Notices
Results 1 to 17 of 17
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By William McCormick Jr.

Thread: Debunking SR Once and For All

  1. #1 Debunking SR Once and For All 
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    General relativity (GR) is fundamentally dependent upon special relativity (SR) which in turn requires adoption of the procedures and positions outlined in OEMBS (On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies).

    Should the position of OEMBS be shown to be flawed, all of Relativity Theory collapses with it. Now SR is of course - as has been stated correctly to me thousands of times - internally mathematically self-consistent. However it is not physically consistent since the logical paradoxes that arise from SR (and its derivatives) imply physically impossible situations e.g. clock A slower than clock B and clock B slower than clock A; ruler A longer than ruler B yet ruler B longer than ruler A.

    Hence the usual (and flawed) procedure is to ignore the paradoxes and plunge into the mathematics - the result being arguments that merely go round in circles, like the ridiculous "Relativistic Rolling Wheel Thread" here!

    Rather, the presence of the logical paradoxes indicate that the theory is fundamentally flawed: SR is a perverse philosophy rather than genuine science. Attempts to resolve the logical paradoxes - such as Einstein's Naturwissenschaft article - merely evade the problem by contriving situations where the time dilations mutually cancel out. Likewise the twin paradox, where supposed 'resolutions' rely on claiming that one twin is at (absolute) rest while the other is moving. According to Einstein there is not supposed to be an absolute rest, hence the invocation of that principle revokes SR altogether - but such tricks by Einstein, dismissing or revoking the initial given conditions, are common.

    One can get out of this mess tidily with Hugh Everett's Many Worlds Theory - i.e. each twin can consider himself at rest and the other twin as moving - but now you end up with parallel universes, which is clearly distasteful to many, though not all Einsteinians. With those who gladly accept parallel universes I have no grudge - you can live in your fantasy world to your heart's content.

    Rather, it is those who claim that there are no parallel universes and no unresolvable logical paradoxes in SR who are the curse of physics today - so it is to them that this thread is directed!

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-09-2014 at 05:53 AM. Reason: Bad grammar and coloring
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Einstein crucially based his claims not upon established facts but upon popular prejudice. The particular prejudice of his era was the belief in an Absolute Reference Frame (ARF), a hypothetical entity at rest relative to Newton's Absolute Space and synonymous with the "stagnant ether", "ether reference frame" and "absolute rest." This notion upholds belief in a preferred reference frame for the whole universe, relative to which objects move. When such objects move - according to the teachings derived from Fitzgerald, Poincare & Lorentz (the Three Stooges of SR) - they move absolutely i.e. in relation to absolute rest (= ARF) so undergo time dilation & length contraction (TD&LC) . Hence TD&LC were already popular and recognized pseudo-phenomena when Einstein came on the scene.

    We know that an ARF does not exist since in 1924 Hubble demonstrated Galactic Recession - the increasing velocity of galaxies moving away from us in proportion to their distance from us, resolving Olbers Paradox without recourse to SR.

    Instead, TD&LC were specifically invented to save and protect the belief in an ARF. This is because the MM Experiment was negative, demonstrating that there was no preferred frame, and, more importantly, that Galilean Relativity was correct i.e. all motion is relative. Hence there is a complete disjunct between Galileo and Newton here, only the former teaching that "all motion is relative". Newton's error in invoking Absolute Space is a hangover of religion, since he termed space the "sensorium of God;" i.e. TD&LC for a Newtonian Arian* Christian believer would be manifestations of the deity!!!!!!

    However, due to the persisting prejudices of Einstein's day, people did not see this as a triumph for Galileo. Rather, they either clung to an ARF (Lorentzian relativity) against the evidence to the contrary - utilizing TD&LC to prove it - or adopted Einstein's SR. Yet SR utilizes TD&LC in its construction, despite Einstein denying absolute rest. Hence Einstein built his system out of thin air, covertly acknowledging the absolute ether (ARF), utilizing the theoretical proofs for an ARF (TD&LC) to create his own theory of SR - while at the same time claiming to refute the ARF! IOW his theories embody Orwellian doublethink!

    The end result is that SR is not based upon factual evidence but mere theorizing i.e. TD&LC along with the prejudice that light is a mere dimensionless point-particle - as in Relativity: the Special & the General Theory (RSGT) where he writes of "the tip of the ray" of light.

    Hence the negative MM experiment is not proof for SR but instead proof that Galileo's insight was correct - the Galilean Relativity Principle: all motion is relative. In that way we dispose of TD&LC and thus of SR too: I realize that Einsteinians will not see it that way so we have to tease out Einstein's errors in his presentation.

    TFOLZO

    *Newton was an Arian, believing that only God the Father is truly God; Arianism denies the Holy Trinity, Jesus being but a man and the Holy Spirit the power of God. It has nothing to do with the Indian "Aryan".
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-09-2014 at 05:39 AM. Reason: Abbreviation meanings not highlighted
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Administrator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,378
    MODERATOR NOTE : This forum is for the discussion of mainstream science; anti-relativity threads hence have no place in the main sections. Moved to Personal Theories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    All AOK Markus Hanke.

    Thank you for your prompt action in classifying appropriately...
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    MODERATOR NOTE : This forum is for the discussion of mainstream science; anti-relativity threads hence have no place in the main sections. Moved to Personal Theories.
    ...since the mainstream (i.e. modern physics) sure isn't getting anywhere under the burden of BS engendered by Einstein.

    I just have to sit here and wait for the fallout!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    652
    I'm sorry TFOLZO, I can't enthuse with what you're saying at all.

    I'm pro-Einstein and pro-relativity. When I have disputes with people about relativity, it's usually because they're saying something that utterly contradicts Einstein. And saying that they're talking relativity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    The internal inconsistency of Einstein's theories is evident both in OEMBS and his popularization RSGT. Here we deal with the train & platform scenario from RSGT.

    In RSGT ch. 9 he uses the analogy of a (railway) platform with light beacons at either end which can emit light simultaneously. An observer stands at the midpoint of the platform. A train containing the "moving observers" comes past; at the very moment the midpoint of the train (M') passes the midpoint (M) of the platform, the light beacons each discharge an impulse of light. As he explains in the chapter heading, Einstein's intent is to prove the relativity of simultaneity i.e. "the subjectivity of time" viz. time is subject to motion.

    What will the platform observer (M) and the train-midpoint observer (M') see when they see these light flashes?

    We can of course agree with Einstein that given the constant observed speed of light, the two light flashes will be seen simultaneously by the platform midpoint observer (M). The disagreement with Einstein concerns what the train-midpoint observer (M') will see.

    According to Big Al Einstein observer M' will see the forward flash first and the flash behind him later, since during the interval between the flashes and the observation of them, M' has travelled forward some distance. Completely ignored in this situation is the Doppler Effect: even in Einstein's day it was known that the observer M' would find the forward light flash - the one approaching him - to be blueshifted while the flash behind him from which he is receding would be redshifted.

    What is also abundantly clear yet startling is the fact that the train observer M', just like the platform observer M, will find that the light from the light flashes moves at speed c in all cases, even when observed as redshifted or blueshifted.

    From this simple insight we can see already that Einstein oversimplified the issue in order to contrive a situation in order to "prove" (?) his claim of subjective time. IOW Einstein's claim is an artificial and contrived situation. Nor can SR be established without this contrived argumentation since the establishment of subjective time - time subject to motion - is an essential component of SR.

    IOW - what we now have is a contradiction between what the platform observer (M) and train observer M' see. Each observer sees the two light flashes on the platform at the same time. Nevertheless the train observer M' sees one light blueshifted and the other redshifted while finding in both cases that the light is moving at velocity c.

    Hence we see that light from both light flashes is observed at velocity c by both observers despite the fact that they are moving relatively to one another! This observation is consistent with Galilean Relativity however. How is this seeming paradox to be explained? Even Einstein himself admitted two possible explanations. His explanation is of course SR, but what is the other explanation? Einstein explains (RSGT ch. 7):

    In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon either the [Galilean] principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are almost sure to expect that we should retain the [Galilean] principle of relativity, which appeals so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be relaced by a more complicated law conformable to the [Galilean] principle of relativity.
    Exactly! And that is the correct answer - a new law for the propagation of light. Einstein of course thought otherwise and justified it in his continuation as follows.
    The development of theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course. The epoch-making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamical and optic phenomena connected with moving bodies etc. ...
    Einstein's alternative here leads straight to the argumentation for SR.

    The point of course is that the "theoretical physics" to which he refers are the teachings of the three stooges (Fitzgerald, Lorentz & Poincare)* of relativity theory, who work led to the belief in time dilation and length contraction (TD&LC) which in turn became the lynchpin upon which SR was built. What I need to do in a separate thread is to illustrate their teachings and how their theorizing derives from a philosophical outlook that leads to tolerance towards and the adoption of logical paradox in science - effectively destroying practical science once and for all wherever it is applied.

    That is: theoretical physics by and large is perverse; its agenda essentially consists of subjugating physics to mathematics. Some branches of theoretical physics, fortunately, are not subject to this disempowering agenda.

    On this thread however I will continue to lay out the implications of the blue-shifted and red-shifted light seen by the train observer (M').

    TFOLZO

    *Not to confused with latter-day knuckleheads such as MoeYouAsked, TJyesLarryTJ & Curlyrob.
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-12-2014 at 04:15 PM. Reason: Posting completion
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Now that's a really important (highlighted) piece of insight, Farsight...
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
    I'm sorry TFOLZO, I can't enthuse with what you're saying at all.

    I'm pro-Einstein and pro-relativity. [TFOLZO: "Really????"] When I have disputes with people about relativity, it's usually because they're saying something that utterly contradicts Einstein. And saying that they're talking relativity.
    ...since it follows ineluctably from what you have said that Einstein's relativity contradicts itself - and I can only concur 100% with you here!

    TFOLZO
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-10-2014 at 02:11 AM. Reason: Spacing and grammar
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by TFOLZO View Post

    The end result is that SR is not based upon factual evidence but mere theorizing i.e. TD&LC along with the prejudice that light is a mere dimensionless point-particle - as in Relativity: the Special & the General Theory (RSGT) where he writes of "the tip of the ray" of light.

    Hence the negative MM experiment is not proof for SR but instead proof that Galileo's insight was correct - the Galilean Relativity Principle: all motion is relative. In that way we dispose of TD&LC and thus of SR too: I realize that Einsteinians will not see it that way so we have to tease out Einstein's errors in his presentation.
    Light shuts off instantly when the source of the light is blocked, yet it can take more then a second to reach the moon upon initiation of a beam of light. So we must assume that the tip of the ray of light is not light. Rather it is a radiation that precedes the creation of light.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear Bill.

    That is a tough issue you bring up here. I'll leave the term 'creation' aside, presuming it to mean 'formation' or 'organization' or whatever rather than 'Creationism'.
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    Light shuts off instantly when the source of the light is blocked, yet it can take more then a second to reach the moon upon initiation of a beam of light. So we must assume that the tip of the ray of light is not light. Rather it is a radiation that precedes the creation of light.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    It is certainly correct that any light ray, comprising rays, does not have a pointillistic tip - which Einstein has to represent it as in order to establish his SR. Your last sentence is rather odd but I like to interpret it very favourably since you are separating "radiation" from "light" - and having it shut off "instant[aneous]ly" when blocked!* As to how this is to be done - using Einstein's own setup but interpreting the results correctly, I am about to set down below. Thank you for your concern.

    TFOLZO

    * Your words here imply that you have read Walter Ritz' work on light. He worked out that light was projected from its source rather than being propagated through a medium. His view is the correct one and you will also then understand why Walter Ritz was the very first scientist to reject Einstein's SR completely - in 1909!
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-10-2014 at 05:51 AM. Reason: Footnote added
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Good evening TFOLZO.

    I have never personally read Walter Ritz. However some of the universal scientists, I have been lectured by, or the universal scientists that have taught my teachers, may have, I do not know.

    My education comes from a place that is almost gone now. It was a great place, I do not regret it at all.

    I was taught that light was made up of particles of electricity, moving at a certain velocity. Particles of electricity that would impart light upon objects, that were struck by these particles of electricity, moving at a certain velocity. You have to understand this information is from the time when the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima weighed in at 886 pounds. Back when matter was an inert filter, and ambient radiation was the mover, the creator of effects that we call energy.

    Ambient radiation not even seen or detected, held the ultimate in potential energy. As you slow this ambient radiation it becomes the rays and effects we call, X-rays, Ultra Violet, Light, Heat, Electricity, Sound, and any, and every other emission known to us. So I am going to seem a bit detached from even the most drastically radical sorts. Ha-ha.

    The people that put us on the moon thought this way.

    This is back in the day when you needed perhaps billions of particles, to bring your eye, or microscope, a glimpse of a needles point. Certainly there is no way to view an object, because the object is not visible, rather the radiation being emitted by the object is detected by your eye. The eye that used to be called an electrical sensor. The notion of isolating one of these particles is just not scientifically possible.

    I was taught that the photon was en event that emitted light. It was a word that was claimed to have been invented to help scientists from different countries, understand conversations about "light particles". "Light particles" that could either be particles causing light, or particles that were not heavy or had no mass. At the time light was still particles of electricity so they had no mass. The universe at this time, had no such force called attraction, not that it does now either. All forces in our universe are pushing forces.

    If it ever seems like I am arguing or attempting to cause tension, believe me I am not, I am just trying to convey a medium by which to communicate through.

    I think the astronauts demonstrations during the Apollo missions were the greatest experiments ever done. One of the astronauts put his hand in front of the laser beaming to earth. On earth instantly they noted the lack of a positive laser sighting. The synchronized timing devices on the moon and the earth, confirmed there was no delay between the passing of the astronauts hand over the laser and a lack of a laser beam on earth. The same timing devices had just confirmed the expected delay of the laser light reaching earth, and all agreed the timing devices were accurate.

    There is evidence and experiments that show that light is created by an invisible radiation. A radiation that precedes the actual visible light. Kind of like a hammer striking a metal object, and the sharp ringing sound it creates.



    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear Bill,
    Your words are very insightful - but especially your very last sentence!
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    Good evening TFOLZO.


    There is evidence and experiments that show that light is created by an invisible radiation. A radiation that precedes the actual visible light. Kind of like a hammer striking a metal object, and the sharp ringing sound it creates.

    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    So have you read Nietzsche's short essay: "On Truth and Falsehood Outside the Moral Sense"? There is an allusion there to what you write here and what I hope to present.

    You are quite correct to say that in some sense "a radiation precedes the actual visible light". Ritz saw that light was projected from a source, not propagated. When you look back at my postings here in the alternatives section you will see how I have started to critique Einstein's presentation of his proof for SR using the moving train (found in RSGT). You will soon see that light's nature can be inferred from the situation - a conclusion TOTALLY AT ODDS with what Einstein wants to prove.

    What is really exciting though is that I can only properly analyse it through quantum theory, though I lack the maths to provide quantitative results.

    I look forward to your further comments.

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    I skimmed thoroughly through, "On Truth and Falsehood Outside the Moral Sense" I think he is in error when he says that there is no spiritual drive to truth or knowledge. Or I misunderstand him, and he is stating that there is no instinctive drive towards knowledge. Somehow I believe either way he would be in error.

    In fact I am sure most know there is a large basket of truth that they would love to know, build a foundation, share and grow with. However they certainly know they are afraid of that quest, for whatever reasons lie in their karma. I submit there is a drive, a panic stricken drive, away from truth, because it highlights cowardice and failure. That is why knowledge is so hard to bring to light, people literally just go off the reservation. I believe Socrates brought this lesson out into the light the hard way. And Jesus confirmed his findings.

    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Last edited by William McCormick Jr.; 02-12-2014 at 02:30 AM. Reason: Corrected Spelling from their to there
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #13  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    Imagine there was one grocery store on earth. And every time people went into the grocery store they were incinerated or burned very badly before they could get to the food.

    Some would claim those people that are now starving, lost their drive to eat, or more facetiously, claim they had no drive to obtain sustenance.

    In fact what occurred? A seemingly more urgent and dangerous event the fires, sent them away from the food.

    That is all that has happened to us. Basically very poor thinkers built fires around knowledge that does not seem to sustain them. Or in actuality they have created poverty around knowledge.

    They built those fires so those individuals that can think well, would not gain knowledge and leave them behind. Misery, ignorance, and failure all love company.



    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #14  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    A horrific piece of imagery Bill...
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    Imagine there was one grocery store on earth. And every time people went into the grocery store they were incinerated or burned very badly before they could get to the food.

    Some would claim those people that are now starving, lost their drive to eat, or more facetiously, claim they had no drive to obtain sustenance.

    In fact what occurred? A seemingly more urgent and dangerous event the fires, sent them away from the food.

    That is all that has happened to us. Basically very poor thinkers built fires around knowledge that does not seem to sustain them. Or in actuality they have created poverty around knowledge.

    They built those fires so those individuals that can think well, would not gain knowledge and leave them behind. Misery, ignorance, and failure all love company.



    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    ...but it sure fits how Einstein's relativity works. A monopolized grocery store containing all the food - and Big Al Einstein, the mad firebug singeing and tormenting the customers as they go in and out. On this website we have cincirob but he seems to have caught himself alight with his GRON-brand flame-thrower!

    TFOLZO
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #15  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    376
    Dear Bill, ....
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick Jr. View Post
    I skimmed thoroughly through, "On Truth and Falsehood Outside the Moral Sense" I think he is in error when he says that there is no spiritual drive to truth or knowledge. Or I misunderstand him, and he is stating that there is no instinctive drive towards knowledge. Somehow I believe either way he would be in error.

    In fact I am sure most know there is a large basket of truth that they would love to know, build a foundation, share and grow with. However they certainly know they are afraid of that quest, for whatever reasons lie in their karma. I submit there is a drive, a panic stricken drive, away from truth, because it highlights cowardice and failure. That is why knowledge is so hard to bring to light, people literally just go off the reservation. I believe Socrates brought this lesson out into the light the hard way. And Jesus confirmed his findings.

    Sincerely,
    William McCormick
    As to the specific question of Nietzsche denying a spiritual drive I suspect that what he means is that different people are driven differently - and that the metaphors of our language too readily obscure the situation further, hence the turn to cowardice and failure - and the adoption of easy-sounding answers like Einstein's.

    The specific part of N's text that I wished to highlight is his emphasis on utilizing many POVs, rather than hankering for a universal harmony, especially the highlighted section there, viz:
    if each of us had for himself a different sensibility... if we ourselves were only able to perceive sometimes as a bird, sometimes as a worm, sometimes as a plant, or if one of us saw the same stimulus as red, another as blue, if a third person perceived it as a tone then nobody would talk about such an orderliness of nature.
    Seeing the same light source as blue and red is the FUNDAMENTAL insight required to refute special relativity (SR), while even sound is reducible to quantum phonons.

    Nietzsche's work also opposes Socrates in that Socrates' "all-seeing eye" wants to see a universal harmony - and you yourself demonstrate that this too is a major message of Christianity, that the deity has so ordered the world that everything will come out OK!

    But you see that things are not OK e.g. that space is expanding between some galaxies (e.g. highly redshifted ones from our perspective) and not others (e.g. between Milky Way and Andromeda). Hence, if you believe GR, we have some space that expands and some that doesn't! What matters more than anything else however is that I cannot TELL you the answer here; I can only suggest, whereas you can work it out yourself. In contrast, the preachers of SR & general relativity (GR) have to tell you the answer, they have to dogmatize in order to cover up the paradoxical implications of the teachings.

    TFOLZO

    BTW - if you want some birdbrains and worms to interrogate about SR, try the Relativistic Rolling Wheel thread. On that thread I'm only a plant!!!!
    Last edited by TFOLZO; 02-12-2014 at 09:00 AM. Reason: clarification
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #16  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    55
    I have never seen space as anything but space, its characteristics come from the very light, the very sparse gases that fill space. So the space to me cannot be a factor, what is in that space, or what is effecting that space would have to be the undocumented variable. The space will always remain the same, a place where matter can exist. As time will always be time, a measure of motion compared to other motion.

    Jesus was not a Christian rather he was the last honest Jewish man on earth. He was stoned by Jewish people, because he highlighted their failure. By talking about any truth, in any field, that existed at the time, he highlighted their failure. Until a point that it was better to stone Jesus and crucify him, rather then to listen to their eternal fate, a fate that was brought on by their cowardice, rather then the words of Jesus. Cowardice that they know, or knew, and have preached, as unforgivable, if it is effecting or aimed at them.

    Things are not going well because individuals are afraid of facing the reality. God, omniscience, is working just fine and God certainly exists, that can be proven by the scientific method. What most fail to realize is that while they banter and try to pin crimes against science upon one another. They are just covering up their own crimes against science and their own observational skills. The problem with science right now is not a lack of right answers, it is that people are looking in any place other then where those answers lie. Because they are afraid of confrontation with the obviously oppressive governments that they accept.

    "The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments." George Washington President of the United States Of America. Yet these same sorts will rage against someone like Jesus or Socrates for speaking of their eternal souls, that they must know exist, or they would not get outraged.

    The people that had better technology then we do today, did not need Einstein or his theories. Einstein came to America, after we had the real atom bomb, radio weapons, and the real atom. Benjamin Franklin had perpetual motion. So I think we need to look much deeper into the real basics of science before we complain about the grammar used to talk about or explain imaginary particles.


    Sincerely,

    William McCormick
    TFOLZO likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #17  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    Anyway. A lot of big names (and small) before Albert, during Albert and after Albert have been spreading a hell of a lot of good arguments, mathematical derivations, experimental results and observational evidence. You have a big tree to bark up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •