Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 3rd, 2017, 2:22 am 

Ralf, this happens to everyone that tries to develop their own theory or interpretation of relativity. They get lost between their own creations and the way scientists talk. It took physicists centuries to define the constants and common parameters in generally accepted language - and even today, there are some confusions due to sloppy writing, especially in popular books in terms of the words used.

I find that the math normally makes the meanings of terms clear, and if I don't recognize it, it quickly look up the accepted meaning of terms in physics. Now and then I do find a semantics discrepancy between formal papers and/or text books.

Standard gamma * v has the meaning of "my space interval divided by your time interval", not the other way around. Also, it is usual to use the unprimed x and t for the reference frame, where I am stationary in (my frame) and the primed x' and t' for the relatively moving frame (your frame). So in standard physics:



Please try to to stick to standard use, otherwise communication is virtually impossible.

PS: I realize that this is what you meant, but your wording made it unclear. That was the whole reason for my original comment on the "words that you have left out".
Last edited by BurtJordaan on March 3rd, 2017, 2:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: PS
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 3rd, 2017, 12:50 pm 

Yes the terminology is going to be a continual problem because the whole point for me is to make relativity understandable in common terminology. So I'm going to alienate 1 side or the other.

The fact Y can arise from my math is only because I slip Y into the formula when I solve it for w. I'm hoping I can come up with another type of Y that is based more on the doppler shift ratio and slip that into the formula and have the interpretation still make sense. I don't like Y because it goes to infinity whereas the doppler shift ratio is similar and does not tend to infinity. All I've presented so far is a form for the formula that will lead to the next part which I have no time to write day after day. Maybe Monday.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 5th, 2017, 6:34 am 

I just saw in the other thread they're saying w is rapidity. Is that what you meant that I should stop using w as my term for the speed of light through time? Is "u" available?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 5th, 2017, 8:20 am 

Yea, what you are talking about is the four-velocity, which is normally symbolized as u, but in a slightly different (curly) font, not normally available in the editors of forums like this one.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 5th, 2017, 9:23 am 

I'm not getting any less confused. You told me a while back the Yv was 4 velocity. So could you just throw me a letter I could use as my term for velocity through time (formerly known as w), please. (and nothing curly, just a plain English letter) q?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 5th, 2017, 3:36 pm 

Ralf, if I ever told you that Yv is a four-velocity, I have made a careless mistake. If you can point me to the place, I will go and correct it.

Note that "velocity through time" is a rather meaningless concept, because velocity is defined as "the rate of change of the position in (three-dimensional) space of the object, as seen by an observer, with respect to the observer's time. So it is space/time and not time/time.

I think your w is just the magnitude of the four-velocity, so maybe you should call it wm, which is essentially the speed of light. I'm not completely sure if this is what your w is...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 6th, 2017, 6:52 am 

This statement:

I'm not completely sure if this is what your w is...


Makes me think you're proof reading my post for math errors and not reading it for content or meaning. I'm also getting the impression that you don't accept c2=v2+w2 as a valid equation of relativity.

Ok, to clear up confusion, I'm not going to refer to velocity through time as w anymore but as c/Y. c/Y is what you get when solving for w in the above equation. Gamma is a constant and c is a velocity therefore the velocity through time is a constant velocity as a factor of c even though it can also be expressed as time/time. A person moving at .8c velocity through space relative to you is also going .6c velocity through time relative to you. His relative velocity through space goes up and his relative speed of time slows down. That's because everyone is always moving at the absolute value of c (according to c2=v2+w2 ) and their relative velocities (v and c/Y) are the space and time components of that absolute velocity c. This concept of splitting up the universal speed of everything of c into 2 relative components allows c to be c for all frames while allowing relative velocities through space to not be additive to c. This concept does not require the concept of length contraction to maintain the constancy of c for all frames as relativity requires.

So when you draw an STD and Bob is in the reference frame, both he and Alice are going at the absolute velocity c but Bob's relative velocity components are v=0c and c/Y =1c and Alice's relative velocity components are v = .8c and c/Y = .6c and vice versa when you draw Alice as the stationary frame. See c/Y (the velocity component through time) =1c for Bob, whose speed can be expressed as c or 1yr/yr.

I have an idea, what if I write my posts in blue and red font. The blue would be for standard relativity and the red would be for my non-standard relativity. Then you could read my posts using red tinted glasses so any non-standard relativity would be rendered invisible which it seems to be anyway. I know you're going to say there's no such thing as non-standard relativity but if I'm proposing new equations that fully comply with relativity and a new interpretation to add meaning to those equations then I am indeed engaging in non-standard relativity.

As for the Yv controversy, what you said was the only place you saw the term Yv in relativity was associated with 4-velocity or 4-vector. I went on wiki and indeed you were right but then I wrote a bunch of posts why my Yv was not related to your 4-vector Yv. (Yv also appears in relativistic momentum when proving E=mc2). I will find that exchange, which will take hours, when I have time.

P.S. Oops I found it right away:


Re: Ralfcis SR interpretation (Ralfitivity )

Postby BurtJordaan on June 12th, 2016, 12:11 pm
Ralfcis, although your math appears at first sight not to be in conflict with SR, your terminology is in conflict with SR and hence is bound to create severe confusion for readers who have learned a bit of SR. Examples:

The idea is gamma velocity (Yv) which is the total velocity vector through spacetime...


The term in relativity is the "four velocity" and in SR it equals the constant . Hence it is not a function of velocity.


P.P.S In case I really have to provide the proof that c/Y =W, here it is:

c2=v2+w2
w= sqrt(c2-v2)
Y=c/sqrt(c2-v2)
so substituting c2-v2 into the 2nd equation yeilds:
w=c/Y
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 6th, 2017, 1:20 pm 

Ok back to finishing my math presentation.

So we left off trying to understand what the velocity v2Y/c means.

In the old days when I was still trying to understand the primitive practice of using reciprocal time dilation to determine relative aging, I knew that when Bob was stationary, his time related to Alice's time by the formula:

t=Yt' t is the stationary frame's time and t' is Alice's moving frame time; standard time dilation formula.

At the same time, Alice was supposedly able to see Bob's time also dilated wrt her clock. This, of course, is a bunch of baloney because there are 4 clocks involved, not two. You cannot compare between two on-board clocks, you can only compare between an on-board clock and a sync'd network of clocks and you can't even do that in real time. So if Bob wants to "see" Alice's time, she has to pass closely to one of his relatively stationary sync'd network clocks out in space. Then Bob has to wait for that clock to transmit Alice's time back to him. That time is delayed and Bob has to calculate, based on Alice's relative velocity, what Alice's clock is most likely presently reading. This little secret took months to squeeze out and I really doubt any relativist will come out and definitively agree with this analysis even though it's correct.

Similarly Alice has the same problem reading Bob's clock; her network clock has to transmit Bob's time to her. Let's use the non-relativistic but infinitely less confusing notation for Bob's time as t". So the time dilation Alice sees is:

t'=Yt"

For example in the STD where Bob is deemed stationary, at .6c, Y=1.25 and Alice t'=1 yr, Bob's network clock will be at 1.25 yrs. Bob has to wait .75 years, when his personal pocket watch is at 2 yrs, to see that .75 yrs ago Alice had traveled 1 yr and his network clock said he was at 1.25 yrs. Of course, using reciprocal time dilation and changing Alice to being stationary yields the same results when her network clock is at 1.25.

But let's keep her clock at t'=1 and t=1.25, her network clock will see Bob's on-board clock at .8 yr. So when Alice's on-board clock and network clock are both t'=1, the data that will eventually get back to Alice at some future time is that Bob's network clock was t=1.25 but Bob's pocket watch was at .8. The discrepancy between these two times for Bob is called the sync offset ts which is calculated by the formula for relativity of simultaneity:

ts= vx/c2.

ts is a correction factor between the reciprocal time dilation between the participant's clocks and the delay of the speed of light over the separation between the clocks which would unbalance the reciprocity between the clocks.

Now stick in our mystery velocity of v2Y/c and we get:

v2Y/c = cts/t'.

We see our mystery velocity is the conversion factor between the sync offset and time dilation. This is the magic formula which would allow you to convert the time dilation into the difference of simultaneity between the two clocks based on the separation between them.

I'll continue tomorrow.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 6th, 2017, 4:01 pm 

ralfcis » 06 Mar 2017, 12:52 wrote:Makes me think you're proof reading my post for math errors and not reading it for content or meaning. I'm also getting the impression that you don't accept c2=v2+w2 as a valid equation of relativity.

The fact that you labelled Y/c as "w" is in fact invalid, because "w" is the rapidity as defined in relativity since 1911. I have also said that your equations are valid, provided that you use a different symbol for your w. It's perfectly OK to use c/Y in place of your w, because that's standard relativity - c/Y is the temporal component of the 4-velocity.

But unlike the spatial component of the 4-velocity, the temporal component is not a velocity - it is the rate of change of proper time along a spacetime path in a spacetime diagram. Only the rate of change of distance is technically a velocity.

The fact that c/Y is a dimensionless value multiplied by c, does not make it a velocity - otherwise I could have taken my age, divide it by your age, multiply the ratio by c and call it a velocity. Obviously meaningless.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 6th, 2017, 4:27 pm 

Ok your last paragraph is not what I'm doing with c/Y even though it looks that way. When you are standing with me, we are both going at the speed of light through time. If I start moving relatively to you, my time slows relative to yours, my velocity through time is going at less than c. If you view a DVD in fast forward, you are watching its time speed up, when you watch it in slow motion you are watching its time slow down relative to normal proper rate of time flow. Distance /time is velocity through space and time/time is velocity through time. If time has a rate it has a velocity. Plus with all this talk about space and time being the same thing, my definitions apparently fully comply with relativity.
Sorry, I'm totally sticking with those definitions and you don't have to because what I call it doesn't change its meaning.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 6th, 2017, 5:01 pm 

Ralf, I suppose you can call it what you like in Ralfativity, but in Relativity the "speed through time" is a meaningless concept.

What you may succeed in is that persons understanding relativity will stop reading your posts (let alone commenting), because they are not worth the effort in deciphering the meanings.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 6th, 2017, 6:25 pm 

Fine, temporal component of the 4-velocity it is. It's so self-explanatory, everyone will immediately know what it means. Can I leave out the middle words and just call it temporal velocity for short? Ok, temporal component for short then. tc= c/Y. The tc is expressed in units of velocity though, not time units.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 7th, 2017, 12:49 am 

For simplicity, just time component will also work.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 7th, 2017, 1:12 pm 

v2Y/c = cts/t'

Substitute v2Y/c = (Y-1/Y)c =(Y2-1)c/Y

(Proof (Y-1/Y)c = (Y2-1)c(sqrt(c2-v2)/c = ((c2-c2+v2)/sqrt(c2-v2))*c/c =v2Y/c)

Let's call (Y2-1)/Y) some fancy name like the sync offset time dilation fudge factor or D for short

so ts = Dt'

This relates time dilation with the difference in time simultaneity due to distance and that distance is expressed from the stationary frame's perspective. So at no point in any of the formulas discussed was there a need to consider length contraction. As a result I still do not understand (unless I do Don's electromagnetic example) why I would need to ever consider space as anything but absolute.

To get a feel for what this formula physically represents let's do a classic relativity example:

tomorrow
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 8th, 2017, 1:32 pm 

Oops I may have made a math error. I need to backtrack it down.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 9th, 2017, 7:17 am 

Sorry I'm mistaken, I went back to Greene's relativity course to make sure I got the definition of ts correct and of course he has 3 different definitions of it so I got momentarily confused. The math is correct.

But while going through his course I noticed he said time and space are not the same thing. I also saw that length contraction is due to sync offset and time dilation, which are time related. There doesn't seem to be any example or mention anywhere that length contraction is due to the space side of spacetime. So why would every introductory course to relativity that was ever taught have no mention of space and time being the same thing and that length contraction is something more than just due to clock factors. And when asked for an explanation of what Don was talking about, there is complete silence on the subject. Has anyone else ever heard of this stuff and is willing to talk about it?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 9th, 2017, 7:20 pm 

I've decided I no longer need to disprove lorentz contraction to others, they can use it or not. Since I see no need for it at this basic level, I can just ignore it and note it is used for expert level relativity.

And my method for determining relative aging can be adopted by relativity except it can no longer claim that relative aging can't be determined before the end of the spacetime interval; it can. The explanation will also need to be adopted that relative aging occurs during the interval of a change in constant velocity by one participant and the delayed reality of that change reaching the other. This is the interval when symmetry of the relative velocity through space is broken between the participants.How it does this is that all participants are always going at c absolute velocity and only during intervals when symmetry is broken is the time component (c/Y) applied to the participant who initiated a velocity change to determine his slowed relative aging.

So really the impact to relativity is minimal except in the new and more comprehensible way it can be taught.

Whaddya think? A done deal?
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 10th, 2017, 3:38 am 

ralfcis » 10 Mar 2017, 01:20 wrote:So really the impact to relativity is minimal except in the new and more comprehensible way it can be taught.

I think the the impact to relativity per se is zero, but that the "more comprehensible way it can be taught" is actually negative! By failing to teach Lorentz contraction for what it is, we will disadvantage students, nor benefit them.

We use Lorentz contraction when it makes the calculations easier and time dilation where it does the same. Sometime it does not matter (the are after all equivalent) and we use whichever one we fancy.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 10th, 2017, 7:42 am 

They currently teach relativistic mass and that's misleading to new students. I also think using lorentz contraction is misleading in that it's taught that both can apply simultaneously (in that a length contracted object can be time dilated as well) and other times only one or the other apply. Using time all the time avoids that confusion.

Are you saying, though, that space is the same as time should not be taught up front? Because that seems to be the real length contraction (that almost no one knows about) and the illusory one is basically time dilation written with Y associated with x instead of t.

So you're also saying the restriction that a spacetime path must be complete before relative aging can be determined has suddenly been lifted? (because we spent a lot of years arguing about that)
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 10th, 2017, 8:31 am 

Ouch! Ralf, I was really optimistic that your prior post indicated that you have eventually grasped Special Relativity.

Alas, your last post proved that I was wrong about that, because just about everything that you have said there is relativistically wrong :(

I've invited you here in the hope that this community will have more success than the one on the engineering forum, but I've given up hope now. Maybe someone else will succeed, but I'm out of the running now.

--
Regards
Jorrie
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 10th, 2017, 9:46 am 

The math alone should make you optimistic. As you said, as long as I get the right answer with my interpretation, the interpretation is irrelevant (I don't agree with that either). But I find it impossible to get a binding agreement on anything we've discussed. Everyday is like groundhog day that being my first day on the forum. This is not a place for questions, it's only a place for standard answers. Anyway, I feel I have enough of your blessing to continue with the Doppler Twins story without getting kicked off after I finish here with more math.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 11th, 2017, 2:27 pm 

I'd like to continue the discussion from the Speed of Vacuum thread.

Your point was relativity has a long chain of observers with sync'd clocks to immediately get the clock info of a moving participant (and then move it down the chain to the stationary participant.) I said that was nonsense since syncing a chain of clocks to all register the same time in the stationary frame does not mean they all share the same present.

Ralfativity has no need for sync'd clocks or a chain of observers to determine relative aging. It just needs to set the clocks once at the origin and rely on the accuracy of the atomic clocks keeping proper time in each frame. When the traveling clock changes velocity, it just messages its time and absolute spatial coordinate. The other participant will receive that info later. It recognizes the spatial coordinate, say it's proxima centauri, and it therefore knows it took 4 light years for the info to reach earth. It also knows from the broadcast time image from the ship what was the relative velocity before and after the velocity change due to the doppler shift method of ralfativity (and relativity if it eventually adopts it and abandons the reciprocal time dilation method). It can then calculate the rate of relative aging for the ship. It can even estimate the present relative age of the ship assuming it did not make any other velocity changes during the 4 years the message took to reach earth. Sorry, current relativity is just left wanting in light of what ralfativity can do. Please try to prove the math wrong but I know you can't. It's all spelled out in clear detail but if you want me to work out a special example for you complete with STD's, I will (but it could be slow as I have very little time at work lately and very difficult to concentrate under the constant interruptions).

P.S. Ok everyone, let the clicks pour in.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 11th, 2017, 4:37 pm 

P.P.S. And let's not forget when the theory of relativity came out they didn't even know about atoms let alone atomic clocks so Einstein had no choice but to come up with sync'd clocks. He did what he had to do but now it's time to upgrade his commendable effort into the 21st century.

P.P.P.S. Just trying to get you going Jorrie, another main reason why I post.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 12th, 2017, 8:22 am 

Also nothing of "friends" is part of "science" unless you misspell it "sciends".
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 12th, 2017, 1:31 pm 

ralfcis » 11 Mar 2017, 22:37 wrote:Just trying to get you going Jorrie, another main reason why I post.

Sorry Ralf, but I'm out of commenting on Personal Theories. :(
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 12th, 2017, 2:25 pm 

Would you change that rule if I changed my name to Dave? Hmm, I could've sworn you said science is not a popularity contest or something like that. I'm surprised no one else even posted a link here pointing me to a Relativity 101 article. Not even a courageous yay or nay to a clear, simpler, working alternative to relativity methods? Ok, I'll just trudge on tomorrow.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby BurtJordaan on March 12th, 2017, 3:16 pm 

Ralf, I haven't commented on someone else's private theory for a month now. i have told you that I'm out of here too some posts back, with the reason.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 14th, 2017, 8:21 pm 

I'm working on a complete presentation for the relative aging new relativistic math thread so it won't get thrown out due to piecemeal explanations. However I did just come up with a new type of STD (non-minkowski) that makes ralfativity easier to understand once you understand the new math which I'll call ralgebra. It's basically 1 and a half cartesian coordinate systems superimposed on one another. It would have been 2 but they share the same x-axis. So basically there are 2 ct-axes, one has ct units and the other superimposed one has ct' units based on t=Yt'. So the line denoting movement through space has 2 corresponding slopes: 1/v and 1/Yv.

It's not immediately apparent why I would adopt such a bizarre STD structure until you understand the proper time units on the line are always equal except during the transition time when velocity change propagates through to the other participant.

For example in the R-STD for v=.6c and t=1.25 and x=.75, t'=1. The coordinate would be written (t,t',x) = (1.25,1,.75). v=x/t=.6c and Yv=x/t'=.75c. So the slope of the line would be 1/.6 for the ct axis and 1/.75 for the ct'=axis. But for all constant relative velocities, tau proper time would mean t' = t. If Bob (ct-axis) had aged 1.25 year, Alice (ct'-axis) will have also aged 1.25 year not 1 year as the formula for time dilation would suggest. It's just confusing for my presentation to say t=Yt' when for all constant relative velocities t is actually equal to t' not Yt'. That's why I had to come up with ralgebra to make this point clear. But if I used ralgebra in the relativistic form of ralfativity, I would probably be thrown off the physics forum for doing so.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Re: Ralfativity vs Relativity: the final summation

Postby ralfcis on March 15th, 2017, 8:52 am 

In one of these ralfativity threads I was starting a classic relativity example but can't find it so I'll put it here for now.
ralfcis
Member
 
Posts: 664
Joined: 19 Jun 2013
Location: Ottawa Canada


Previous

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests