if Quantum foam is actually there you will get a second achievement.

 

ArGhg3O.png

 

buoyantbtch-your-tears-are-delicious.png

 

Time is there but it is not a physical entity before generating space (Planck Lengths) and time dilation is there but that still does not make time physical as it is gravity's curvature on space that does Length Contraction and Time Dilation. 

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/

 

So, I will hold your 1,000,000$ you owe me Learning Science until a person proves me wrong or right.

 

 

If Quantum Foam is there Time is truly physical before binding into space, which means time itself is physical above that level as Individual Planck Lengths does not matter as proof, it must be physically manifested smaller than that to prove me wrong and that Time is physical before forming space.

Time is still physical inside fractions of a planck length. The uncertainty principle is that we don't know exactly what spectrum an electron is going to land on based on probability statistics (QM). QM assumes nothing physical is going on beneath the planck length because we can't observe it any smaller events are going on with particles smaller than a photon which is what we use to see things with. That doesn't mean nothing is going on beneath the planck length. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Non-locality does not describe the physical processes underlying QM. 

 

Theoretical physicist Wesley C. Salmon was against non-locality, argued for local realism in this paper:

 

https://kupdf.com/download/scientific-explanation-and-the-causal-structure-of-the-world-wesley-c-salmoncut_58c9fb11ee34352a776a2aa3_pdf

 

------

 

Experimental evidence[8] based on Bell’s inequality implies that the local realism favoured by Einstein yields predictions that disagree with those of quantum mechanical theory, thus ruling out hidden variable theories. That is, no physical theory of local hidden variables can reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. Bell concluded that we must either accept nonlocality or abandon local realism. In a many-world interpretation, however, the observed correlations do not demand the introduction of nonlocality, since measurements are then allowed to have non-unique outcomes. Thus Bell’s conclusion is maybe not absolutely conclusive, and both Bell’s assumptions and his conclusion are indeed subject of ongoing discussions[9] Abstract. The phenomenologically observed flatness - or near flatness - of spacetime cannot be understood as emerging from continuum Planck (or sub-Planck) scales using known physics. Using dimensional arguments it is demonstrated that any immaginable action will lead to Christoffel symbols that are chaotic. We put forward new physics in the form of fundamental fields that spontaneously break translational invariance. Using these new fields as coordinates we define the metric in such a way that the Riemann tensor vanishes identically as a Bianchi identity. Hence the new fundamental fields define a flat space. General relativity with curvature is recovered as an effective theory at larger scales at which crystal defects in the form of disclinations come into play as the sources of curvature.

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, this was changed from yesterday, Prove that time is a physical substance, yesterday it was something about supernatural and I deleted my post. I was going to reply to this yesterday, all I am going to say is look up Quantum foam as that is the destabilization of uncertainty in space, uncertainty can be shown as a Energy-Time in Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, measure individual Planck Lengths and look to see if Quantum Foam is actually there. If it is there the Quantum foam then time is physical, if not then it is not physical in space.

 

 

 

The hole is quantum-mechanically unstable: It has no bound states. Wormhole wave functions must eventually leak to large radii. This suggests that stability considerations along these lines may place strong constraints on the nature and even the existence of spacetime foam

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, this was changed from yesterday, Prove that time is a physical substance, yesterday it was something about supernatural and I deleted my post. I was going to reply to this yesterday, all I am going to say is look up Quantum foam as that is the destabilization of uncertainty in space, uncertainty can be shown as a Energy-Time in Heisenberg's uncertainty principal, measure individual Planck Lengths and look to see if Quantum Foam is actually there. If it is there the Quantum foam then time is physical, if not then it is not physical in space.

 

 

In invariant set theory, the form of the Bell Inequality whose violation would be inconsistent with realism and local causality is undefined, and the form of the inequality that it violated experimentally is not even gp-approximately close to the form needed to rule out local realism (54) [21]. A key element in demonstrating this result derives from the fact that experimenters cannot in principle shield their apparatuses from the uncontrollable ubiquitous gravitational waves that fill space-time.

 

----

 

A finite non-classical framework for physical theory is described which challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework postulates the universe as a deterministic locally causal system evolving on a measure-zero fractal-like geometry IU in cosmological state space. Consistent with the assumed primacy of IU , and p-adic number theory, a non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric gp is defined on cosmological state space, where p is a large but finite Pythagorean prime. Using numbertheoretic properties of spherical triangles, the inequalities violated experimentally are shown to be gp-distant from the CHSH inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism. This result fails in the singular limit p = ∞, at which gp is Euclidean. Broader implications are discussed.

Edited by Super Polymath
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...